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

[kramble]

I had a network fork yesterday, block generation rate and difficulty dropped significantly (to around 122) and I mined two blocks, which then became orphans when I finally got a connection to the main block chain.

Due to a reboot, I've currently only got 7 connections (usually I see 10, which is still quite low)

One block is awaiting confirmation, hope its not going to be orphaned too 

Code:

pi@raspberrypi ~/.blakecoin $ ./blakecoind getinfo
{
    "version" : 80600,
    "protocolversion" : 70001,
    "walletversion" : 60000,
    "balance" : X,
    "blocks" : 5836,
    "timeoffset" : 0,
    "connections" : 7,
    "proxy" : "",
    "difficulty" : 652.91740049,
    "testnet" : false,
    "keypoololdest" : 1381670725,
    "keypoolsize" : 101,
    "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
    "errors" : ""
}

pi@raspberrypi ~/.blakecoin $ ./blakecoind gettransaction 4929d1d7ea370a2c835042bacb6b76f06d0f1c32fb843668b5ac5b677770b314
{
    "amount" : 0.00000000,
    "confirmations" : 7,
    "generated" : true,
    "blockhash" : "000000000054b564a647c506ad35403f939ed0eb7e24219c13cd46543c7415b2",
    "blockindex" : 0,
    "blocktime" : 1381924907,
    "txid" : "4929d1d7ea370a2c835042bacb6b76f06d0f1c32fb843668b5ac5b677770b314",
    "time" : 1381924907,
    "timereceived" : 1381924927,
    "details" : [
        {
            "account" : "",
            "address" : "BrkbGT4QSCTre6DtkQHbFhJQPGbRpkAXUG",
            "category" : "immature",
            "amount" : 25.00031216
        }
    ]
}

This is my config

pi@raspberrypi ~/.blakecoin $ cat blakecoin.conf
listen=1
gen=0
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
rpcallowip=192.168.1.*
rpcuser=x
rpcpassword=x
rpcport=8772
server=1
daemon=1
addnode=162.243.133.80
addnode=162.243.14.130
addnode=146.185.135.24

[110110101]

When using the 0.8.5 wallet I had several issues with disconnections to the network. What has helped me to keep the wallet 'online' has been to reduce the amount of hashing, and keep 1-2 cores from mining and use them solely for other purposes.

so for a 8 core cpu, I have run the miner with t -6

The reasoning was that it is better keep the wallet online rather than hashing away only to find 10 orphaned blocks.

I have chosen to use the same approach with 0.8.6, but now the difficulty is so high so I have only got one orphaned block in the past 3-4 days.

[BlueDragon747]

Good advice I use -t 7 for my i7 2600k

I will re look at the current budget I have set for Blakecoin and think about adding more server nodes over the next few weeks unless someone wants to volunteer any fixed IP nodes for the network?

[Vorksholk]

Good advice I use -t 7 for my i7 2600k

I will re look at the current budget I have set for Blakecoin and think about adding more server nodes over the next few weeks unless someone wants to volunteer any fixed IP nodes for the network?

184.171.247.23 <--Shared GBit

[BlueDragon747]

Good advice I use -t 7 for my i7 2600k

I will re look at the current budget I have set for Blakecoin and think about adding more server nodes over the next few weeks unless someone wants to volunteer any fixed IP nodes for the network?

184.171.247.23 <--Shared GBit

Thank You 

[SpeedDemon13]

Any news of a possible mining pool?

[feeleep]

Any news of a possible mining pool?

I am working on setting up the pool but I need to wait for p2pool code because I cannot properly port blake hash function...

[Vorksholk]

Seems network is now syncing correctly, haven't had a fork in a while 8-)

[SpeedDemon13]

Any news of a possible mining pool?

I am working on setting up the pool but I need to wait for p2pool code because I cannot properly port blake hash function...

Cool. Thanks for putting effort into it. It's just to hard to solo mine at the moment.

[Aggrophobia]

selling some ks pm me with an offer

[Vorksholk]

Gonna try to release an OpenCL miner in the next 24-48 hours, keep your eyes peeled

[SpeedDemon13]

Gonna try to release an OpenCL miner in the next 24-48 hours, keep your eyes peeled

awesome 

Right on. Now just need a mining pool.

[atavacron]

Sweeeet!

I compiled and ran the clblake ( https://github.com/wfr/clblake ) experiment code and tested it on an HIS 7950 with the following result:

Code:

$ ./blaketree -v -t
DEBUG: Blake-256 CPU implementation: SSSE3
CPU hash test...
CPU hash is valid
GPU hash test...
DEBUG: Using platform: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
DEBUG: Using OpenCL source: blake256.cl
DEBUG: 797.0 MiB/s

I'm not sure how MiB/s equate to hashes per second but I would guess it would be rather good.

