[ANN][MOON] Mooncoin: You know where it's headed! KGW exploit FIXED 4/3/2014

[paulus51]

any active pools for mooncoin or p2p ?

and btw we still accepting this fantastic mooncoin as donations on our website, see the first link in my signature,

[Ngaio]

We're sorry, we couldn't help ourselves ....

[ANN] The nearly-infamous Three Moon Wolf T-shirt.

https://i.imgur.com/VpR06mM.jpg


Cheers,

Graham

Coinflow asked "From where is the T-shirt? Do I have to know any story behind this?" on the MoonCoin sub-reddit. Thought I might as well share the reply here too...

It's an affectionate homage to the 3 wolf moon t-shirt, which became something of a meme due to hilarious Amazon products reviews...

http://www.amazon.com/The-Mountain-Three-Short-Sleeve/product-reviews/B007I4HI1K/ref=sr_1_2_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

Imagine what a Three Moon Wolf shirt could do for you!

[redjedievolution]

I have 6 billions but i want more  

During this days i'll receive some hundreds of Litecoins, and i'll buy all at 5 and 6 litoshi...

Somebody is acumulating mooncoins too... jijijiji

[Wekkel]

Mooncoin is going steady and block halving from 1 mln to 600k is getting nearer.

[utahjohn]

WTS 56+ Mil mooncoin make offer.

[986016977]

I have 6 billions but i want more  

During this days i'll receive some hundreds of Litecoins, and i'll buy all at 5 and 6 litoshi...

Somebody is acumulating mooncoins too... jijijiji

My god!!!

[coinflow]

any active pools for mooncoin or p2p ?

For P2Pool-nodes, see here:
http://5.45.105.66:9664
http://148.251.13.168:9664

... or simply use the node-scanner: http://5.45.105.66

[coinflow]

Hello,

Is mooncoin dead?

I have one gaw fury that i not use right now, Is it wise to let my Gaw fury mine only mooncoin?

The more interesting question is: Why do you have a GAW Fury that you "don't use right now"?

A friend (running the technical stuff, mentions we could use this miners to mine a dying coin for fun.

What is the sense of this?

I used mooncoin-mining-calculator, but the income of one two of more miners is not conclusive.

Keep in mind, that the Coinwarz-calculator does not work, because it assumes a BTC-market, which is not existent for Mooncoin at the moment.
The better choice for comparing Mooncoin is www.cointweak.com

$0,95 a furry each hour seems a bit optimistic, other hand difficulty is all time low.
We have 6 fury`s for this small extra project. Maybe start a private pool?

See the posting above regarding Mooncoin-P2Pool. Would be a good choice. But only if you prefer a living coin. For a dying one, look elsewhere ...  

[PalmerEk]

any active pools for mooncoin or p2p ?

For P2Pool-nodes, see here:
http://5.45.105.66:9664
http://148.251.13.168:9664

... or simply use the node-scanner: http://5.45.105.66

You're welcome to jump onto mine: stratum+tcp://54.86.228.62:9664 (http://www.newmooncoin.com:8088/stats)  

All Moon all the time!

[chinatuakong]

any active pools for mooncoin or p2p ?

For P2Pool-nodes, see here:
http://5.45.105.66:9664
http://148.251.13.168:9664

... or simply use the node-scanner: http://5.45.105.66

You're welcome to jump onto mine: stratum+tcp://54.86.228.62:9664 (http://www.newmooncoin.com:8088/stats)  

All Moon all the time!

Any pool fee ? Will point my asic there after I got it (somebody gave to me for free).

[utahjohn]

To the coin Dev's
What is the status of coin development?  Without active development and reports interest will continue to fall.
Why the F**k am I still holding coins  PoS need to be implemented for bagholders

[PalmerEk]

any active pools for mooncoin or p2p ?

For P2Pool-nodes, see here:
http://5.45.105.66:9664
http://148.251.13.168:9664

... or simply use the node-scanner: http://5.45.105.66

You're welcome to jump onto mine: stratum+tcp://54.86.228.62:9664 (http://www.newmooncoin.com:8088/stats)  

All Moon all the time!

Any pool fee ? Will point my asic there after I got it (somebody gave to me for free).

There is a 0.1% fee as a thank you to the NOMPs devs (https://github.com/zone117x/node-open-mining-portal/)

[coinflow]

any active pools for mooncoin or p2p ?

For P2Pool-nodes, see here:
http://5.45.105.66:9664
http://148.251.13.168:9664

... or simply use the node-scanner: http://5.45.105.66

You're welcome to jump onto mine: stratum+tcp://54.86.228.62:9664 (http://www.newmooncoin.com:8088/stats)  

All Moon all the time!

Any pool fee ? Will point my asic there after I got it (somebody gave to me for free).

