Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 06:44:52 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 109634 times)
RicRock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 288



View Profile
October 17, 2012, 07:50:17 PM
 #821

Is interesting, with such imperfect information, that angry mob assumes 700btc (7700 dollars?) is adequate compensation for Dr. Tyrell's time and creation. 
Well, 700 BTC may not be adequate, but it's more than getting almost nothing from commissions. (Are commissions actually enabled currently?)

+1
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481395492
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481395492

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481395492
Reply with quote  #2

1481395492
Report to moderator
Borzoi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
October 17, 2012, 09:51:07 PM
 #822

Is interesting, with such imperfect information, that angry mob assumes 700btc (7700 dollars?) is adequate compensation for Dr. Tyrell's time and creation.  
Well, 700 BTC may not be adequate, but it's more than getting almost nothing from commissions. (Are commissions actually enabled currently?)

Do you know what's not adequate for sure? Calling us "mob". Looking at your signature it seems like you need to brag about things - just FYI, I'm currently making a master degree in physics.

I am not good at discerning some humor in English, so I do not know if you are making joke about bragging.  My joking is my drop-out of law school.  Point is, don't take self so seriously.  If you are not joke, then apologies for confusing you.

The imperfect information is exactly and precisely demonstrated by primary statement.  Is commission Dr. Tyrell's means of making money from bitstream?  That is big assumption.  We know he is working on project, and he has said he devotes time to project at expense of miner.  If project uses bitstream IP and makes more than 700btc, then no point to open source at this time.

At least two sides to every issue.  I am trying to think of Dr. Tyrell's motivation for not release open source.  Seems most obvious case.

I claim mob because much anger directed by many people who have no claim to Dr. Tyrell.  Other word better, is fine.  It is appropriate to my eyes.

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
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1170


View Profile
October 17, 2012, 10:13:47 PM
 #823

Is interesting, with such imperfect information, that angry mob assumes 700btc (7700 dollars?) is adequate compensation for Dr. Tyrell's time and creation.  
Well, 700 BTC may not be adequate, but it's more than getting almost nothing from commissions. (Are commissions actually enabled currently?)

Do you know what's not adequate for sure? Calling us "mob". Looking at your signature it seems like you need to brag about things - just FYI, I'm currently making a master degree in physics.

I am not good at discerning some humor in English, so I do not know if you are making joke about bragging.  My joking is my drop-out of law school.  Point is, don't take self so seriously.  If you are not joke, then apologies for confusing you.

The imperfect information is exactly and precisely demonstrated by primary statement.  Is commission Dr. Tyrell's means of making money from bitstream?  That is big assumption.  We know he is working on project, and he has said he devotes time to project at expense of miner.  If project uses bitstream IP and makes more than 700btc, then no point to open source at this time.

At least two sides to every issue.  I am trying to think of Dr. Tyrell's motivation for not release open source.  Seems most obvious case.

I claim mob because much anger directed by many people who have no claim to Dr. Tyrell.  Other word better, is fine.  It is appropriate to my eyes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie.  700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.

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)
Borzoi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
October 17, 2012, 10:16:46 PM
 #824

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie.  700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.

Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission.

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
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1170


View Profile
October 17, 2012, 10:21:31 PM
 #825

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie.  700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.

Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission.

This is exactly what I've been saying.  The only reasons, that make any sense, to turn down such an obvious route to profit would be if there were either a) more profit to be made from shady code running on the device, or b) the code running on the device is in some way illegal to use or release in the first place.

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)
Borzoi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
October 17, 2012, 10:27:42 PM
 #826

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie.  700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.

Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission.

This is exactly what I've been saying.  The only reasons, that make any sense, to turn down such an obvious route to profit would be if there were either a) more profit to be made from shady code running on the device, or b) the code running on the device is in some way illegal to use or release in the first place.

Does not have to be illegal or shady.  Could be ASIC of his own.  If I can afford ASIC run, he can, especially if he has mined many bitcoins with improved bitstreams.  Could also have access to better FPGAs with more gates that better to suit algorithmic approach.

Think if BFL mined instead of selling.

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
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
October 17, 2012, 10:29:26 PM
 #827

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie.  700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.

Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission.

This is exactly what I've been saying.  The only reasons, that make any sense, to turn down such an obvious route to profit would be if there were either a) more profit to be made from shady code running on the device, or b) the code running on the device is in some way illegal to use or release in the first place.
or c) He feels the IP has value outside just the amount of commission he might make, and he might want to leverage it for something else.


Just because MS isn't selling Windows XP anymore doesn't mean they're going to GPL the source if you cut them a cheque for a couple thousand bucks.
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1170


View Profile
October 17, 2012, 10:41:33 PM
 #828

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the math on this one doesn't lie.  700 BTC > All Possible commission profit.

