steban


March 04, 2014, 09:46:54 PM Last edit: March 04, 2014, 10:28:02 PM by steban 

Riecoin is ONE of the coins traded at Poloniex, an actually only people holding BTC are affected. Go spread FUD somewhere else. I would like to add that actually Poloniex is taking full responsibility of the hack and reimbursing from their pocket the lost BTC. Most exchanges just disappear after something like this, I can see Poloniex becoming a major player in little time. As I Wrote before, Poloniex is one of the Exchanges where RIE is traded. Riecoin is also now listed on MintPal, and will soon appear on Cryptsy, as there was no premine, and is got new code on it..







Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.



dga


March 04, 2014, 10:32:49 PM 

wtf the ypool shares per second just doubled to 20 yeah... I think many people (including me) pointed their rigs back to ypool after solomining while they had troubles... Is it even feasible to solo mine right now? The whales can. Someone's mined some blocks using my solo miner, and it's pretty clear from the ypool block logs that others are solomining also. There's an interesting exercise in looking at the offsets in the block log, btw  it can tell you a lot about the miners that are in use. I mined 11 blocks yesterday with 10 Dell R620 servers (2 x Intel E52697 v2's each), can you tell which ones are mine? As a smaller subset to reduce copy/paste size in the message, yours are among this set for the 1280013000 blocks: 12803 "nOffset" : "d5a1ebe253189505c4e30fa821352496ac07a2d8c390e09ec02fb4a886603ff3", 12814 "nOffset" : "af26f5e1ef40f66e4c22daf3b5401c5d3061f9644b9063f79bdd296ba1cbc771", 12894 "nOffset" : "a93eeb35b6f16230890569786c8d54d81af197f4058870ca730581ec4121ec5b", 12927 "nOffset" : "f5c103d9133388bacc0cbf0716ff22490879f1b93882dfc1c765f4da65ea723d", 12961 "nOffset" : "7bd1fef8febc067f30bb3ea09619f402f84b7cfe6d76bec97a0335bd6aacc009", 12963 "nOffset" : "5383a9ad7313f65a6981e9e80d6a874e90dad31f35044c224423e8dc77375e39", 12968 "nOffset" : "2ebe04d88d659ee0994aa61c15892e2d348d56aed43cf57d127cf5e5afb88b21", 12969 "nOffset" : "27f8f4155a2f33b82c96401330a44eb60e3ef46af5a59235d799159c87b26a33", I haven't actually computed the likely primorial for each of these  just going by offset size, so it's possible someone else's miner is mixed in there. These are probably Firkraag's, using a larger primorial but still in the jh framework: 12805 "nOffset" : "000001bdfbfccd8ef2d06d65b78b3073264c25ce8a7631e8288641262451924d", and these are n*2310+97 miners  all default jh variants, including mine: 12808 "nOffset" : "000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000c934a4d",




Supercomputing


March 04, 2014, 11:16:08 PM 

Here are a few:
20140303 23:30:43 proofofwork found hash: 7d6cd3886a084ccf59cc78a1f86cc070b02e112bb7cedeac9fb53d01191c1536 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 00000000000000000000000000000212b178e655fbcc7bf075ccb80da83271e3
20140303 23:48:03 proofofwork found hash: 0bfbe3f8a2d95f362f97ca5ac6efecb3588019447397286fea8661b78803a9b5 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 000000000000000000000000000002123c028c70c0a9519132cbea47d6bc9497
20140304 00:12:37 proofofwork found hash: 67f315a8a9a7f26b2c4ef80dcf870caaac1e721686c1734d54fbff476598b4c3 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 0000000000000000000000000000006a361ddbafd6c5ef3812fc7e6508b5ea0f




