Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 02:47:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [ANNOUNCE] Tenebrix, a CPU-friendly, GPU-hostile cryptocurrency  (Read 104634 times)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 09:08:32 PM
 #521

1) PoW will be updated as hardware grows bigger...cache.


How?  Do you think that you are going to get 51% of the miners to accept such an update, once the first hardware implementation is available and any significant minority of miners have already invested into same?

Quote
2) The point is not to make implementation of hardware-accelerated solution impossible (You can implement TBX miner in OpenCL, ArtForz already tested it, see the "Tenebrix scaling questions" thread), but to make it uneconomical (If your wonderful hardware-cruncher costs 700$ and only marginally outperforms a cpu  which costs $100, you loose the race)

Scrypt was specifically designed to be uneconomical and painful in GPU and FPGA and, amazingly, it really is

I'm not limiting hardware implimentations to GPU's and FPGA's; and the entire argo doesn't need to be implimented in order for the use of hardware to be cost effective.  If there is a way for it to be accelerated in hardware, someone is eventually going to figure out how to do it.  The more exotic the hardware that is required to do this, the more centralized that mining becomes.  GPU's are no longer uncommon hardware, even if there are still many consumer desktops still in service that don't have suitable ones.  You can't really buy a modern destkop that doesn't have a CUDA capable GPU, unless you shoot for the cheap.  If it's an iMac, you quite literally cannot buy a new desktop without a CUDA GPU.  And even though FPGA's are expensive and somewhat exotic hardware today, their general purpose usefulness pretty much garrantees that many consumer desktops are going to have intergrated FPGA's on the mainboard in another ten years.  However, if you succeed in making it uneconomical to mine with these forms of commodity hardware, only the truely exotic hardware will be able to do so, and you will become dependent upon the purchase of PCI cards with such exotic hardware in order to expect to compete cost effectively for mining once major operations start using these purpose made devices.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
1480906041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480906041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480906041
Reply with quote  #2

1480906041
Report to moderator
1480906041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480906041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480906041
Reply with quote  #2

1480906041
Report to moderator
1480906041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480906041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480906041
Reply with quote  #2

1480906041
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480906041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480906041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480906041
Reply with quote  #2

1480906041
Report to moderator
1480906041
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480906041

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480906041
Reply with quote  #2

1480906041
Report to moderator
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 09:44:32 PM
 #522

1) PoW will be updated as hardware grows bigger...cache.


How?  Do you think that you are going to get 51% of the miners to accept such an update, once the first hardware implementation is available and any significant minority of miners have already invested into same?

Um, adoption dynamics of tenebrix are such that majority of miners are, for various reasons, riding a general purpose computation device which is either unfit for installation of custom hardware or would require some overhaul to do so

Of course they will accept something that will keep an annoying - and potentially game-changing - competitor out.

If you are a cpu-centric miner mining a decidedly cpu-centric chain, you have a vested interest of keeping as much "exotica" out as possible (I wonder tho whether APU systems are "exotica" - they are essentially beefy CPUs)



I'm not limiting hardware implimentations to GPU's and FPGA's; and the entire argo doesn't need to be implimented in order for the use of hardware to be cost effective.

ASICs are just stupidly un-economical and carry additional bonus of being (Unlike GPUs and FPGAs) pretty truly dedicated

 If there is a way for it to be accelerated in hardware, someone is eventually going to figure out how to do it.  

You forget economics.

There's no point of deploying an application-specific system unless the factor by which it accelerates mining makes it economically viable, and dedicated custom solutions suffer from this far more than semi-dedicated such as GPUs or FPGAs (which have apparent uses outside mining and can be, worst come to worst, re-sold on general market unlike Hypothetical Custom Tenebrix Supercruncher that can only plow through scrypt)

You could crunch TBX very fast on, I dunno, a non-uniform memory access system, but it would be prohibitively economically unsound unless you know a way to get one for free (in which case I love you and want to get to know you closer Wink )

The more exotic the hardware that is required to do this, the more centralized that mining becomes.  GPU's are no longer uncommon hardware, even if there are still many consumer desktops still in service that don't have suitable ones.  You can't really buy a modern destkop that doesn't have a CUDA capable GPU, unless you shoot for the cheap.  If it's an iMac, you quite literally cannot buy a new desktop without a CUDA GPU.  And even though FPGA's are expensive and somewhat exotic hardware today, their general purpose usefulness pretty much garrantees that many consumer desktops are going to have intergrated FPGA's on the mainboard in another ten years.

