[ANN][BLC] Blakecoin Blake-256 for GPU/FPGA With Merged Mined Pools Stable Net

[BlueDragon747]

shit,
BLC has two block chain ?

current can't sync

in debug.log file show

trying connection 23.20.60.243:8773 lastseen=19.6hrs
RandAddSeed() 200700 bytes
received block 00000000007592e2973b7d2f526265c701881fea41b347ccee88930364e28529
  nActualTimespan = 2009  before bounds
GetNextWorkRequired RETARGET
nTargetTimespan = 3600    nActualTimespan = 3130
Before: 1c0217a6  000000000217a600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
After:  1c01d1b7  0000000001d1b7705b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b0
ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED

when sync with network,it stop in block of 3559

have you updated your wallet?

new rule took effect block 3500!

Wow, difficulty is approaching 90,000 :O

How hard do you guys think it would be to make reaper do blake? Interestingly enough, the reaper source code has a file for blake-512, but we need 256....

that's just the c code for blake-512 the stuff that runs on the GPU is the .cl files, not had time to work on the GPU miner but I do have blake-256 in opencl soon as I get p2pool working and take a look at the pool code for a few operators I will be working on the GPU miner  

Ahh, right, silly me. Can't believe I forgot to look at instructions

Have you seen https://github.com/wfr/clblake/tree/master/src?

been working all night to get p2pool working for weekend quite tired atm, yes that's the opencl code I have modded but untested atm GPU miner will be worked on soon

Nothing during last 8h. So you understand: 70 MH, no blocks. Either there are huge EC2 instances, or gpu\fpga miner.

Not fpga, unless somebody else is working on it. I've only got a single lancelot at 25MH/s (early days yet, will do better) which has mined 3 blocks so far, and nothing overnight (140 diff=256 hashes in 8 hours, but none accepted). The blake algorithm is not overly complicated though, so its quite possible somebody's got a GPU port up and running by now.

awesome work kramble can't wait to give it a go once i finish this other stuff off

[bronan]

Something is wrong the program closed by itself for no reason
I restarted the program and again poof closed
No messages or errors given just instant gone

have you updated?

Remember to update your wallets before block 3500 as I have fixed some bugs added more checkpoints and tweaked the up step to reduce large jumps upwards  

also you can find the debug.log in same directory as Blakecoin.conf scroll to end and it often gives the errors

edit:
block 3500 and new rule in effect waiting for retargets over next few hours

AddPortMapping(16996, 16996, xxx.notofanyonesbusiness.net) failed with code 403 ((null))
Flushed 1576 addresses to peers.dat  8ms

Looks like the program do want make its own port mapping on my firewall which ofcourse is not allowed

[Aalesund]

Difficulty: 100869.01430283 

[meta.p02]

Difficulty: 100869.01430283  

Diff 1 for Blake is diff 1/256 for BTC. So the real difficulty is about 394.

Even that seems a bit high for CPU mining.

[HabbyGab]

I don't understand. So is the block reward a solid 25 or what?

[maxsolnc]

I don't understand. So is the block reward a solid 25 or what?

25 + small amount (see OP's first post). Now it is really small (near 0.0002 BLC now), so yes, roughly it is 25 BLC.

[bronan]

after 3 days running with 3 cpu's no blocks recevied at all

[sunsofdust]

shit,
BLC has two block chain ?

current can't sync

in debug.log file show

trying connection 23.20.60.243:8773 lastseen=19.6hrs
RandAddSeed() 200700 bytes
received block 00000000007592e2973b7d2f526265c701881fea41b347ccee88930364e28529
  nActualTimespan = 2009  before bounds
GetNextWorkRequired RETARGET
nTargetTimespan = 3600    nActualTimespan = 3130
Before: 1c0217a6  000000000217a600000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
After:  1c01d1b7  0000000001d1b7705b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b05b0
ERROR: AcceptBlock() : incorrect proof of work
ERROR: ProcessBlock() : AcceptBlock FAILED

when sync with network,it stop in block of 3559

I am having a similar issue.  I have the latest client and deleted the blockchain to re-sync, but the synced blocks stop at 3559.  Any suggestions?  Or any more nodes that I can add?