Supercomputing


March 04, 2014, 11:23:46 PM 

I mined 11 blocks yesterday with 10 Dell R620 servers (2 x Intel E52697 v2's each), can you tell which ones are mine? As a smaller subset to reduce copy/paste size in the message, yours are among this set for the 1280013000 blocks: 12803 "nOffset" : "d5a1ebe253189505c4e30fa821352496ac07a2d8c390e09ec02fb4a886603ff3", 12814 "nOffset" : "af26f5e1ef40f66e4c22daf3b5401c5d3061f9644b9063f79bdd296ba1cbc771", 12894 "nOffset" : "a93eeb35b6f16230890569786c8d54d81af197f4058870ca730581ec4121ec5b", 12927 "nOffset" : "f5c103d9133388bacc0cbf0716ff22490879f1b93882dfc1c765f4da65ea723d", 12961 "nOffset" : "7bd1fef8febc067f30bb3ea09619f402f84b7cfe6d76bec97a0335bd6aacc009", 12963 "nOffset" : "5383a9ad7313f65a6981e9e80d6a874e90dad31f35044c224423e8dc77375e39", 12968 "nOffset" : "2ebe04d88d659ee0994aa61c15892e2d348d56aed43cf57d127cf5e5afb88b21", 12969 "nOffset" : "27f8f4155a2f33b82c96401330a44eb60e3ef46af5a59235d799159c87b26a33", I haven't actually computed the likely primorial for each of these  just going by offset size, so it's possible someone else's miner is mixed in there. These are probably Firkraag's, using a larger primorial but still in the jh framework: 12805 "nOffset" : "000001bdfbfccd8ef2d06d65b78b3073264c25ce8a7631e8288641262451924d", and these are n*2310+97 miners  all default jh variants, including mine: 12808 "nOffset" : "000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000c934a4d", Yup, those are mine




dga


March 05, 2014, 12:15:21 AM 

Here are a few:
20140303 23:30:43 proofofwork found hash: 7d6cd3886a084ccf59cc78a1f86cc070b02e112bb7cedeac9fb53d01191c1536 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 00000000000000000000000000000212b178e655fbcc7bf075ccb80da83271e3
20140303 23:48:03 proofofwork found hash: 0bfbe3f8a2d95f362f97ca5ac6efecb3588019447397286fea8661b78803a9b5 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 000000000000000000000000000002123c028c70c0a9519132cbea47d6bc9497
20140304 00:12:37 proofofwork found hash: 67f315a8a9a7f26b2c4ef80dcf870caaac1e721686c1734d54fbff476598b4c3 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 0000000000000000000000000000006a361ddbafd6c5ef3812fc7e6508b5ea0f
Block 13747  I see you're working on the ypool miner version of your core, also. :)




steban


March 05, 2014, 12:18:02 AM 

Could some one please make a technical analysis of how Riecoin is an improvement over Primecoin or otherwise.




deadthings


March 05, 2014, 01:29:06 AM 

Could some one please make a technical analysis of how Riecoin is an improvement over Primecoin or otherwise.
Sure, here you go: Riecoin ≠ Primecoin




░░░░░░░██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████░░░░░░░ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ░███▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀███░ ░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███░
████ █████████▄ ▀██████████▀ ▄████████▄ ▄█████████▄ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ▀███▄ ████ ▄████▀ ▀█████ ▄████▀ ▀████▄ ████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ▄███▀ ████ ▄███▄ ████ ████ ██████▄ ███ ████ ████ ███ ▄███▀ ████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ▀███ ███ ▄███ ███▄ █████████▀ ████ ████ ████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ████ ████ ███ ███▄ ███ ▀ ███ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████ ████▄ ████ ▀███▀ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ▄█████▄█ ▄ ████ ████ ████ ▀███ ███▄ ████ ▀████▄ ▄█████ ▀████▄ ▄████▀ ████ ███ ▀█████ ██ ██ █ ████ ████ ▀███ ████ ████ ▀██████████▀ ▀█████████▀ ████ ███ ████ ▄ ▀█████▀█ █
░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███░ ░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███░ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░░██████░░░██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░█████░░░░░████░░░░░█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████░░░░░░░██░░░░░░░████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
 ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██
  ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██
  ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██
  ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██
 



steban


March 05, 2014, 02:24:24 AM 

Could some one please make a technical analysis of how Riecoin is an improvement over Primecoin or otherwise.
Sure, here you go: Riecoin ≠ Primecoin care to elaborate!




Percy520


March 05, 2014, 02:26:00 AM 

Could some one please make a technical analysis of how Riecoin is an improvement over Primecoin or otherwise.
Sure, here you go: Riecoin ≠ Primecoin Which one is better and reasons?? I knew Sunny Kind is an amazing talent.




