[XPM] [ANN] Primecoin High Performance | HP14 released!

[redphlegm]

And no one will bother mining this coin and shift to other more profitable ones.. sadly but true, due to other people's greed, they are killing this coin.

I'm not so sure about that. Sure, some will, but the fact that something else underlying is happening aside from just generating coins, there may be a fair number of people who stay in it for that reason. I mean think about the people who were / are running seti / folding @ home. This is sort of like that except it's tied to a cryptocurrency. There will be fluctuations in price, sure, but I don't think it's completely analogous to the other altcoins.

[1713909164]

1713909164

[1713909164]

1713909164

[1713909164]

1713909164

[1713909164]

1713909164

[1713909164]

1713909164

[mikaelh]

Found any blocks?

you think somebody after a mins of the release found a block very easy. i have more than 24 hrs before this release @900pps and not found nothing, give more than 3 hrs for check this

I sure hope this was tested before released.

It's likely folks will still find blocks with it, but without running on testnet for a few hours and comparing the results to another build it won't tell us much. Just reduce the prime sieve size on Sunny's client, boom your PPS goes through the roof.

Well, to be honest, I was slightly concerned about changing the sieve size. I'm not 100% sure about the full effects. What I do know is that when you reduce it to 100,000 you stop getting millions of L1 write misses.

I have found quite a lot of blocks on mainnet with the reduced sieve size. I will try to get some better comparison numbers on testnet.

So would you recommend setting a sieve size of 100,000 in the .config file by typing "sieve size=100000" ? Also should "gen=1" be there or is that not doing anything? I can't remember for the life of me why I had entered that in my config file a few days ago.

No, a sieve size of 100k is generally a bad idea. It's already been discussed in this thread. I also implemented L1 optimizations for bigger sieve sizes. Not that it matters much on something like i7.

[eule]

primecoind getdifficulty
8.69241303

Looks like it has slowed down. 9 tomorrow!  

[redphlegm]

I'm getting pretty abysmal performance with this build on osx (using the osx makefile). 1player's build seems to be working better on osx while all other machines are better using mikhael's hp3. Any suggestions / optimizations to the osx makefile would be much appreciated.

I'm tempted to VM an ubuntu build and see how that goes but I'd rather run it natively in osx with this high performance build.

[matt4054]

I'm getting pretty abysmal performance with this build on osx (using the osx makefile). 1player's build seems to be working better on osx while all other machines are better using mikhael's hp3. Any suggestions / optimizations to the osx makefile would be much appreciated.

I'm tempted to VM an ubuntu build and see how that goes but I'd rather run it natively in osx with this high performance build.

I'm having lame pps on osx too with this build

Sunnyking's github hardly gives me 1k pps on an i5 MacBook Pro w/ all 4 threads

[dudeguy]

I'm getting pretty abysmal performance with this build on osx (using the osx makefile). 1player's build seems to be working better on osx while all other machines are better using mikhael's hp3. Any suggestions / optimizations to the osx makefile would be much appreciated.

I'm tempted to VM an ubuntu build and see how that goes but I'd rather run it natively in osx with this high performance build.

I'm having lame pps on osx too with this build

Sunnyking's github hardly gives me 1k pps on an i5 MacBook Pro w/ all 4 threads

That's about right. i5 what? There are plenty of different i5 mobile models. In fact, some of them have 4 true cores, other have 2 true cores and 4 threads etc... If you listed the exact year of your mac I could help. I suggest purchasing legally. cough. A copy of VMWare Fusion for mac. You can load up another legal. Cough. Version of Windows 7 64 bit and run the HP3 client and get much better PPS. Enjoy!


BTW. I'm at on average 4000 PPS and no block for nearly 48 hours.

[mikaelh]

I'm getting pretty abysmal performance with this build on osx (using the osx makefile). 1player's build seems to be working better on osx while all other machines are better using mikhael's hp3. Any suggestions / optimizations to the osx makefile would be much appreciated.

I'm tempted to VM an ubuntu build and see how that goes but I'd rather run it natively in osx with this high performance build.

Where did you get your libgmp? That's what's doing most of the heavy lifting. I would probably look for optimization opportunities in how libgmp is compiled.

[blastbob]

@Mikaelh

This error causes daemons to crash. Happens alot really. Might be other errors, but this is what i saw.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=255782.msg2725962#msg2725962

[dreamwatcher]

I found that installing libmpfr-dev which it required for Freicoin, also satisfies the gmp requirement.

Is there a difference in speed between the mpfr and gmp libraries?

[mikaelh]

I found that installing libmpfr-dev which it required for Freicoin, also satisfies the gmp requirement.