There is a 0.1% fee as a thank you to the NOMPs devs (https://github.com/zone117x/node-open-mining-portal/)

Any idea, why your Pool does not show up in the node-scanner-list? Normally it finds each and every P2Pool-node, that is setup as a public one. Could you check with the NOMP-developer on how to set it up to be found? Would be nice.

[coinflow]

To the coin Dev's
What is the status of coin development?  Without active development and reports interest will continue to fall.
Why the F**k am I still holding coins  PoS need to be implemented for bagholders

At the moment the coin just works. So what is the REAL problem? 

[gjhiggins]

@Graham
More reason to consider algo change to X11.  Higher hashrates and lower power consumption
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666252.msg7520635#msg7520635

Thanks for the suggestion and pointer, apologies for subsequent hiatus, I needed to dig deep into the cryptographic underpinnings of folklore combiners such as x11.

I'm currently looking at a couple of sources of hard data.

1. The original Classification of the SHA-3 candidates, including reported performance statistics in cpb (cycles per message block) for 256 and 512 output lengths (sometimes labelled "-32" or "-64") on 32 & 64-bit host architectures:

Name_of_hash_function	32-bit_arch	Class'n	64-bit_arch	Class'n
ARIRANG-256	20	A	55.3	E
ARIRANG-512	14.9	AA	11.2	B
AURORA-256	24.3	B	15.4	B
AURORA-512	46.9	B	27.4	E
BLAKE-32	28.3	B	16.7	B
BLAKE-64	61.7	C	12.3	B
Blender-32	105.8	E	105.8	E
Blender-64	122.4	E	164.2	E
BMW-256	8.6	AA	7.85	AA
BMW-512	13.37	AA	4.06	AA
Cheetah-256	15.3	A	10.5	A
Cheetah-512	83.8	D	15.6	C
Chi-256	49	C	26	D
Chi-512	78	D	16	C
CRUNCH-256	29.9	C	16.9	B
CRUNCH-512	86.4	D	46.9	E
CubeHash8/1-256	14	A	11	A
CubeHash16/1-512	14	A	11	A
DynamicSHA-256	27.9	B	27.9	D
DynamicSHA-512	47.2	B	47.2	E
DynamicSHA2-256	21.9	B	21.9	C
DynamicSHA2-512	67.3	C	67.1	E
ECHO-256	38	D	32	D
ECHO-256	83	D	66	E
Edon-R-256	9.1	AA	5.9	AA
Edon-R-512	13.7	AA	2.9	AA
EnRUPT-256	8.3	AA	8.3	A
EnRUPT-512	5.1	AA	5.1	AA
Essence-256	149.8	E	19.5	B
Essence-512	176.5	E	23.5	D
Fugue-256	36.2	C	61	E
Fugue-512	74.6	D	132.7	E
Grøstl-256	22.9	B	22.4	D
Grøstl-512	37.5	A	30.1	E
Hamsi-256	22	B	25	D
JH-256	21.3	B	16.8	B
JH-512	21.3	AA	16.8	D
Keccak-256	35.4	C	10.1	A
Keccak-512	68.9	C	20.3	D
LANE-256	40.4	D	25.6	D
LANE-512	152.2	E	145.3	E
Lesamnta-256	59.2	E	52.7	E
Lesamnta-512	54.5	B	51.2	E
Luffa-256	13.9	AA	13.4	A
Luffa-512	25.5	AA	23.2	D
Lux-256	16.7	A	28.2	D
Lux-512	14.9	AA	12.5	B
MD6-256	68	E	28	D
MD6-512	106	D	44	E
NaSHA-256	39	D	28.4	D
NaSHA-512	38.9	A	29.3	E
SANDstorm-256	62.5	E	36.5	D
SANDstorm-512	296.8	E	95.3	E
Sarmal-256	19.2	A	10	A
Sarmal-512	23.3	AA	12.6	B
SHA-256	29.3	C	20.1	C
SHA-512	55.2	C	13.1	C
Shabal-256	18.4	A	13.5	A
Shabal-512	18.4	AA	13.5	C
SHAvite-3-256	35.3	C	26.7	C
SHAvite-3-512	55	B	38.2	E
SIMD-256	12	AA	11	A
SIMD-512	118	E	85	E
Skein-256	21.6	A	7.6	AA
Skein-512	20.1	AA	6.1	AA
TIB3-256	12.9	AA	7.6	A
TIB3-512	17.5	AA	6.3	AA
Twister-256	35.8	C	15.8	B
Twister-512	39.6	A	17.5	D
Vortex-256	46.2	D	69.4	E
Vortex-512	56	C	90	E

This is, of course, a preliminary classification performed in 2009.