Ten years down the line, I fully expect TBX to undergo no less than two major PoW updates (assuming it survives)

 However, if you succeed in making it uneconomical to mine with these forms of commodity hardware, only the truely exotic hardware will be able to do so, and you will become dependent upon the purchase of PCI cards with such exotic hardware in order to expect to compete cost effectively for mining once major operations start using these purpose made devices.

Again, this assumes that economics of producing totally-custom TBX-crunchers render them competitive economically against CPUs which, through benefit of being among most common and mass-produced computational systems, have vast economies of scale driving their price down.

Doesn't matter how good your million-dollar supercooled Tenebrix-cruncher is, if I can achieve same performance at a fraction of the cost by just "buying moar CPU-centric boxen", you will lose.

Throwing monkey-wrenches into various hardware optimization attempts seems like a fun field, perhaps a science unto itself.

P.S.:
Not to mention the opportunistic-mining implications of having an algo specifically tailored to be most economically sound on the most common computation substrate available Wink

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 10:03:42 PM
 #523

Wouldn't a POW increase "strand" miners running older CPU hardware with more limited cache size and speed.  Are 51% of them going to vote in favor of killing their own throughput for good of the system?
terrytibbs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 10:10:54 PM
 #524

Wouldn't a POW increase "strand" miners running older CPU hardware with more limited cache size and speed.  Are 51% of them going to vote in favor of killing their own throughput for good of the system?
Given that ASICs are so specialized hardware, that might not be necessary.

In other news I finally finished work on my proposition for the new Tenebrix.org landing-page. It's single-page, but I don't think it needs a blog and whatever the current one has. It's simple, straight to the point, and tries to convince new and not-so-experienced users to try it for themselves.
http://46.253.203.113/tenebrix/
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 10:16:10 PM
 #525

1) PoW will be updated as hardware grows bigger...cache.


How?  Do you think that you are going to get 51% of the miners to accept such an update, once the first hardware implementation is available and any significant minority of miners have already invested into same?

Um, adoption dynamics of tenebrix are such that majority of miners are, for various reasons, riding a general purpose computation device which is either unfit for installation of custom hardware or would require some overhaul to do so


You assume that dynamic is sustainable.  I say that if the value of tenebrix ever comes near the value of bitcoin, the miners that jump in won't be so limited and won't be concerned about the needs of those previous miners.  There is no garrantee that you will have any warning that the algo needs to be expanded, either.  At one time, ArtForz had the only known GPU cluster mining bitcoin, and he alone represented roughly 30% of the "vote".  Twice as much investment in hardware without advance warning, and you won't be able to change the algo.

I'm not limiting hardware implimentations to GPU's and FPGA's; and the entire argo doesn't need to be implimented in order for the use of hardware to be cost effective.

ASICs are just stupidly un-economical and carry additional bonus of being (Unlike GPUs and FPGAs) pretty truly dedicated

[/quote]

Yes, and that is the point.  If only dedicated hardware, in mass production runs, is more cost effective than the widely availble generic hardware; then only professional mining clusters will be able to afford them in the early stages.  By the time the average guy can afford a mining card, you will have long lost majority control over the algo, and you will be committed to it because none of the professional miners who have invested in dedicated hardware are going to even consider a change in the algo.
Quote
 If there is a way for it to be accelerated in hardware, someone is eventually going to figure out how to do it.  

You forget economics.


No, I don't.  Asics have been developed for bitcoin, they just don't (yet) matter because they cost more than GPU mining, not because they aren't more cost effective than CPU mining.  If GPU mining were not ever realisticly possible, asics would be dominating bitcoin mining already and CPU's would still be a losing effort.  However, the overall security of bitcoin would be lower, because it would mean that a well heeled attacker could actually attack bitcoin while the bitcoin blockchain would be dependent upon the professional miners for the vast majority of the hashrate.  Which without GPU mining would be much lower than it is today.


"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 10:28:34 PM
 #526


You assume that dynamic is sustainable.  I say that if the value of tenebrix ever comes near the value of bitcoin, the miners that jump in won't be so limited and won't be concerned about the needs of those previous miners.  There is no garrantee that you will have any warning that the algo needs to be expanded, either.  At one time, ArtForz had the only known GPU cluster mining bitcoin, and he alone represented roughly 30% of the "vote".  Twice as much investment in hardware without advance warning, and you won't be able to change the algo.

If we are talking about new hardware appearing, it has a somewhat different dynamic than new programmatic solution for already known hardware appearing.


Yes, and that is the point.  If only dedicated hardware, in mass production runs, is more cost effective than the widely availble generic hardware

The investment required for both developing and mass-producing dedicated hardware is quite outrageous.

