[XPM] [ANN] Primecoin Release - First Scientific Computing Cryptocurrency

[azwccc]

Anyone working on a GPU miner yet? Here's some help: http://www.macs-site.net/CudaPrimes.htm

Hopefully not, because:
1) Primecoin looks to be GPU-resistant, it will be very hard to implement calculating it's long integers on something that is design to deal only with vertices
2) GPU rigs are the cancer for mining, eliminating 99% of regular people who are not OK with the idea of monster cases with external GPUs all over the place, laptop users with no external cards, etc. Non-existence of GPU miner is the main reason for Primecoin's unusual popularity. People are successfully mining even on Raspberry Pi's.

I have few pi's...

Yes, I'm thinking primecoin solves many of my complaints about bitcon... Fast block confirms, potential resistance to specialized hardware, and no coin limit.

All I think are glaring flaws, but the last is the biggest. It's hard to reconcile the advantage of bitcoins fixed number of coins against the fact that they're still being rapidly issued.

Now, if only primecoin could adopt a more marketable/catchy name...

Why is coin limit a flaw? That's the one major advantage of Bitcoin. Controlled and finite supply of currency. Faster block confirms result in more forks, nothing more. Potential resistance to specialized hardware? I don't think so, I am sure we can use CUDA here.

Edit: https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/493679/prime-generator-for-cuda/

8 317 200 Primes / sec

If I understand correctly, nvidia cards may have advantage this time, compared to amd cards?

[1714774367]

1714774367

[1714774367]

1714774367

[Sunny King]

Why is coin limit a flaw? That's the one major advantage of Bitcoin. Controlled and finite supply of currency. Faster block confirms result in more forks, nothing more. Potential resistance to specialized hardware? I don't think so, I am sure we can use CUDA here.

It's not a flaw if you are thinking purely in terms of its store-of-value property. Bitcoin has a stronger scarcity model than gold. However acting as a currency is not only for store-of-value. One needs to do better at all three functions of money. I have discussed this topic in the design paper why minting is designed as such in primecoin. In primecoin a preference toward preserving mining market is favored over a too strong scarcity model. In a couple of years we shall see whether I am right, I think bitcoin is losing its mining market share partly due to this.

[Arcas]

"If I understand correctly, nvidia cards may have advantage this time, compared to amd cards?"

Yes, a CUDA miner would only work with Nvidia cards, as CUDA is a Nvidia patented technology.

[dudeguy]

ughhh, another thread cluttering coin.

You have no clue what you are talking about huh?

See he thinks he knows what he is talking about. I am well aware I have no idea what I'm talking about. Just take me along for the ride and I'll keep sandboxing your builds and sending donations!  I'll just sit in the back of the bus. Don't mind me.

[Arcas]

Why is coin limit a flaw? That's the one major advantage of Bitcoin. Controlled and finite supply of currency. Faster block confirms result in more forks, nothing more. Potential resistance to specialized hardware? I don't think so, I am sure we can use CUDA here.

It's not a flaw if you are thinking purely in terms of its store-of-value property. Bitcoin has a stronger scarcity model than gold. However acting as a currency is not only for store-of-value. One needs to do better at all three functions of money. I have discussed this topic in the design paper why minting is designed as such in primecoin. In primecoin a preference toward preserving mining market is favored over a too strong scarcity model. In a couple of years we shall see whether I am right, I think bitcoin is losing its mining market share partly due to this.

I agree. The problem with Bitcoin is that it tries to be both a store of wealth, and a means to transfer wealth, which are conflicting principles. The scarcity aspect encourages hoarding, while the transfer aspect encourages spending.

[donut]

I agree. The problem with Bitcoin is that it tries to be both a store of wealth, and a means to transfer wealth, which are conflicting principles. The scarcity aspect encourages hoarding, while the transfer aspect encourages spending.

Which evens it out.

CUDA is a Nvidia only technology, so people who invested into GPU mining rigs won't benefit from a CUDA miner.

That's fine, I have a 560ti which sucks for mining all currently existing coins.

[itod]

Anyone working on a GPU miner yet? Here's some help: http://www.macs-site.net/CudaPrimes.htm

Hopefully not, because:
1) Primecoin looks to be GPU-resistant, it will be very hard to implement calculating it's long integers on something that is design to deal only with vertices
2) GPU rigs are the cancer for mining, eliminating 99% of regular people who are not OK with the idea of monster cases with external GPUs all over the place, laptop users with no external cards, etc. Non-existence of GPU miner is the main reason for Primecoin's unusual popularity. People are successfully mining even on Raspberry Pi's.