2. Contemporary detail is less accessibly presented:

http://cryptography.gmu.edu/athenadb/asic_hash/table_view

http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-sha3.html

Looking at those benchmarks, I can't immediately see anything that might explain why x11 should run cooler. You're probably closer to the x11 details than I am, (I'm still ploughing my way through the relevant literature on folklore and other combiners to see if there's any traction there), did Euan provide a technical appreciation for the choice and ordering of the chain of hash fns for x11?

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn has provided (IMO) the clearest description of the trade-offs in a choice of basic folklore combiner.

Higher hashrates and lower power consumption

My rapid review of the x11/GPU issue (hands-off, I'm afraid; my altcoin experience is circumscribed by my entry-level Acer Sandybridge) suggests that there were contemporaneous changes to the coding of the mining app. This would be unfortunate if true; it introduces a confounding factor that undermines the credibility of claims of improved efficiency accruing from the introduction of the x11 combiner in that it's impossible to disentangle the relative contributions of performance gains from i) enhancements to the application code and/or ii) the change in combo.

But it's an ill wind that blows no good - I now have at least a plausible explanation of the difference in reception between c11 and x11 ---  I've had a very hard time persuading myself that such a significant effect was due to a simple change in the batting order. Given what I now know, Occam's Razor tells me that it probably isn't and I should look elsewhere for the source of the difference in reception/perception. If there's any reliable, robust data which points to the opposite conclusion, I'd really appreciate a pointer.

Perhaps the most significant element to emerge from my consideration of a switch to x11 is that it would come at the cost of completely ruling out any possibility of merge-mining with our current altcoin kith and kin.

Cheers

Graham

Edit: extended header for more tabular space. enumerated

[utahjohn]

@Graham
The groestl algorithm used in part of X11 seems to be the major factor in reduction of power usage and lower temps on GPU's.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666252.0

[gjhiggins]

@Graham
The groestl algorithm used in part of X11 seems to be the major factor in reduction of power usage and lower temps on GPU's.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666252.0

I'd be grateful for some help, I can't find a mention of Groestl on any of the pages of that thread, which of the pointers should I follow?

Cheers

Graham

[utahjohn]

@Graham
The groestl algorithm used in part of X11 seems to be the major factor in reduction of power usage and lower temps on GPU's.
See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=666252.0

I'd be grateful for some help, I can't find a mention of Groestl on any of the pages of that thread, which of the pointers should I follow?

Cheers

Graham

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/2014/4/23/groestlcoin-efficient-mining-on-both-cpu-and-gpu

http://altcurrencyhelp.com/Groestl

[gjhiggins]

@Graham
The groestl algorithm used in part of X11 seems to be the major factor in reduction of power usage and lower temps on GPU's.

Ah, the penny's just dropped for me, the difference is due to changes in the implementation on GPU architecture. ofc.


Cheers

Graham

[gjhiggins]

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/2014/4/23/groestlcoin-efficient-mining-on-both-cpu-and-gpu
http://altcurrencyhelp.com/Groestl

The primary claims are couched in classic marketing-speak

“The Groestl algorithm is possibly the single most GPU-efficient algorithm implemented in any cryptocoin on the market.”

“A comparison between many different algorithms shows that it has the lowest power consumption, heat, and noise of the array of newer ones being implemented in cryptocoins.”

I prefer more more traditional promotional vacuities: “The Groestl algorithm: farm fresh and quality assured.”

I meant something more like Third-Round Report of the SHA-3 Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition, something that affords a more nuanced understanding. I found sections 5.1 Software performance, 5.2 Hardware performance and 5.3 Discussion to be invaluable in their coverage and clarity. There doesn't seem to be anything in there which singles out Groestl as particularly efficient other than a mild observation that it has good throughput/area - but that's a quality of the ASIC implementation in hardware, not of the GPU implementation in software. All of the SHA-3 final round candidate hash functions were implemented as ASICs, the NIST committee was slightly apologetic that they could only afford the 256-bit versions.

That was worth following up, TIL quite a lot and I discovered the delights of the iacr eprint list. Thanks utahjohn for prompting me to ask awkward questions.

So ... x11? Yeah, maybe - if there's a well-supported argument that can be made then I think the community can be offered a stimulating change. I'm very sympathetic to any change that benefits the Moonie-on-the-Clapham-bendibus.

I'm particularly keen to see a balanced discussion. Thus far, all the discussion has been about changing the coin's economics to better suit the objectives of the miners. Basically, this one-sidedness is increasing the risk that the tilt in favour of miners, already noticeably acute, will become even more angled away from the non-miner and with billions of MOON to be generated, the only way this coin can survive is by embracing the community of coin-users that gave the currency the velocity that was assumed in the original formulation and who now, after much Mooncoin inaction, understandably have found other interests to pursue.


Cheers,

Graham