Is there a difference in speed between the mpfr and gmp libraries?

libmpfr-dev pulls libgmp as a dependency. The actual mpfr does floating point calculations. Comparing mpfr and gmp is like comparing apples and bananas.

[jubalix]

ok this is officially crazy

on a E2 8cc

build  1 = original hp2 compiled = found 7 blocks 2 orphans [17 - 11K pps]/24 hrs
build  2 = original hp1 compiled = found 5 blocks 2 orphans [20k - 16K pps]/24 hrs
build  3 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/12 hrs
build  4 = original hp2 compiled = found 0 [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  5 = original hp2 compiled = found 0  [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  6 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  7 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  8 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]


there is no way that the blocks would all would be found in just the first 2....

is statistically impossible

there is something going on here

[redphlegm]

I'm getting pretty abysmal performance with this build on osx (using the osx makefile). 1player's build seems to be working better on osx while all other machines are better using mikhael's hp3. Any suggestions / optimizations to the osx makefile would be much appreciated.

I'm tempted to VM an ubuntu build and see how that goes but I'd rather run it natively in osx with this high performance build.

Where did you get your libgmp? That's what's doing most of the heavy lifting. I would probably look for optimization opportunities in how libgmp is compiled.

sudo port install gmp

[bidji29]

Hp1 report higher pps, but he find less block.
Still, bad luck

[itod]

ok this is officially crazy

on a E2 8cc

build  1 = original hp2 compiled = found 7 blocks 2 orphans [17 - 11K pps]/24 hrs
build  2 = original hp1 compiled = found 5 blocks 2 orphans [20k - 16K pps]/24 hrs
build  3 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/12 hrs
build  4 = original hp2 compiled = found 0 [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  5 = original hp2 compiled = found 0  [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  6 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  7 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  8 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]


there is no way that the blocks would all would be found in just the first 2....

is statistically impossible

there is something going on here

Are all these started in parallel? Can it be explained by the change of difficulty working in different timeframes?

[forsetifox]

Man.. this coin is strange. 3 days and no coins. Just got 3 blocks today. O.o

hp3 client @ 2500PPS

[jubalix]

is statistically impossible

there is something going on here

What's going on is that you do not understand statistics at all.

IIts statistically unlikley that none of the other instances find zero, while the first two find blocks, it's geting to the point where p<0.05 so statistically significant.

[dudeguy]

ok this is officially crazy

on a E2 8cc

build  1 = original hp2 compiled = found 7 blocks 2 orphans [17 - 11K pps]/24 hrs
build  2 = original hp1 compiled = found 5 blocks 2 orphans [20k - 16K pps]/24 hrs
build  3 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/12 hrs
build  4 = original hp2 compiled = found 0 [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  5 = original hp2 compiled = found 0  [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  6 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  7 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  8 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]


there is no way that the blocks would all would be found in just the first 2....

is statistically impossible

there is something going on here

What peer IPs are you connected to? Yourself? ARe you talking to your own servers indirectly working together to solve with them? Someone explain is this is kind of possible given the Peer to Peer technology implemented in mining.

[altsay]

ok this is officially crazy

on a E2 8cc

build  1 = original hp2 compiled = found 7 blocks 2 orphans [17 - 11K pps]/24 hrs
build  2 = original hp1 compiled = found 5 blocks 2 orphans [20k - 16K pps]/24 hrs
build  3 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/12 hrs
build  4 = original hp2 compiled = found 0 [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  5 = original hp2 compiled = found 0  [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  6 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  7 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  8 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]


there is no way that the blocks would all would be found in just the first 2....

is statistically impossible

there is something going on here

These numbers for 8 core instances are great actually

[dudeguy]

ok this is officially crazy

on a E2 8cc

build  1 = original hp2 compiled = found 7 blocks 2 orphans [17 - 11K pps]/24 hrs
build  2 = original hp1 compiled = found 5 blocks 2 orphans [20k - 16K pps]/24 hrs
build  3 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/12 hrs
build  4 = original hp2 compiled = found 0 [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  5 = original hp2 compiled = found 0  [17 - 11K pps]/12 hrs
build  6 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  7 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]
build  8 =  AWS image of hp1, compiled = found 0 [20 - 16K pps]/3 hrs [now deleted instance]


there is no way that the blocks would all would be found in just the first 2....

is statistically impossible

there is something going on here

Are all these started in parallel? Can it be explained by the change of difficulty working in different timeframes?

Actually Sunny King was just turning his server room on and off. There's your reason.     

[Greydon Isis]

So... if things continue like that, reward is 1 XPM in two weeks?

is XPM going outta control many good thing may come of this added attention, think I need to check the exchange price again~~~