The only scenario in which I could remotely find that plausible is USA accepting Tenebrix as legal tender, which is a silly idea (and even then, building Tenebrix megacluster will be more of a national security than profiteering concern)




No, I don't.  Asics have been developed for bitcoin, they just don't (yet) matter because they cost more than GPU mining, not because they aren't more cost effective than CPU mining.  If GPU mining were not ever realisticly possible, asics would be dominating bitcoin mining already and CPU's would still be a losing effort.

ASICs being more cost-effective seems to be a peculiar proposition, irrespective of GPU involvement.

Care to link to relevant calcs ?

Also, scrypt is somewhat hostile to ASICs, too (though the current implementation probably less so than it can be made) making them far less competitive than they are for bitcoin

P.S.:
Generally, I could imagine some exotic hardware hitting the "sweet spot" of price vs performance boost that will let it compete effectively with "equal-cost pile of CPU boxen", but so far, none such is readily available.

Someone launching an R&D and mass-production enterprise for Scrypt crunchers and getting enough traction to effectively "overrun" the cpu adoption-vote before PoW update is implemented does not strike me as very realistic.

Though of course, finding and switching to more hardware-optimization hostile PoWs as times goes by is an interesting challenge onto itself (Scrypt itself is a product of a similar design challenge)

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
October 04, 2011, 10:32:36 PM
 #527

Is it just me or is difficulty like 999999999 LOL
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 10:46:30 PM
 #528

Is it just me or is difficulty like 999999999 LOL

Just you Wink

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
Bobnova
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 10:52:52 PM
 #529

So if you can change the PoW requirement and it takes effect when 51% of hashing power uses it, does that in turn mean that someone could change it to accept GPU-efficient PoW and grab 51% and therefor the "official" PoW with half a dozen 5970s?

BTC:  1AURXf66t7pw65NwRiKukwPq1hLSiYLqbP
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 11:03:14 PM
 #530

So if you can change the PoW requirement and it takes effect when 51% of hashing power uses it, does that in turn mean that someone could change it to accept GPU-efficient PoW and grab 51% and therefor the "official" PoW with half a dozen 5970s?

Not exactly.

What you have, if one part of the net uses one PoW and the other uses another, is not a classic race for "51st percent" when both the attacker and the "lawful" nodes will accept each other's blocks as "valid", but  two forks that can not be reconciled - at this point 51% rule no longer applies because the "oldnet" just won't accept blocks of "newnet" and vice versa (Much like I couldn't make bitcoin net accept Lolcust-designed LOL-PoW blocks even if I had the terrorhashes needed to pull a 51 on BTC Cheesy )

At this point, the important thing is what the pools and the exchanges consider "real tenebrix" (or for that matter real BTC, since it would be somewhat foolhardy to think that BTC won't need a PoW overhaul in a decade from now)

The "OldPOW" nodes will form a glorious net of their own, but if the pools and the exchanges don't consider them "proper net", they will have to mine their chain for sheer joy of it, compensation free.

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
Bobnova
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 11:14:34 PM
 #531

Interesting, so the block history would be the same, but they would split into two totally separate currencies with the same history.

That makes it quite hard to update PoW, you'd have to convince an awful lot of people to switch and do it with enough notice not to piss them all off.

Interesting concept though.
So in theory I could spend some time editing say Fairbrix and make GPUBrix out of it, carrying on from where it is now?

I find this stuff absolutely fascinating Cheesy
Might have to see if I can change my Arduino-C into normal-C(or c++ or C# or whatever the hell *coin/*brix is built in exactly) so I can play with it.

BTC:  1AURXf66t7pw65NwRiKukwPq1hLSiYLqbP
Lolcust
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


Hillariously voracious


View Profile
October 04, 2011, 11:30:09 PM
 #532

Interesting, so the block history would be the same, but they would split into two totally separate currencies with the same history.

That makes it quite hard to update PoW, you'd have to convince an awful lot of people to switch and do it with enough notice not to piss them all off.

Your primary concerns at that point are the elements that define the economy (pools and exchanges, also goods & service providers but those tend to be joined to exchanges at the hip)

If the renegade chain has no way for miners to cash out, they will leave it.  


So in theory I could spend some time editing say Fairbrix and make GPUBrix out of it, carrying on from where it is now?


Given that there are about 7 nodes on Fbrix currently, you wouldn't even run a risk of some PoW feud Wink
I find this stuff absolutely fascinating Cheesy
Might have to see if I can change my Arduino-C into normal-C(or c++ or C# or whatever the hell *coin/*brix is built in exactly) so I can play with it.