Then must be some reason for not releasing that has nothing to do with commission.

This is exactly what I've been saying.  The only reasons, that make any sense, to turn down such an obvious route to profit would be if there were either a) more profit to be made from shady code running on the device, or b) the code running on the device is in some way illegal to use or release in the first place.

Does not have to be illegal or shady.  Could be ASIC of his own.  If I can afford ASIC run, he can, especially if he has mined many bitcoins with improved bitstreams.  Could also have access to better FPGAs with more gates that better to suit algorithmic approach.

Think if BFL mined instead of selling.

First, none of this has anything to do with opensourcing the bitstreams or not.  Regardless of how much hardware he has personally, this wouldn't change either way.  I fail to see how this is relevant.

Second, BFL does mine on unsold hardware prior to shipping to customers, and also if they didn't sell hardware they wouldn't have the money from poor pre-order fools to make any hardware to mine with themselves.



or c) He feels the IP has value outside just the amount of commission he might make, and he might want to leverage it for something else.

Just because MS isn't selling Windows XP anymore doesn't mean they're going to GPL the source if you cut them a cheque for a couple thousand bucks.

That's the problem though. This particular IP's purpose is to generate profit directly.  Therefore, the IP actually doesn't have any other value outside the amount of commission he would make with it unless it is sold entirely, such as through the bounties offered.  That's the point.  The only way it would have an increased value to the creator is if it is somehow generating more profit than we're led to believe.  Regardless of how someone may feel about their IP, it's worthless if in the end there is little to nothing to show for it.

You can't compare Windows XP to this bitstream.  Windows XP was successfully sold to millions at a profit already, and XP licenses are still valid.  Windows XP has turned a profit for MS, so, they have no reason to accept a "couple thousand bucks" to open source it.  The difference here is, assuming this bitstream legitimately does what we're told as advertised and nothing more, then the creator has not profited from it and will not profit from it more than the value of the up front bounties offered to simply release it in source form.

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)
Borzoi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
October 17, 2012, 11:23:29 PM
 #829

First, none of this has anything to do with opensourcing the bitstreams or not.  Regardless of how much hardware he has personally, this wouldn't change either way.  I fail to see how this is relevant.

Quote

or c) He feels the IP has value outside just the amount of commission he might make, and he might want to leverage it for something else.

Just because MS isn't selling Windows XP anymore doesn't mean they're going to GPL the source if you cut them a cheque for a couple thousand bucks.

That's the problem though. This particular IP's purpose is to generate profit directly.  Therefore, the IP actually doesn't have any other value outside the amount of commission he would make with it unless it is sold entirely, such as through the bounties offered.  That's the point.  The only way it would have an increased value to the creator is if it is somehow generating more profit than we're led to believe.  Regardless of how someone may feel about their IP, it's worthless if in the end there is little to nothing to show for it.

You can't compare Windows XP to this bitstream.  Windows XP was successfully sold to millions at a profit already, and XP licenses are still valid.  Windows XP has turned a profit for MS, so, they have no reason to accept a "couple thousand bucks" to open source it.  The difference here is, assuming this bitstream legitimately does what we're told as advertised and nothing more, then the creator has not profited from it and will not profit from it more than the value of the up front bounties offered to simply release it in source form.

I try one more time.

Imagine Dr. Tyrell has invented new shovel design.  It can move more dirt than every other shovel and is ergonomic so user can work all day.

If he sells Stakhanov Shovel as design for $7700, that is all he makes.

If he rents shovels for percentage of improved dirt moved, he makes x dollars minus cost of production and maintenance (signcryption services).

If he hires 500 people and gives them shovels to mine own land, he makes full profits of improved output, minus cost of production and maintenance of shovels and cost of labor and land use.

Math homework for you.  How much rental makes him 700btc?  How much makes for him 700btc for custom hardware he keep private?

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
ShadesOfMarble
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 543



View Profile
October 17, 2012, 11:27:44 PM
 #830

Math homework for you.  How much rental makes him 700btc?  How much makes for him 700btc for custom hardware he keep private?
Good read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49971.msg1253774#msg1253774

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!
Borzoi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
October 17, 2012, 11:31:38 PM
 #831

Math homework for you.  How much rental makes him 700btc?  How much makes for him 700btc for custom hardware he keep private?
Good read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=49971.msg1253774#msg1253774
Excellent!  I pay price for not reading all of thread.  I will review now.

EDIT: After review, if take 5000 eligible units and increase throughput from 210 to 255 mhash/sec, will generate almost 74btc extra per day at current difficulty.  If take all extra, exceed 700btc in less than ten days.  With real commission, inverse ratio for break-even.  19 days for 50%, 38 days for 25%, and so on.

5000 units is 1250 4-chip boards.  That is acceptable estimate.