It can be done on GPUs. Look up CUDA Lucas. Its used for finding mersenne primes. Verifies primes over 10 million digits long in days.

Oh, I see it now. Primecoin CPU mining is doomed, in a few weeks legions of BTC-ASIC-kicked-GPU-farmers will jump on Primecoin and no one will ever find a block again.

"And no one will ever find a block again" So.. I guess the solution would be to not CPU mine it then.. Strangely stupid comment.

The solution would be not to have GPU mining making CPU mining impossible. Read again what I've posted before you declare something is stupid before understanding it.

[Lauda]

~650primes/s from release 12 on i5 

[Stinky_Pete]

CUDA is a Nvidia only technology, so people who invested into GPU mining rigs won't benefit from a CUDA miner.

Except those of us who also have folding@home rigs  

[LazyOtto]

CUDA is a Nvidia only technology, so people who invested into GPU mining rigs won't benefit from a CUDA miner.

Except those of us who also have folding@home rigs  

And those of us who weren't willing to replace high end nvidia cards with ATI gear just so we could mine on non-dedicated boxes.

But your statement is correct, stinky, those who built dedicated mining rigs optimized for an algorithm which worked significantly better on ATI Radeon architecture won't benefit.

[lucasjkr]

Anyone working on a GPU miner yet? Here's some help: http://www.macs-site.net/CudaPrimes.htm

Hopefully not, because:
1) Primecoin looks to be GPU-resistant, it will be very hard to implement calculating it's long integers on something that is design to deal only with vertices
2) GPU rigs are the cancer for mining, eliminating 99% of regular people who are not OK with the idea of monster cases with external GPUs all over the place, laptop users with no external cards, etc. Non-existence of GPU miner is the main reason for Primecoin's unusual popularity. People are successfully mining even on Raspberry Pi's.

I have few pi's...

Yes, I'm thinking primecoin solves many of my complaints about bitcon... Fast block confirms, potential resistance to specialized hardware, and no coin limit.

All I think are glaring flaws, but the last is the biggest. It's hard to reconcile the advantage of bitcoins fixed number of coins against the fact that they're still being rapidly issued.

Now, if only primecoin could adopt a more marketable/catchy name...

Why is coin limit a flaw? That's the one major advantage of Bitcoin. Controlled and finite supply of currency. Faster block confirms result in more forks, nothing more. Potential resistance to specialized hardware? I don't think so, I am sure we can use CUDA here.

Edit: https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/493679/prime-generator-for-cuda/

8 317 200 Primes / sec

OK... here's a LOOOOOOOONG rely. I apologize in advance!

Anyone working on a GPU miner yet? Here's some help: http://www.macs-site.net/CudaPrimes.htm

Hopefully not, because:
1) Primecoin looks to be GPU-resistant, it will be very hard to implement calculating it's long integers on something that is design to deal only with vertices
2) GPU rigs are the cancer for mining, eliminating 99% of regular people who are not OK with the idea of monster cases with external GPUs all over the place, laptop users with no external cards, etc. Non-existence of GPU miner is the main reason for Primecoin's unusual popularity. People are successfully mining even on Raspberry Pi's.

I have few pi's...

Yes, I'm thinking primecoin solves many of my complaints about bitcon... Fast block confirms, potential resistance to specialized hardware, and no coin limit.

All I think are glaring flaws, but the last is the biggest. It's hard to reconcile the advantage of bitcoins fixed number of coins against the fact that they're still being rapidly issued.

Now, if only primecoin could adopt a more marketable/catchy name...

Why is coin limit a flaw? That's the one major advantage of Bitcoin. Controlled and finite supply of currency. Faster block confirms result in more forks, nothing more. Potential resistance to specialized hardware? I don't think so, I am sure we can use CUDA here.

Edit: https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/493679/prime-generator-for-cuda/

8 317 200 Primes / sec

The current block rate is too fast, yes. So hopefully that's something that is able to fix itself. But 10+ minutes for a single confirmation just is far too slow for anything but online commerce. And if we're hoping that cryptocoins make it big one day, they need to be useful for more than just things you order for next day delivery. Surely, there's a medium between 6 seconds and 10 or 15 minutes? Litecoins is 2.5, that's a bit better, but it suffers still from fixed coin supply....

As for coin limits, everyone talks about the fixed limit of bitcoins as a plus, but every 8 minutes more and more are created. So as much as people call it an advantage, we have yet to see what the bitcoin economy will actually be like when we reach the end of coin issuance. A fixed limit definetly encourages hoarding for one. No other resource on earth has such a hard limit, and people hoard those too. Even the supply of gold, the libertarians dream for a resource of finite supply, is added to on daily basis as more is dug out of the ground.