That would be awesome. Coder power is verily needed Cheesy

Geist Geld, the experimental cryptocurrency, is ready for yet another SolidCoin collapse Wink

Feed the Lolcust!
NMC: N6YQFkH9Gn9CTm4mpGwuLB5zLzqWTWFw67
BTC: 15F8xbgRBA1XZ4hmtdFDUasroa2A5rYg8M
GEG: gK5Lx6ypWgr69Gw9yGzE6dsA7kcuCRZRK
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 12:19:03 AM
 #533

Hmm am I reading comments completely missing the obvious? (yeah that is a question)

If you change the PoW you simply add a "2nd PoW" and the code uses the old before Block X and the new starting from Block X

You release an updated everything (daemon, pool, miner, whatever else you like) and set Block X some time in the near future and tell everyone to upgrade before Block X (i.e. some "reasonable" time for them to upgrade)

I seriously hope I am misunderstanding the discussion, coz that would imply people not understanding what they are doing yet "running" the show ...
(relating to a comment I made elsewhere ...)

Interesting, so the block history would be the same, but they would split into two totally separate currencies with the same history.

That makes it quite hard to update PoW, you'd have to convince an awful lot of people to switch and do it with enough notice not to piss them all off.

Your primary concerns at that point are the elements that define the economy (pools and exchanges, also goods & service providers but those tend to be joined to exchanges at the hip)
What fantasy land is that () comment based on?

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
worldinacoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile WWW
October 05, 2011, 12:34:29 AM
 #534

How do you quantify the difficulty?  For instance Tenebrix less than 1 as compared to GG which may be 100, but GG still seems far easier to mine than Tenebrix.
Bobnova
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 01:48:39 AM
 #535

GG on a 5870 does ~400,000,000 hashes per second.
TBX on a 2600k does ~10,000 hashes per second.
Little bit of a difference.

BTC:  1AURXf66t7pw65NwRiKukwPq1hLSiYLqbP
freequant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 04:49:00 AM
 #536

More fail by BitcoinExpress. No wonder. CPU mining is here to stay  Tongue
Oops, you posted with the wrong account Wink
So Bulanula, why is it that your are so hostile to BitcoinExpress?
freequant
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 06:24:07 AM
 #537

squawking about how it was 51% and BCX proof right up until realized that I had already tested a CPU only chain killer on Fairbrix.
Congrats, looks like you just revendicated the fork of Fairbrix.
I am interested to know how the "CPU only chain killer" is anything else than a batch of high-CPU instances at AWS or a rack of recent servers at your job though. Not like it would need an incredible firepower to fork a chain protected by a handful of home computers.
If your attack is resource based as I suspect it is, did you take into account the fact that CH can do the same thing and draw from the cloud to boost his network hashrate until your little challenge is over.
worldinacoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile WWW
October 05, 2011, 07:33:15 AM
 #538

That is really a "tiny" difference, no wonder I have such a tiny difficulty generating this elusive coin Smiley

GG on a 5870 does ~400,000,000 hashes per second.
TBX on a 2600k does ~10,000 hashes per second.
Little bit of a difference.
Bobnova
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 05, 2011, 01:56:03 PM
 #539

Slight Cheesy

BTC:  1AURXf66t7pw65NwRiKukwPq1hLSiYLqbP
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518



View Profile
October 05, 2011, 04:24:08 PM
 #540

More fail by BitcoinExpress. No wonder. CPU mining is here to stay  Tongue
Oops, you posted with the wrong account Wink
So Bulanula, why is it that your are so hostile to BitcoinExpress?

theory: He's a douche bag?

Hi Retard,

We'll see who's talking crap when CH/RS decides to put SC 2.0 on the table. A day or so ago he was here talking his usual line of garbage, showing us PS'd screen shots of a testnet and squawking about how it was 51% and BCX proof right up until realized that I had already tested a CPU only chain killer on Fairbrix.

He didn't seem too anxious to put his bullet proof testnet  up and scampered away like usual.

I noticed all you devout CoinRumper Butt Buddies seem to forget the most important thing. SC 2.0 is still talk and very much non existent.



Nice. Now you are so proud you attacked Fairbrix. Assume whatever you want but some of you have got your heads so stuck up your ass that you just cannot see that SC2 will be superior and that this TBX is a scam. Keep drinking the koolaid. CH has delivered in the past and he will deliver again. Don't get all the hate you have towards him. Somebody thinks of a better chain and you all start trolling LOL

Enjoy your brix when they are worthless. You can go back to selling expensive Toyota cars now.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!