steban


March 05, 2014, 02:57:09 AM Last edit: March 05, 2014, 03:07:45 AM by steban 

http://riecoin.org/: .. How is Riecoin different from Primecoin?Primecoin is good and I'm not against it, but since its PoW might at first glance look similar to Riecoin's, I feel the need to differentiate from it. Here I go: Primecoin uses the Fermat primality test, which has some flaws. Carmichael numbers are not prime and still pass Fermat's test for all bases, however those are relatively rare. Secondly, in general, if Fermat's test says a number is prime, it has at least a 50% probability of being prime. Primecoin uses only one Fermat test with base 2. While base 2 may provide more confidence than the general bound of 50%, still many composites will pass as primes. What's worst, is that EulerLagrangeLifchitz test used for the other primes in the chain assumes the previous number in the chain is prime. So if the chain starts with a number that is not prime, then the EulerLagrangeLifchitz test is not guaranteed to work, and all numbers in the chain may be composite. short version: Primecoin numbers are not guarranteed to be prime, they may be Fermat pseudoprimes to the base 2. There is an infinite list of Fermat pseudoprimes to the base 2 (oeis.org/A001567). Riecoin uses enough RabinMiller tests with random bases, so the probability of a number that is not prime being accepted by the majority of the Riecoin network is negligible. We propose the n/s "range explored (numbers) per second" metric instead of pps (primes per second) or shorterchains per second. This is the quantity of numbers tested (whether by sieve of explicit primality test) and discarded as not constituting a valid PoW per second. While it is still difficult to compare this number for different difficulties, it is a much better metric: it can be used to meaningfully compare different algorithms, hardware speed, etc as long as you have the same diff. More n/s always means more blocks. For example a mining rig would be advertised as having X n/s@minimum diff. Something similar like "multipliers per second" might be possible for Primecoin, but it wouldn't scale as well when difficulty grows. In Primecoin, PPS is "just for fun" and shorter chains per second may not be accurate to compare the performance of algorithms for fulllength chains per second. Assuming the Riemann Hypothesis and the HardyLittlewood ktuple conjectures are true, by using HardyLittlewood constants a miner can estimate the average time before a block is found, allowing profit calculations and to estimate the computing power of the network. In Primecoin there is no practical way of estimating the time before finding a block, moreover difficulty 10.1 is easier than 9.9 making it impossible to estimate how secure the network is.A centralized checkpoint system is implemented inside Primecoin. While it is disabled by default, if FUD about attacks start to spread, I believe some people will panic and enable it. A centralized checkpoint allows its controllers to perform double spends without any need for any % of hash rate. Can we be sure it will not be hacked and/or abused? Riecoin is capped to a fixed amount of coins (84M), but Primecoin has no limit. While it is arguable, we believe our deflationary model  similar to Bitcoin's  is better. 1min block speed would bloat the blockchain and create more orphans, stales. We have 2.5min which was tested for years in LTC. I don't know of any 1min coin that has years of testing. I think it's not true that 1min is fast enough for waiting in a line when you buy a coffee: with blocks targeted each minute, you have a 1 in 150 chance of having to wait more than 5 minutes for a block, this would still be unacceptable for some coffee stores. Also, with 2.5 each block requires more work, meaning we will have larger prime numbers sooner. Summary:  Primecoin uses the Fermat primality test, which has some flaws. Primecoin numbers are not guarranteed to be prime A centralized checkpoint system is implemented inside Primecoin. Riecoin is capped to a fixed amount of coins (84M), but Primecoin has no limit. With Primecoin it impossible to estimate how secure the network is.




gatra


March 05, 2014, 04:34:58 AM 

Summary:
 Primecoin uses the Fermat primality test, which has some flaws.  Primecoin numbers are not guarranteed to be prime  A centralized checkpoint system is implemented inside Primecoin.  Riecoin is capped to a fixed amount of coins (84M), but Primecoin has no limit.  With Primecoin it impossible to estimate how secure the network is.
It looks like the flaws of Fermat's test a are more rare than I thought, but they are still there. If you wanted cryptographically secure primes, the RabinMiller tests done by Riecoin are overwhelmingly more than enough (according to NIST standards) while Fermat's test isn't. Also:  Most importantly: cunningham chains != prime constellations  We are testing HardyLittlewood ktuples conjecture for k=6. And it's not even known if prime sextuplets are infinite. I find this more interesting than Primecoin's scientific value.  Primecoin's primes are limited to a maximum size while Riecoin's aren't. This may imply Primecoin's verification is faster but more ASIC friendly. As for which one is better, I'll let you decide. Primecoin still has 30x Riecoin's market cap. Of course I like mine and I'll defend it Hopefully, open source pool software will be a great advantage that will spawn many pools. Will post news soon.