Right now, miners are encouraged to mine because of the reward for finding new blocks and new coins. And that serves all of us, because their action of doing so is what validates transactions across the block chain. Currently, transcations are essentially free because miners get compensated elsewhere. Once the supply of coins has dried up, those dynamics will change. Vastly. A transfer that costs a fraction of a penny to complete right now will not cost that little in the future. How much, though, is anyone's guess. And the low costs associated with bitcoin transactions are a much bigger selling point (in my mind) than a fixed supply limit. So once the limit is reached, transactions will be cost all around. Will bitcoin be competitive with credit cards at that point? We have no idea...it could cost even more, for all we know, especially if there are relatively few transactions for miners to validate because people are holding their coins tight to their chests in the hopes that they'll appreciate further. I'd rather incentive miners to process transactions by creating more coins to pay them with than have them pass through fees to us; if people hesitate because of those fees, then miners will shut down and then there's no one around to make sure transactions actually go through.

Even future cuts in the block reward  could be painful to the economy. Yes, it survived the December/January cut without issue, and the next cut is still years away. But we have to hope that bitcoin is valueable enough at the next cut that miners will continue to be there for transaction processing. I would advocate for a reverse of the situation... as coins get more plentiful, the block reward should go upwards. Afterall, as we all know, when more coins are issued, they each are worth less and less, so a static block reward should technically become less and less valuable as time goes by, and when that static reward is halved, it should be worth even less still.

So no, in my mind, a fixed supply is not a panacea. And no one can say factfully that it is, because the bitcoin economy we're watching right now is one where new coin are created continually, not one where coin supply is strictly limited.

We'll only know for certain in the future, but I think that a supply cap is an incredibly huge detriment. So, I am very inclined to support an offering that has rid itself of that.

As for specialized hardware; as an upcoming technology with plenty of potential enemies, I'd think that we'd want things to be as distributed as possible. Satoshi designed it that way, having it be peer-to-peer rather than client/server. Ask what happens if ASICminer and a few pools all get taken down together, or DOS'ed? You lose all that hashing power while the difficulty is sky high and the network would fail to operate. People who invest greatly in specialized hardware become big targets, a couple of big pillars to be attacked rather than a mesh that can't be taken down. For best security, I'd think we'd want everyone on the network actively participating rather than most of the network relying on a couple of giants.

And in that light, faster block generation with fewer transactions in each can potentially remedy that situation, as the reward for solving a single block will be much less than you see in the BTC world (25 coins * $90 = $2250 / block, of course you'll see things like ASICMiner trying to grab whole blocks)... but divy up the transactions into smaller chunks, the reward for finding that chunk goes down. And so far, luck seems to play heavily in mining success, which hopefully continues to be the case... if returns are less certain (less guaranteed) then people will be less ready to commit huge amounts or resources in trying to jump ahead of the crowd.

Those are my thoughts. Very much at odds with most of the BTC community, I know. And that's why I'm excited by this new coin in particular. I'm interested to see what the future holds...

[donut]

lucasjkr, unfortunately I can't answer every point, but here's a rebuttal of the major one on the evils of finite supply and lack of incentives for mining:

Transactions fees. Transactions fees will be the bread and butter of future miners when block rewards become negligible.
Yes, transaction costs will go up due to crowding, so there will be less transactions. The cheaper transactions will live in another blockchain - Litecoin or perhaps Primecoin.

[oroqen]

I'm not a gpu farmer but I think its better to have people that invested in crypto reap the benefit than botnet owners. I like cpu mining but once a coin becomes big botnets step in. So i see gpu mining as good progression.

Is it really possible that somebody has it's cores maxed to 100% and not noticing he has a bot? Bot-nets are dangerous for stealing passwords, but will they be dangerous for mass-mining?

Yes, some botnets mine in the shadows of masses like litecoin. A large increase there is not noticed like on smaller coins. Plus the botnets are used for DDOSing the exchanges. So they are very harmful to the crypto community.

Saying "the botnets" are used for DDoSing the exchanges is ignorant. I personally know a botnet owner who would never DDoS anything.

Fixed.

[TheSwede75]

I'm not a gpu farmer but I think its better to have people that invested in crypto reap the benefit than botnet owners. I like cpu mining but once a coin becomes big botnets step in. So i see gpu mining as good progression.

Is it really possible that somebody has it's cores maxed to 100% and not noticing he has a bot? Bot-nets are dangerous for stealing passwords, but will they be dangerous for mass-mining?