[Aalesund]

I am having a similar issue.  I have the latest client and deleted the blockchain to re-sync, but the synced blocks stop at 3559.  Any suggestions?  Or any more nodes that I can add?

Try this:
Go to "C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Roaming\Blakecoin" and in blakecoin.conf add this nodes:

addnode=54.202.86.231
addnode=54.202.51.105
addnode=83.160.126.160
addnode=198.136.49.104
addnode=95.137.65.2
addnode=77.94.104.6
addnode=54.242.65.36
addnode=92.115.69.196
addnode=221.231.109.62
addnode=188.195.183.99
addnode=83.133.105.235
addnode=5.13.43.11
addnode=25.59.129.231
addnode=54.214.57.241
addnode=54.205.219.43
addnode=54.217.135.123
addnode=54.242.114.109
addnode=54.226.16.3
addnode=54.212.14.113
addnode=79.111.160.118
addnode=88.122.104.90
addnode=105.237.22.204

Save blakecoin.conf and restart your blakecoin-qt

If you want here's blocks - blk.rar
In this archive:  blocks, chainstate, blakecoin.conf, peers.dat
Put these files and folders in "C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Roaming\Blakecoin"

If you want here's the blakecoin client that I'm using - Blakecoin-0.8.5-WIN_2.7z
v0.8.5.0-g0101012-beta

[sunsofdust]

I am having a similar issue.  I have the latest client and deleted the blockchain to re-sync, but the synced blocks stop at 3559.  Any suggestions?  Or any more nodes that I can add?

Try this:
Go to "C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Roaming\Blakecoin" and in blakecoin.conf add this nodes:

addnode=54.202.86.231
addnode=54.202.51.105
addnode=83.160.126.160
addnode=198.136.49.104
addnode=95.137.65.2
addnode=77.94.104.6
addnode=54.242.65.36
addnode=92.115.69.196
addnode=221.231.109.62
addnode=188.195.183.99
addnode=83.133.105.235
addnode=5.13.43.11
addnode=25.59.129.231
addnode=54.214.57.241
addnode=54.205.219.43
addnode=54.217.135.123
addnode=54.242.114.109
addnode=54.226.16.3
addnode=54.212.14.113
addnode=79.111.160.118
addnode=88.122.104.90
addnode=105.237.22.204

Save blakecoin.conf and restart your blakecoin-qt

If you want here's blocks - blk.rar
In this archive:  blocks, chainstate, blakecoin.conf, peers.dat
Put these files and folders in "C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Roaming\Blakecoin"

If you want here's the blakecoin client that I'm using - Blakecoin-0.8.5-WIN_2.7z
v0.8.5.0-g0101012-beta

Thanks, that did the trick!

[BombaUcigasa]

It seems my client found a block, but then spent all night on a dead-end chain that ended on block 3095. When I restarted it, the last block was 4014 after reorganization. How can I prevent this in the future, I was constantly connected to 9-10 peers?

[BlueDragon747]

It seems my client found a block, but then spent all night on a dead-end chain that ended on block 3095. When I restarted it, the last block was 4014 after reorganization. How can I prevent this in the future, I was constantly connected to 9-10 peers?

check here daily as Blakecoin is new please expect bug patches at least in first few weeks, I did post here ~1000 blocks before change

0.8.6 is due out very soon (a day or two at most)

p2pool and a python blake proof of work module for pool operators within next few days maybe sooner

I will post here once I get some of this stuff done   

[BombaUcigasa]

Just out of curiosity, when I checked out the SHA-3 finalists, Keccak was superior to Blake, before, during and after the approval process (which is why it's now SHA-3). Did you choose Blake to work on having a Blake-based blockchain and software toolkit instead of the more popular Keccak or was it something else?

Also, this:


Also, again I got frozen 20 blocks behind, I'm helping secure the network, but if I lose block rewards again because I'm on orphaned chains and if I can't confirm new transactions on new blocks, this isn't working too well for everyone involved.

Could I use some better peers or do something else than manually restarting the client to keep up with the network?

[BlueDragon747]

Just out of curiosity, when I checked out the SHA-3 finalists, Keccak was superior to Blake, before, during and after the approval process (which is why it's now SHA-3). Did you choose Blake to work on having a Blake-based blockchain and software toolkit instead of the more popular Keccak or was it something else?