[BlueDragon747]

Sweeeet!

I compiled and ran the clblake ( https://github.com/wfr/clblake ) experiment code and tested it on an HIS 7950 with the following result:

Code:

$ ./blaketree -v -t
DEBUG: Blake-256 CPU implementation: SSSE3
CPU hash test...
CPU hash is valid
GPU hash test...
DEBUG: Using platform: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
DEBUG: Using OpenCL source: blake256.cl
DEBUG: 797.0 MiB/s

I'm not sure how MiB/s equate to hashes per second but I would guess it would be rather good.

that's not the reduced round version!

blake256.cl from my fork is and should be faster
https://github.com/BlueDragon747/clblake

[atavacron]

Sweeeet!

I compiled and ran the clblake ( https://github.com/wfr/clblake ) experiment code and tested it on an HIS 7950 with the following result:

Code:

$ ./blaketree -v -t
DEBUG: Blake-256 CPU implementation: SSSE3
CPU hash test...
CPU hash is valid
GPU hash test...
DEBUG: Using platform: AMD Accelerated Parallel Processing
DEBUG: Using OpenCL source: blake256.cl
DEBUG: 797.0 MiB/s

I'm not sure how MiB/s equate to hashes per second but I would guess it would be rather good.

that's not the reduced round version!

blake256.cl from my fork is and should be faster
https://github.com/BlueDragon747/clblake

Even better!!!

I'm hopeful that BLC will hit an exchange in the near future.  Who knows, maybe it will turn up on "Cryptsy 2.0" later today.  However, the timing might not be the greatest against a soring BTC.

[Vorksholk]

From my observations, it seems that an average high-end processor (i7-3770k, AMD FX-8320, AMD FX-8350) gets around 10MH to 12MH.

To make the math easy, at 10MH, the CPU will get (from test results) somewhere around 0.06 difficulty-one shares per minute, or around one difficulty-one share every 24.6666667 minutes. At a difficulty of 900, you need 900 difficulty-one shares. Therefore, it would take nearly 16 days to get a block at current difficulty with one of those CPUs.


The OpenCL miner is coming soon, I want the launch to go real smooth, so if someone with one or more of the following cards can PM me so we can get performance statistics together and figure out optimal settings, that would be great:
-7990
-78xx
-7770
-6990
-6970
-6950
-68xx
-5970
-5850

Also, I'm gonna try to time the GPU miner release with some pool software from BlueDragon(747), but that is a huge job, so we'll see how timetables work out...

[3dcgminer]

Are NVIDIA cards completely unsupported with no chance of even working?

[BlueDragon747]

Are NVIDIA cards completely unsupported with no chance of even working?

OpenCL works on all platforms  

its just that ATI cards are faster at mining and most use them  

[Aalesund]

From my observations, it seems that an average high-end processor (i7-3770k, AMD FX-8320, AMD FX-8350) gets around 10MH to 12MH.

To make the math easy, at 10MH, the CPU will get (from test results) somewhere around 0.06 difficulty-one shares per minute, or around one difficulty-one share every 24.6666667 minutes. At a difficulty of 900, you need 900 difficulty-one shares. Therefore, it would take nearly 16 days to get a block at current difficulty with one of those CPUs.


The OpenCL miner is coming soon, I want the launch to go real smooth, so if someone with one or more of the following cards can PM me so we can get performance statistics together and figure out optimal settings, that would be great:
-7990
-78xx
-7770
-6990
-6970
-6950
-68xx
-5970
-5850

Also, I'm gonna try to time the GPU miner release with some pool software from BlueDragon(747), but that is a huge job, so we'll see how timetables work out...

R9 280X it will be compatible?
R9 280X has the same statis as 7970.

[kramble]

To make the math easy, at 10MH, the CPU will get (from test results) somewhere around 0.06 difficulty-one shares per minute, or around one difficulty-one share every 24.6666667 minutes. At a difficulty of 900, you need 900 difficulty-one shares. Therefore, it would take nearly 16 days to get a block at current difficulty with one of those CPUs.

At 10Mh/s it takes (2^32)/10000000 = 429 seconds (7.15 minutes) to scan the nonce range for a difficulty one share. Now my statistics knowledge is a bit rusty, but I reckon this should be the same as the long term average to find a share. So that gives 900 * 429 seconds = approx 4.5 days rather than 16 days, which chimes in rather better with my current experience of a roughly 2-4 blocks per day on around 89MHash/s.

Diff is now at 1168 (first time above 1000?), are the GPU's coming online already?