Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 10:28:53 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Algorithmically placed FPGA miner: 255MH/s/chip, supports all known boards  (Read 109574 times)
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086



View Profile
October 05, 2012, 12:35:36 PM
 #781

Indeed, besides pushing a new bitstream he also implemented difficulty >1 support, wow!

Yeah, because I had a similar unexpected-downtime experience with EclipseMC -- they recently started rejecting two-low-difficulty shares.

Unfortunately since the X-Reject-Reason headers aren't standardized the safest thing to do is assume that when a share is rejected that work ought to be thrown out.  This wrecks the hashrate.
Well, the reasons are standardized as part of BIP 22.
Obviously it's not necessarily a rule for the now-obsolete getwork protocol, but there's no reason not to use the same strings either.

But more importantly: if your miner had supported the target - which has been standard since getwork was created - you wouldn't have these rejects at all.

1481149733
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481149733

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481149733
Reply with quote  #2

1481149733
Report to moderator
1481149733
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481149733

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481149733
Reply with quote  #2

1481149733
Report to moderator
1481149733
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481149733

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481149733
Reply with quote  #2

1481149733
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481149733
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481149733

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481149733
Reply with quote  #2

1481149733
Report to moderator
1481149733
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481149733

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481149733
Reply with quote  #2

1481149733
Report to moderator
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 12:38:08 PM
 #782

But more importantly: if your miner had supported the target - which has been standard since getwork was created - you wouldn't have these rejects at all.

I know, I know.

So many features, so little time.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 12:41:28 PM
 #783

But more importantly: if your miner had supported the target - which has been standard since getwork was created - you wouldn't have these rejects at all.

By the way, something occurred today: can variable difficulty be used to combat withholding attacks?  The higher the share difficulty, the higher the cost of the withholding attack -- the "found a block" shares represent a larger fraction of the submitted shares.  Could even be automated: if the pool sees a suspiciously low fraction of block-found shares from a miner, jack up their difficulty.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
TheSeven
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


FPGA Mining LLC


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 02:47:57 PM
 #784

FWIW, I had no idea so many people were using the TML.  I suppose that means that when I turn on the commissions I will get a nontrivial income from this, in which case I will have a strong motivation to take uptime very seriously.

Well, probably not anymore after this incident... This is a breach of trust/confidence/reliability which especially the large scale miners will take very seriously. On my side you've killed about 7 gigahashes, I'd assume the total from the people running my TML port for x6500/MMQ alone will be in the 50-100GH/s range.

IMO it would have been mandantory for you to publish the information that the bitstreams have a time bomb when you released TML. Your customers have a right to know that they will have to regularly update their systems, and if you had released that information you would surely have been reminded in time that the deadline is approaching.

Has there been a downtime of the signcryption services? Or do you block IPs that repeatedly try to connect with an old gateware version? After I rebased to 1.12 yesterday I wasn't able to contact any signcryption server anymore, they just refused the connection (and I saw that it tried several different IPs).

My tip jar: 13kwqR7B4WcSAJCYJH1eXQcxG5vVUwKAqY
Borzoi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
October 05, 2012, 06:25:05 PM
 #785

Is there customers?  Can I pay for improving access and support?  I would like this, both for myself and to support other bitheads.

MS EECS MIT, PhD Math Stanford, L2 dropout American University Washington College of Law.
Forgive my English.  It is functional with good vocabulary but not so good grammar.  I give BNF for my English so not to offend you. Smiley
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 09:42:24 PM
 #786

I still don't get why he didn't opt to open source his bitstream.

Well, I certainly get why you (and lots of other people on this forum) want something for nothing...

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2012, 09:43:59 PM
 #787

Has there been a downtime of the signcryption services? Or do you block IPs that repeatedly try to connect with an old gateware version?

Nope.  A few of the frontends are down, but at least four are up.  I'm running at full speed.

The failover logic is not terribly clever; it just keeps trying round-robin until it finds one that works.  On my to-do list is improving this to try all of them in parallel, funneling more work towards the ones with lower latency.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
October 06, 2012, 01:45:56 AM
 #788

I still don't get why he didn't opt to open source his bitstream.

Well, I certainly get why you (and lots of other people on this forum) want something for nothing...
If that's nothing for you:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94317.0

Can you give me nothing? Wink

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
Isokivi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Items flashing here available at btctrinkets.com


View Profile WWW
October 06, 2012, 08:22:50 PM
 #789

+1
I'd like a slice of nothing too.

Bitcoin trinkets now on my online store: btc trinkets.com <- Bitcoin Tiepins, cufflinks, lapel pins, keychains, card holders and challenge coins.
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
October 06, 2012, 09:11:39 PM
 #790

And there is another 400 BTC bounty...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112303.0

total 700 BTC. Really looks like you can't make money with open-source stuff...?!