Blake is faster overall on all platforms if you use less rounds, Keccak is superior because it uses the sponge construction function and is less like the older SHA functions thus more secure    that is why it won the SHA-3 not because its faster.

you don't need more security for a hashcash type system like Blakecoin or Bitcoin Gavin even said you could get away with using a less secure function, currently this function should offer about ~2^192 security and the best attack on the function is called a boomerang attack and is less efficient that bruteforce.

Another thing to consider is that Blake is easy to work with and understand lots of examples about, I did test all the functions in the sphlib library including Keccak but the best performance was blake-256 or bmw-256 on my i7 2600k Keccak was slow.

I researched other platforms like FPGA and GPU for the performance and Blake was best with BMW a close second

I could also have used Blake2 which is almost as fast as md5 but I had issues with the library on my dev machine and the sphlib library works well on both ubuntu 12.04 and windows 7 x64 which are my build environments    

Edit: 0.8.6 is due out soon should fix some bugs.  all peer nodes that are listed are datacentre hosted and have gigabit internet thats the best I can do with the resources I have to spend on blakecoin  

the wallet is still encrpted/decrytped using the same sha256d ecdsa public/private key function like Bitcoin so wallet should be as secure

[BombaUcigasa]

Blake is faster overall on all platforms if you use less rounds, Keccak is superior because it uses the sponge construction function and is less like the older SHA functions thus more secure    that is why it won the SHA-3 not because its faster.

you don't need more security for a hashcash type system like Blakecoin or Bitcoin Gavin even said you could get away with using a less secure function, currently this function should offer about ~2^192 security and the best attack on the function is called a boomerang attack and is less efficient that bruteforce.

Another thing to consider is that Blake is easy to work with and understand lots of examples about, I did test all the functions in the sphlib library including Keccak but the best performance was blake-256 or bmw-256 on my i7 2600k Keccak was slow.

I researched other platforms like FPGA and GPU for the performance and Blake was best with BMW a close second

I agree with you on the points that a fast hash where your hash needs to withstand just a few minutes until the next block is quite a good choice.

As for speed comparison, I only compared the 256 bit strength versions and Keccak was faster on ASICs (which is good) that is why I asked. On CPUs/GPUs Blake is faster, but is the version you chose faster than Keccak on ASICs? (you know... just in case your coin becomes worth millions of dollars and power efficiency is desired)

[BlueDragon747]

Blake is faster overall on all platforms if you use less rounds, Keccak is superior because it uses the sponge construction function and is less like the older SHA functions thus more secure    that is why it won the SHA-3 not because its faster.

you don't need more security for a hashcash type system like Blakecoin or Bitcoin Gavin even said you could get away with using a less secure function, currently this function should offer about ~2^192 security and the best attack on the function is called a boomerang attack and is less efficient that bruteforce.

Another thing to consider is that Blake is easy to work with and understand lots of examples about, I did test all the functions in the sphlib library including Keccak but the best performance was blake-256 or bmw-256 on my i7 2600k Keccak was slow.

I researched other platforms like FPGA and GPU for the performance and Blake was best with BMW a close second

I agree with you on the points that a fast hash where your hash needs to withstand just a few minutes until the next block is quite a good choice.

As for speed comparison, I only compared the 256 bit strength versions and Keccak was faster on ASICs (which is good) that is why I asked. On CPUs/GPUs Blake is faster, but is the version you chose faster than Keccak on ASICs? (you know... just in case your coin becomes worth millions of dollars and power efficiency is desired)

Blakecoin is aimed at CPU, GPU and FPGA and FPGA's are re-programmable and almost as fast and power efficient as Asic's these days and you can't get as bad a power efficiency with Blakecoin than with scrypt based coins?  

[BombaUcigasa]

Blakecoin is aimed at CPU, GPU and FPGA and FPGA's are re-programmable and almost as fast and power efficient as Asic's these days and you can't get as bad a power efficiency with Blakecoin than with scrypt based coins?  

BLAKE will be faster than SHA-256, I was curious on your criteria for picking BLAKE. I know that Keccak has been implemented by some other coin as part of the hashing process (but not exclusive) so we have access to an implementation there (after all we are advancing human knowledge and technology here). I don't have any problem with your design.