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
Keninishna
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 551



View Profile WWW
October 17, 2012, 11:45:05 PM
 #832

In psychology the more you argue with someone the more energy they are going to put to defend their position. I believe people have put lots of energy in asking ET to release his bitstream and he has said no, he's probably not releasing it just simply because he doesn't want to change his position on open sourcing it. People are irrational beings.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
October 18, 2012, 12:59:19 AM
 #833

This is the double compression fallacy.  The only way this works is by my servers doing part of the hashing work, in which case… what the heck is the point?

First, this isn't a compression fallacy.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

I'm not going to write a post explaining the double compression fallacy to you.


You have the bulk of the data already (the work)

Nonces-which-are-shares are statistically random and therefore incompressible.  Every possible 32-bit integer is equally likely to be the solution to a randomly chosen piece of work.  You're trying to claim that knowing which piece of work it solves somehow effortlessly adds information.  It doesn't.

Given a nonce-to-be-transmitted, the Shannon entropy of the additional foreknowledge of the work which it solves is exactly zero bits unless you actually do the work -- subject to the assumption that SHA-256 is a one-way hash function.  So the only way this is not double compression is if you've somehow found a way to invert SHA-256 and it isn't a one-way hash function anymore.  If you have figured this out, you shouldn't be wasting your time here on the forum -- you should be coding up that inversion function, mining 99% of the bitcoins, and rolling in piles of money.

Call me when you're rolling in piles of money.

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 18, 2012, 01:03:54 AM
 #834

Well, 700 BTC may not be adequate, but it's more than getting almost nothing from commissions.

I am really tired of responding to this, so this is the last time.  Please see The Ultimatum Game.

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 18, 2012, 01:06:04 AM
 #835

My Radeon GPUs can be locked down nicely inside KVM. Wink
And you've audited the KVM firmware?

That would be the more appropriate analogy.
KVM is open source software.

And your hard drive's firmware?

*crickets*

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.
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 01:58:39 AM
 #836

I've found a good link that will help to understand curious people why eldentyrell is unwilling to open source his Xilinx toolchain.

First, you have to really notice the world "algorihmically placed" in the title of this thread. It means that he had developed his own tool to do placing of the primitives and uses the ISE only for routing and the following stages of bitstream generation.

Second, the source form that enters the Xilinx ISE tool chain is in his case XDL, not VHDL or Verilog. XDL is the textual version of the NCD (Native Circuit Description) format used internally by the Xilinx toolchain. Try running the "xdl" tool on any .ncd file from any other open-sourced Xilinx project to understand that this format can hardly be called human-readable.

Here is the link to a very good 8-page document explaing what is XDL and why to use it:

http://www.mn.uio.no/ifi/english/research/projects/cosrecos/publications/paper/recosoc11beckhoff.pdf

I would venture to guess that the total value of the "algorithmic placer" replacement tool for the ISE toolchain greatly exceeds the BTC sums mentioned in this thread. It is quite possible that even the documentation for it (if it exists at all) would be considered extremely valuable and could be used to redevelop the actual custom placer tool for cheaper than it took to develop it originally.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
kano
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
October 18, 2012, 02:42:26 AM
 #837

This is the double compression fallacy.  The only way this works is by my servers doing part of the hashing work, in which case… what the heck is the point?

First, this isn't a compression fallacy.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

I'm not going to write a post explaining the double compression fallacy to you.


You have the bulk of the data already (the work)

Nonces-which-are-shares are statistically random and therefore incompressible.  Every possible 32-bit integer is equally likely to be the solution to a randomly chosen piece of work.  You're trying to claim that knowing which piece of work it solves somehow effortlessly adds information.  It doesn't.

Given a nonce-to-be-transmitted, the Shannon entropy of the additional foreknowledge of the work which it solves is exactly zero bits unless you actually do the work -- subject to the assumption that SHA-256 is a one-way hash function.  So the only way this is not double compression is if you've somehow found a way to invert SHA-256 and it isn't a one-way hash function anymore.  If you have figured this out, you shouldn't be wasting your time here on the forum -- you should be coding up that inversion function, mining 99% of the bitcoins, and rolling in piles of money.

Call me when you're rolling in piles of money.

Hmm - so since there seems to be an interesting discussion going on here - I thought I'd add into it Smiley

Firstly, yep the amount of money made from this would probably be pretty small ... but that's not my point of interest Smiley

ET is using Luke-jr's game of word play correctly saying that it is a double compression fallacy

'Compressing' 2 nonces into a single one is quite simple taking the stance of having the server do the missing work that wasn't sent back - so it isn't compressing, but rather working around losing half the data.

When you hash a block header you simply roll the nonce value from 0 to ~4billion (32 bits 2^32) and from that you know which nonce value you want - which clearly EVERYONE knows ...