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
TheSeven
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


FPGA Mining LLC


View Profile WWW
October 06, 2012, 10:36:16 PM
 #791

And there is another 400 BTC bounty...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=112303.0

total 700 BTC. Really looks like you can't make money with open-source stuff...?!

...and these bountys are supporting the development of open source bitstreams which are direct competitors to TML, are faster by definition, and are free. In other words, which are the end of TML, and thus ET's income. Just claiming them would have been the easiest way to make money with this, with the least possible risk. I doubt he'll ever make 700 BTC off this.

My tip jar: 13kwqR7B4WcSAJCYJH1eXQcxG5vVUwKAqY
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 06, 2012, 11:03:50 PM
 #792

Actually the biggest issue is how long they take.

However, Tom has said there will be a new MMQ bitstream (1GH/s) in the next week so that solves the whole problem I guess Smiley

ET's idea (whether you agree with it or not) was how he wanted to make money out of it.

The problem was when things changed, he didn't.

Though, I do wonder where this new MMQ bitstream came from, maybe he did change his mind Smiley

From an ASIC point of view, it will soon be moot anyway.

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
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1170


View Profile
October 07, 2012, 06:31:00 PM
 #793

I'm going to have to go out on a limb here and just say that I feel there is something shady going on with this whole operation.  Based on the numbers, it would be silly to refuse such a hefty bounty for releasing this to the open source community.

Lets take a look and lets say there are 5,000 LX150s miners out there, and lets say 40% of them run the TML software.  I have a feeling that this number is much lower, but, I don't know for sure. (Anyone have these numbers?)

Assuming trends continue and such to extrapolate this estimate, it would take at least a year to generate 700 BTC in profit from commissions at that rate, not counting the costs of running the "signcryption" servers and other operating expenses (time, effort...).

Now also, lets look at the fact that there are many competing technologies and other factors emerging soon that can potentially (many which absolutely will) impact profitability on a commission based project like this:
  • Reward halving - 100% chance it will happen - Halves potential profit starting sometime in the next two months
  • Competing bitstream - Very very likely - A competing non-commission bitstream which doesn't require the use of proprietary software and servers is released, squashing profit to zero because there is no point in the signcryption overhead
  • ASICs - Semi-likely, first on everyone's mind (Personally dont buy it, but...) - Potentially for significant difficulty increase, ie much less profit
  • DDoS attacks, network problems, etc - Possible - Signcryption becomes unusable by customers for whatever reason, putting their faith in more stable implementations
  • Signcryption hacked - Possible - Lets face it, the LX150 is crammed with just the hashers. Adding any *real* and *strong* encryption just shouldn't be possible with the space constraints. The signcryption is likely a kludge that will be broken given enough effort.  And lets face it, you're not going to win any copyright lawsuits against anonymous hackers.
  • Many more I'm not thinking of at the moment...

So, given all these reasons and more, the logical thing to do would be to accept the bounties and be done with the whole deal while it is on the table, saving over a year of time waiting on commissions under a perfect no problems scenario, which is unlikely.

I can pretty much guarantee that at least one of the above items (including reward halving, which is definite) will happen before you reach 700 BTC in commission profits.

NOW, all of that said, it should be obvious that any sane developer would accept the bounty.  Why would this particular developer potentially not accept this given all of these obstacles?

I can think of a few possible reasons... and I will note that I have not confirmed any of these in any way and they are all simply speculation:

  • The core uses code that would violate copyrights if revealed - This is probably the most likely.  It would also mean that the bitstream is already in violation of that copyright just that no one is able to tell without the source code.
  • The core does things in addition to what is advertised - It is entirely possible (since all work is fed through TMLs servers) that data in addition to work is being sent/received by the core.  It is entirely possible that TML is *already* collecting "commission" on the use of the core and mining software without anyone knowing by sneaking additional work in via the "signcryption" to either another hashing ring or mixing it in with part of the others.  This would be far more profitable than the actual commission structure publicly outlined, and impressive since it would mean that the cores are actually faster than advertised.
  • The signcryption is a kludge - Its possible (and likely) that the actual encryption in the core is very weak. Since hashing at these speeds will take up a good majority of the chip's physical space it would be near impossible to put any strong encryption into the core along with the hashers.  I'm going to say that it is very unlikely that the encryption is implemented as described, "interwoven into the actual hashing core" since modifying the SHA256 approach would be futile, since the core itself needs to know if the hash beats the target difficulty BEFORE it is encrypted in any way.
    In any case, this is likely because releasing this in source code form would hurt reputation, since its not nearly as effective as claimed.
  • Many more, but, lots of speculation here.

Any of the above are possible since this is closed source code that is running on these chips. You literally have NO IDEA what it could be doing.  (I personally will not be running any TML software on my chips/PCs for this reason, not counting the lack of failover/stability).