Supercomputing


March 05, 2014, 04:41:23 AM 

Here are a few:
20140303 23:30:43 proofofwork found hash: 7d6cd3886a084ccf59cc78a1f86cc070b02e112bb7cedeac9fb53d01191c1536 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 00000000000000000000000000000212b178e655fbcc7bf075ccb80da83271e3
20140303 23:48:03 proofofwork found hash: 0bfbe3f8a2d95f362f97ca5ac6efecb3588019447397286fea8661b78803a9b5 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 000000000000000000000000000002123c028c70c0a9519132cbea47d6bc9497
20140304 00:12:37 proofofwork found hash: 67f315a8a9a7f26b2c4ef80dcf870caaac1e721686c1734d54fbff476598b4c3 diff compacted: 0204d000 nOffset: 0000000000000000000000000000006a361ddbafd6c5ef3812fc7e6508b5ea0f
Block 13747  I see you're working on the ypool miner version of your core, also. :) YPOOL provides a great service to the mining community and I am now using it to test the theory of sieving for 4chain shares versus sieving for 6chain blocks. So far, I have not seen any noticeable difference in the number of shares submitted. The overhead of sieving for valid 4chain shares seems to eliminate its performance advantages. The only thing that concerns me about YPOOL is that too many of my solo mined blocks are orphaned for no apparent reason. The block below was mined about two minutes in advance before YPOOL orphaned it. As much as I enjoy using YPOOL, competing pools and exchanges are a must in order for this coin to survive. 20140305 04:02:48 proofofwork found hash: 9f448dc2206d2caa248ecb941d407446985d2b1d9e4dffdcfdd186b8b332c1bb diff compacted: 0204bb00 nOffset: 000000000000000000000000000000cfff7339e156caed0932a0a9deac5ca1db




steban


March 05, 2014, 04:48:30 AM 

will it be possible to have a miner that already includes the ypool function in it?




remistevens


March 05, 2014, 05:01:08 AM 

 Primecoin's primes are limited to a maximum size while Riecoin's aren't.
Wow, didn't know this. Cool.




glongsword


March 05, 2014, 05:11:24 AM 

http://riecoin.org/: .. In Primecoin there is no practical way of estimating the time before finding a block, moreover difficulty 10.1 is easier than 9.9 making it impossible to estimate how secure the network is.A centralized checkpoint system is implemented inside Primecoin. While it is disabled by default, if FUD about attacks start to spread, I believe some people will panic and enable it. A centralized checkpoint allows its controllers to perform double spends without any need for any % of hash rate. Can we be sure it will not be hacked and/or abused? Riecoin is capped to a fixed amount of coins (84M), but Primecoin has no limit. While it is arguable, we believe our deflationary model  similar to Bitcoin's  is better. 1min block speed would bloat the blockchain and create more orphans, stales. We have 2.5min which was tested for years in LTC. I don't know of any 1min coin that has years of testing. I think it's not true that 1min is fast enough for waiting in a line when you buy a coffee: with blocks targeted each minute, you have a 1 in 150 chance of having to wait more than 5 minutes for a block, this would still be unacceptable for some coffee stores. Also, with 2.5 each block requires more work, meaning we will have larger prime numbers sooner. A couple of questions: Since Primecoin is able to keep the block times at ~1 minute, clearly empirical estimations work (though with a delay of a few minutes, but that doesn't matter, does it?) for determining how secure the network is, and how long the block time will be, no? If the block time were 1 minute, wouldn't the same amount of work be done in 2.5 minutes, just with the potential of 2.5 blocks being found instead of one? Doesn't the amount of work being done strictly depend on the hashrate, not the difficulty? I.e., maybe the solutions accepted for 3/5 blocks are simpler than would be accepted for the 2.5min case, but shouldn't the other 2 solutions should be just as difficult as if the block time were 2.5x more (on average)? I have no experience making a miner or looking miner code, so I am just guessing based on how I think miners work. Anyway if this is true, Primecoin would win for this point since it's hashrate is surely higher than Riecoin's. Thanks for your answers! Edit: Also, Gatra claims Riecoin can find large primes, but in the verification section of the whitepaper for Primecoin ( http://primecoin.org/static/primecoinpaper.pdf), Sunny King claims Primecoin can't find large numbers because it would be hard to verify the Proofofwork. It doesn't go into any detail. Is he wrong, is there a reason this won't apply to Riecoin, or will this eventually become a problem?