Yes, some botnets mine in the shadows of masses like litecoin. A large increase there is not noticed like on smaller coins. Plus the botnets are used for DDOSing the exchanges. So they are very harmful to the crypto community.

Saying "the botnets" are used for DDoSing the exchanges is ignorant. I personally know a botnet owner who would never DDoS anything.

Disproving someone with the argument "I know someone that wouldn't" is unfortunately also pretty weak.

[itod]

...

Right now, miners are encouraged to mine because of the reward for finding new blocks and new coins. And that serves all of us, because their action of doing so is what validates transactions across the block chain. Currently, transcations are essentially free because miners get compensated elsewhere. Once the supply of coins has dried up, those dynamics will change. Vastly. A transfer that costs a fraction of a penny to complete right now will not cost that little in the future. How much, though, is anyone's guess. And the low costs associated with bitcoin transactions are a much bigger selling point (in my mind) than a fixed supply limit. So once the limit is reached, transactions will be cost all around. Will bitcoin be competitive with credit cards at that point? We have no idea...it could cost even more, for all we know, especially if there are relatively few transactions for miners to validate because people are holding their coins tight to their chests in the hopes that they'll appreciate further. I'd rather incentive miners to process transactions by creating more coins to pay them with than have them pass through fees to us; if people hesitate because of those fees, then miners will shut down and then there's no one around to make sure transactions actually go through.

...

This in essence is not true, so you are jumping to conclusions a bit. Already at this moment, with many transactions set to no fees and minimal Bitcoin economy, transaction fees are already 1/2 BTC per new block in average. Go check yourself if you don't believe me. I can easily imagine, with growing BTC economy and reduction from 25 to 12.5 BTC per new block in 4 years, that transaction fees in every new block in 5 years can be worth more than worth of new coins. All that without forcing larger transaction fees to anyone. In 8 years (6.25 new coins per block) I have no doubt transaction fees will be worth more than new coins.

So ending supply of new coins probably wont have any effect on mining. Satoshi Nakomoto figured that one perfectly.

[xcezzz]

CrypDough Dice Now Supports XPM!

http://XPMdice.crypdough.com/

Max Bet = 3 XPM

Max bet increasing shortly after everything works smoothly!

If you have any questions, comments, or issues please PM me! Or post into the feedback thread!

[Zalfrin]

I'm not a gpu farmer but I think its better to have people that invested in crypto reap the benefit than botnet owners. I like cpu mining but once a coin becomes big botnets step in. So i see gpu mining as good progression.

Is it really possible that somebody has it's cores maxed to 100% and not noticing he has a bot? Bot-nets are dangerous for stealing passwords, but will they be dangerous for mass-mining?

Yes, some botnets mine in the shadows of masses like litecoin. A large increase there is not noticed like on smaller coins. Plus the botnets are used for DDOSing the exchanges. So they are very harmful to the crypto community.

Saying "the botnets" are used for DDoSing the exchanges is ignorant. I personally know a botnet owner who would never DDoS anything.

Fixed.

No, I am not said botnet owner.

I'm not a gpu farmer but I think its better to have people that invested in crypto reap the benefit than botnet owners. I like cpu mining but once a coin becomes big botnets step in. So i see gpu mining as good progression.

Is it really possible that somebody has it's cores maxed to 100% and not noticing he has a bot? Bot-nets are dangerous for stealing passwords, but will they be dangerous for mass-mining?

Yes, some botnets mine in the shadows of masses like litecoin. A large increase there is not noticed like on smaller coins. Plus the botnets are used for DDOSing the exchanges. So they are very harmful to the crypto community.

Saying "the botnets" are used for DDoSing the exchanges is ignorant. I personally know a botnet owner who would never DDoS anything.

Disproving someone with the argument "I know someone that wouldn't" is unfortunately also pretty weak.

He's said to me that he wouldn't, that it's petty and pointless, so I'm fairly sure he wouldn't. Also, his words imply that EVERY botnet is used for DDoSing, which is ridiculous. I'm just pointing out that I know of one that isn't.

Every botnet involves illegal usage of others' property. Is it much of a stretch to suggest that most of those people running/using botnets would have no qualms in pursuing other illegal activity?

[LazyOtto]

drifted off topic

[cbeast]

Not sure if this has been asked, but is there inherent value in the primes themselves? Can we extract them and sell them?

[anonppcoin]

Not sure if this has been asked, but is there inherent value in the primes themselves? Can we extract them and sell them?

The primes...no.

The Cunningham chains, well there is certainly some notoriety for finding new ones but I don't think anyone would pay for them?