Now, lets say that that any of the above are true.  Then releasing the code as it stands would be a bad thing for TML.  HOWEVER, aside from the copyright issue, the others could easily be solved by removing useless code.  We don't need to know nor care how the signcryption works.  We don't need to know that there was code in the core designed to shift more hashing power to TML than intented, or any other potentially shady code.  Strip that out, release the code, you get paid, everyone is happy.

So, all in all, there is no legitimate reason I can come up with for the core not to be open sourced if it is in fact legitimate to begin with.  There is far more to gain from the bounty.

I also will put out there that if no other bitstream is released to rival TML soon (next few months, I'd say, tops), I will make it a point to shift efforts into perfecting my personal bitstream and ensure it's release well before TML could make more profit than the offered bounties.

All of that said, I hope people have a better understanding of this entire situation, and I hope that TML will reconsider their stance on declining the offered bounties.

-wk

Tips: 1LDQrLr6dPVqNJmpZm82eZVKqDFRk7ERW8
Operator of the Eligius Mining Pool - 0% Fee, CPPSRB, GBT, Stratum, IRC+Phone Support, Awesome stats, Generation payouts, and more.
Don't feed the trolls. Science Confirms: Internet Trolls Really Are Narcissistic, Psychopathic, and Sadistic (1)
cablepair
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


https://btc-republic.com/index.php?ref=cablepair


View Profile WWW
October 08, 2012, 04:44:14 PM
 #794

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94317.0 <--- that CM1 bounty has already been paid from what I read in the thread

However I am still offering a bounty of 500 BTC

Problem is the clock is ticking on FPGA and if this bounty is not collected soon I am going to withdraw the offer.


BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 06:19:15 PM
 #795


Quote
I can think of a few possible reasons... and I will note that I have not confirmed any of these in any way and they are all simply speculation:

The core uses code that would violate copyrights if revealed - This is probably the most likely.  It would also mean that the bitstream is already in violation of that copyright just that no one is able to tell without the source code.
The core does things in addition to what is advertised - It is entirely possible (since all work is fed through TMLs servers) that data in addition to work is being sent/received by the core.  It is entirely possible that TML is *already* collecting "commission" on the use of the core and mining software without anyone knowing by sneaking additional work in via the "signcryption" to either another hashing ring or mixing it in with part of the others.  This would be far more profitable than the actual commission structure publicly outlined, and impressive since it would mean that the cores are actually faster than advertised.
The signcryption is a kludge - Its possible (and likely) that the actual encryption in the core is very weak. Since hashing at these speeds will take up a good majority of the chip's physical space it would be near impossible to put any strong encryption into the core along with the hashers.  I'm going to say that it is very unlikely that the encryption is implemented as described, "interwoven into the actual hashing core" since modifying the SHA256 approach would be futile, since the core itself needs to know if the hash beats the target difficulty BEFORE it is encrypted in any way.
In any case, this is likely because releasing this in source code form would hurt reputation, since its not nearly as effective as claimed.
Many more, but, lots of speculation here.


if you go with this you shouldn't trust anyone with a bitstream......

Zeronic
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 79



View Profile WWW
October 08, 2012, 07:59:13 PM
 #796

Well at least not a bitstream that can't be check by others.

360GH/s via AntMiner S1
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 08:22:20 PM
 #797

if you go with this you shouldn't trust anyone with a bitstream......
A bitstream that doesn't need to communicate with a third-party server is much more trustworthy than a bitstream where you don't know what exactly is going on because everything is encrypted.

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 08:32:49 PM
 #798

Quote
A bitstream that doesn't need to communicate with a third-party server is much more trustworthy than a bitstream where you don't know what exactly is going on because everything is encrypted.


As if a casual miner knows what is going on "in" a bitstream... Smiley

He did a great job implementing three rings in a x150. He's securing his IP and thats OK.

Why the hell should he open source it? i think thats not the problem at all. Open source software is great but.... there's a flaw with it. Remember there are companies out there with "questionable" Business ethics and standards. They would claim and use his hard work and just use it for their machines without thinking to pay ET for it at all?

If i were him i would do exactly the same Smiley

As for all companies: You have to trust them or just don't use their software ....

ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 10:01:01 PM
 #799

Why the hell should he open source it?
In this case the question is not even if open source is "better" or something like that... The question is what's going to yield maximum profit. He could have made 800 BTC by claiming bounties. wizkid057 already explained why his commission model will not give (nearly) as much.

So tell me, why would YOU prefer less instead of more BTC? Wink

Review of the Spondoolies-Tech SP10 „Dawson“ Bitcoin miner (1.4 TH/s)

[22:35] <Vinnie_win> Did anyone get paid yet? | [22:36] <Isokivi> pirate did!
BR0KK
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
October 08, 2012, 10:45:57 PM
 #800

simply the fact that bfl (or other mining hardware companies...)  wouldn't profit from it.  Smiley

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 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 »
  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!