Supercomputing


March 05, 2014, 06:45:51 AM 

I can now say with absolute certainty, that if I had my current solo miner implementation on launch day, I would have solved the first 576 blocks in under 15 minutes using only 20 Intel E52697 v2 CPUs Was the launch really all that fair? I guess we will never know.




bsunau7
Member
Offline
Activity: 114
Merit: 10


March 05, 2014, 06:54:26 AM Last edit: March 05, 2014, 08:04:33 AM by bsunau7 

 Generate up to a certain size polynomial. I use 200560490130 or the next as my base primorial and store a vector of all 48923875 entries.  Sieve *this* out up to the huge primorial in advance.  Do your operations relative to the huge primorial. But, as warned  the simple bitvector is still working better for me. Cool, that is what I am going but looking at your numbers I also pre sieve the possible p6 chains reducing my candidate count by ~128 times: const uint64_t primorial = 7420738134810; const uint32_t sexcount = 14 243 984; Then I run a second scan inline to catch the next 2 dozen or so primes (lets me avoid gmp and use simple 64bit math) before I hit the expensive code. General idea was to get a list of candidates which could be feed into something else (GPU was the thought). It is much faster than reference but it is reaching the limit of how fast I can push it. I have probably made a horrendous error in my algorithm... but coding again was fun... Regards, My implementation is a little different from both implementations mentioned above. If fact, the overhead is much less than that of jh00's implementation. My implementation is almost identical to Kim Walisch's primesieve implementation with a few minor exceptions. Please see Kim Walisch's description of wheel factorization if you would like to know exactly what I am doing: http://primesieve.org/@bsunau7  mine does the same. I kill any location that fails to produce a sixset. I wonder which of us has a bug? *grin* I'll check my sieving code again. As one way to start comparing, the polynomials for the first few primorials are: Generator at Pn7 (210) 97 Generator at Pn11 (2310) 97 937 1147 1357 2197 Generator at Pn13 (30030) 97 1357 2407 3457 4717 5557 5767 6817 7867 8077 8287 10177 10597 11647 12907 13747 13957 15007 16057 16267 17107 18367 19417 19837 21727 21937 22147 23197 24247 24457 25297 26557 27607 28657 29917 @Supercomputing  Did you figure out a way to combine wheel factorization with storing a dense bitvector div 2310 (or div 210)? Or do you just allow a large bitvector and handle it through segmentation? I liked the way the jh implementation saved a lot of sieve space that way, and a straightforward prime sieve achieves a less dense packing (34x). Money on me being at fault, to save memory (make it fit!) I merge two smaller sieves... I'm working on an alternate method to validate, I suspect my error only exists in numbers later than 10million. For referecne my first few numbers: $ od t u8 sextuplet.bin  head 0000000 1 7 0000020 97 1357 0000040 3457 4717 0000060 5767 8077 0000100 10597 12907 0000120 19417 23197 0000140 29917 30127 0000160 32947 34417 0000200 35797 36847 0000220 37897 38107 A quick spot check picking 10177 as an example... 10177 is prime, (10177+6) is not prime (divisible by 17) so it shouldn't be a valid sextuplet. Regards,  bsunau7




GordonSSS
Member
Offline
Activity: 63
Merit: 10


March 05, 2014, 09:12:18 AM 

Is your miner publicly available? I can now say with absolute certainty, that if I had my current solo miner implementation on launch day, I would have solved the first 576 blocks in under 15 minutes using only 20 Intel E52697 v2 CPUs Was the launch really all that fair? I guess we will never know.

XPM: AWFyioszN3vsyQsPbAtCybqu3j5v6FqQTE RIC: RDzYLbepJdGu5vZMwYe5GtiJYe417AWJJV BTC: 1LXgRb1F6KZmVQBzcKsfpAAL57Se9EKeT6



surfer43
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
"Trading Platform of The Future!"


March 05, 2014, 09:30:31 AM 

I can now say with absolute certainty, that if I had my current solo miner implementation on launch day, I would have solved the first 576 blocks in under 15 minutes using only 20 Intel E52697 v2 CPUs Was the launch really all that fair? I guess we will never know. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=151513Ignore this FUD

  UPROSE            ⚫ ► ⚫       ◄ ⚫ ◄       ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███   ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ 



bsunau7
Member
Offline
Activity: 114
Merit: 10


March 05, 2014, 11:13:28 AM 

Money on me being at fault, to save memory (make it fit!) I merge two smaller sieves...  bsunau7
Well at least I won my money back! (my sieve was in error). But I can't thank you all enough for the round about way this has helped me. Thanks!  bsunau7