Here is my short investigation: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6IDpD-2WO8qSnpCNmRpMmNsMlE

[BlueDragon747]

Blakecoin is aimed at CPU, GPU and FPGA and FPGA's are re-programmable and almost as fast and power efficient as Asic's these days and you can't get as bad a power efficiency with Blakecoin than with scrypt based coins?  

BLAKE will be faster than SHA-256, I was curious on your criteria for picking BLAKE. I know that Keccak has been implemented by some other coin as part of the hashing process (but not exclusive) so we have access to an implementation there (after all we are advancing human knowledge and technology here). I don't have any problem with your design.

Here is my short investigation: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6IDpD-2WO8qSnpCNmRpMmNsMlE

cool any chance you could profile the reduced round version?

the round 1 candidate for Blake used 10 rounds and the final used 14 rounds so no comparison yet for the 8 rounds Blakecoin is using

would be nice and scientific to see Blake 8, 10 and 14 tested independently

using the sphlib my results are as follows
14r = 290MB/s (slightly better than SHA-256 at ~270MB/s)
10r = 360MB/s
8r  = 400MB/s

edit:
If I remember correctly those Asic results are for 65nm and 90nm technology? you can already get FPGA's in 22nm-20nm although they are expensive power draw would be on par or less than those Asic's?

[BombaUcigasa]

cool any chance you could profile the reduced round version?

the round 1 candidate for Blake used 10 rounds and the final used 14 rounds so no compassion yet for the 8 rounds Blakecoin is using

would be nice and scientific to see Blake 8, 10 and 14 tested independently

using the sphlib my results are as follows
14r = 290MB/s (slightly better than SHA-256 at ~270MB/s)
10r = 360MB/s
8r  = 400MB/s

edit:
If I remember correctly those Asic results are for 65nm and 90nm technology? you can already get FPGA's in 22nm-20nm although they are expensive power draw would be on par or less than those Asic's?

Unfortunately I didn't save the sources for the document, I was trying to compare the functions based on strength parity with SHA-256, so I didn't pick the lower rounds versions. Be aware that during the SHA-3 contest, BLAKE was "extended" while Keccak was "reduced" to optimize both their security and performance (respectively). If I were to use BLAKE there's no way the 8 rounds version would be considered (unless the hardware is light and closed source) because I'm not competent enough to understand all the implications, so the recommended versions are safe choices. As for the benchmark results, take your pick based on predicted future attacks and computing performance.

All the information and more can be found by googling "sha-3" and following the pages and pdfs (lots of scientific articles and detailed pages).

[BlueDragon747]

cool any chance you could profile the reduced round version?

the round 1 candidate for Blake used 10 rounds and the final used 14 rounds so no compassion yet for the 8 rounds Blakecoin is using

would be nice and scientific to see Blake 8, 10 and 14 tested independently

using the sphlib my results are as follows
14r = 290MB/s (slightly better than SHA-256 at ~270MB/s)
10r = 360MB/s
8r  = 400MB/s

edit:
If I remember correctly those Asic results are for 65nm and 90nm technology? you can already get FPGA's in 22nm-20nm although they are expensive power draw would be on par or less than those Asic's?

Unfortunately I didn't save the sources for the document, I was trying to compare the functions based on strength parity with SHA-256, so I didn't pick the lower rounds versions. Be aware that during the SHA-3 contest, BLAKE was "extended" while Keccak was "reduced" to optimize both their security and performance (respectively). If I were to use BLAKE there's no way the 8 rounds version would be considered (unless the hardware is light and closed source) because I'm not competent enough to understand all the implications, so the recommended versions are safe choices. As for the benchmark results, take your pick based on predicted future attacks and computing performance.

All the information and more can be found by googling "sha-3" and following the pages and pdfs (lots of scientific articles and detailed pages).

Blake was extended due to the concern that it was too fast, blake2 uses 8 rounds as they concluded it was more than safe as like I said no better attack on it than bruteforce atm and due to it not being picked doubt many papers will have a go

64 G function calls ~ 64 rounds SHA-256, linear algorithm vs parallel ?