So e.g. putting 2 half nonces into a full nonce, then having to regenerate the missing half of each nonce (65536 hashes x two) is really something quite simple for any CPU to do - since it is 32768 time faster for the CPU to do both, than having to work out the full nonce for one of them from scratch
As long as the server's hash rate is at worst 32768 times smaller than the network hash rate sending data to it, the servers can handle that.
So if a server can hash at 20Mh/s then it can handle 650GH/s of incoming half missing nonce data.

So ... I don't see the flaw in this concept (other than if you are totally fixated on money) and the fact that it isn't 'compression' - it's simply throwing away data that can be regenerated within an allowable short amount of time.

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
Borzoi
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 54



View Profile
October 18, 2012, 04:49:09 AM
 #838

So ... I don't see the flaw in this concept (other than if you are totally fixated on money) and the fact that it isn't 'compression' - it's simply throwing away data that can be regenerated within an allowable short amount of time.

 Grin Grin

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 19, 2012, 08:52:18 AM
 #839

I have a partially-completed but non-working driver written by ChrisP.  If they want that code as a starting point I'll send it to them.  ChrisP has not responded to my emails for more than two weeks now, so my offer to share commissions -- which was clearly and explicitly conditional on his code working -- does not apply yet, although I hasten to add that if he reappears and finishes the job I'll be happy to reinstate it.  If we wind up with some solution that is a hybrid of his code and somebody else's I'll figure out some commission-sharing arrangement based on how much work it took to finish the job.

From what I remember the reason chrisp stopped development was because the DCM was failing to lock which is an inherent hardware flaw and the current working enterpoint bitstreams either implement another clock source or a watchdog.


Unfortunately I have not been able to get ChrisP's code working.  It finds the FTDI chip and thinks it is shifting the JTAG chain, but what comes out is all 1's.  There could be a variety of reasons for this; it's not actually shifting the chain, it's not reading the output correctly, etc.

I have only remote access to the Enterpoint board (and no, I don't want one, so please don't offer to send me one), so I can't do stuff like flip DIP switches or put a voltmeter on key signals.  It's a bit like stumbling around in the dark.

Also unfortunately, the time I'm able to devote to this comes only in small, short bursts.  It may be a few weeks before I am able to try again.  Hopefully ChrisP re-emerges before then.

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.
wizkid057
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1170


View Profile
October 19, 2012, 07:09:07 PM
 #840

This is the double compression fallacy.  The only way this works is by my servers doing part of the hashing work, in which case… what the heck is the point?

First, this isn't a compression fallacy.

Yes, that's exactly what it is.

I'm not going to write a post explaining the double compression fallacy to you.


You have the bulk of the data already (the work)

Nonces-which-are-shares are statistically random and therefore incompressible.  Every possible 32-bit integer is equally likely to be the solution to a randomly chosen piece of work.  You're trying to claim that knowing which piece of work it solves somehow effortlessly adds information.  It doesn't.

Given a nonce-to-be-transmitted, the Shannon entropy of the additional foreknowledge of the work which it solves is exactly zero bits unless you actually do the work -- subject to the assumption that SHA-256 is a one-way hash function.  So the only way this is not double compression is if you've somehow found a way to invert SHA-256 and it isn't a one-way hash function anymore.  If you have figured this out, you shouldn't be wasting your time here on the forum -- you should be coding up that inversion function, mining 99% of the bitcoins, and rolling in piles of money.

Call me when you're rolling in piles of money.

Hmm - so since there seems to be an interesting discussion going on here - I thought I'd add into it Smiley

Firstly, yep the amount of money made from this would probably be pretty small ... but that's not my point of interest Smiley

ET is using Luke-jr's game of word play correctly saying that it is a double compression fallacy

'Compressing' 2 nonces into a single one is quite simple taking the stance of having the server do the missing work that wasn't sent back - so it isn't compressing, but rather working around losing half the data.

When you hash a block header you simply roll the nonce value from 0 to ~4billion (32 bits 2^32) and from that you know which nonce value you want - which clearly EVERYONE knows ...

So e.g. putting 2 half nonces into a full nonce, then having to regenerate the missing half of each nonce (65536 hashes x two) is really something quite simple for any CPU to do - since it is 32768 time faster for the CPU to do both, than having to work out the full nonce for one of them from scratch
As long as the server's hash rate is at worst 32768 times smaller than the network hash rate sending data to it, the servers can handle that.
So if a server can hash at 20Mh/s then it can handle 650GH/s of incoming half missing nonce data.

So ... I don't see the flaw in this concept (other than if you are totally fixated on money) and the fact that it isn't 'compression' - it's simply throwing away data that can be regenerated within an allowable short amount of time.

At least someone understands what the hell I'm talking about. Thanks. Cheesy

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)
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!