Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 11:17:18 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Speed up syncing of bitcoin core when the blockchain becomes colossal  (Read 296 times)
jackg (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071


https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 03:15:21 PM
 #1

Something occurred to me a few days ago while I was daydreaming in a lecture, I focused on a slide that said that hardwired hardware is much faster than modifible hardware inside a cpu.

Does this also work with bitcoin?

If there was for example: an asic chip for sha256 and an asic or a cpu core dedicated to the signature validation, a 256Gbyte ram (and any variant upwards) and a hard drive to push everything back onto once the sync was done would this be a possible way for speeding up the initial sync so that only the network becomes the bottleneck or have I missed something?
1711711038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711711038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711711038
Reply with quote  #2

1711711038
Report to moderator
1711711038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711711038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711711038
Reply with quote  #2

1711711038
Report to moderator
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711711038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711711038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711711038
Reply with quote  #2

1711711038
Report to moderator
1711711038
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711711038

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711711038
Reply with quote  #2

1711711038
Report to moderator
Jet Cash
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2432


https://JetCash.com


View Profile WWW
January 29, 2019, 03:23:58 PM
Merited by qwk (1)
 #2

I don't think the hardware is the problem. Given that my netbook is a low spec "celery", and it seems to be quite happy sync'ing, I suspect the problem lies with network connectivity. Give things another few years, and babies will be fitted with blockchain implants shortly after birth.

Offgrid campers allow you to enjoy life and preserve your health and wealth.
Save old Cars - my project to save old cars from scrapage schemes, and to reduce the sale of new cars.
qwk
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3542
Merit: 3410


Shitcoin Minimalist


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 03:34:29 PM
Merited by ABCbits (1)
 #3

Signature validation is only one of a few bottlenecks, and it's unlikely that hardware optimization for that would result in a completely different "user experience".
For a simple user, running a full node and thence requiring both the download and processing of somewhere on the order of 150GB of data ist simply not the best option.
A lightweight SPV-client will usually serve the needs of a regular user best.

Just for reference, a number of bottlenecks to consider:
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2017/03/13/performance-optimizations-1/

Yeah, well, I'm gonna go build my own blockchain. With blackjack and hookers! In fact forget the blockchain.
jackg (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071


https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 03:46:40 PM
 #4

Ah. I think it is more the signature s that take a while to validate then in comparison to the hashes.

I don't think the current main bottle neck jet cash states as the network is the true bottleneck for a private network.
ABCbits
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2828
Merit: 7327



View Profile
January 29, 2019, 06:06:13 PM
Merited by aliashraf (3)
 #5

Storage I/O speed and network connectivity usually are the main bottleneck on most cases. Computational power bottleneck usually only happen on barebone PC (which have few cores and .5-2GB) such as Raspberry Pi, at least on initial sync, not when on full nodes.

Bitcoin core already use multi-core/thread for signature verification anyway & ASIC for hashing or/and signature verification only useful for initial sync as CPU should be good enough. IMO GPGPU / GPU acceleration is better and few core developer suggest it, but no one contribute to do it until now since it was suggested on 2013 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3238.msg1451582#msg1451582)

.
.BLACKJACK ♠ FUN.
█████████
██████████████
████████████
█████████████████
████████████████▄▄
░█████████████▀░▀▀
██████████████████
░██████████████
████████████████
░██████████████
████████████
███████████████░██
██████████
CRYPTO CASINO &
SPORTS BETTING
▄▄███████▄▄
▄███████████████▄
███████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████████████
█████████████████████
███████████████████
▀███████████████▀
█████████
.
hosseinamin
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 25


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 07:03:03 PM
 #6

Storage I/O speed and network connectivity usually are the main bottleneck on most cases. Computational power bottleneck usually only happen on barebone PC (which have few cores and .5-2GB) such as Raspberry Pi, at least on initial sync, not when on full nodes.

Bitcoin core already use multi-core/thread for signature verification anyway & ASIC for hashing or/and signature verification only useful for initial sync as CPU should be good enough. IMO GPGPU / GPU acceleration is better and few core developer suggest it, but no one contribute to do it until now since it was suggested on 2013 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3238.msg1451582#msg1451582)

I agree implementing GPU validation is the cheapest and simplest way to increase validation speed. I have limited experience on writing code for GPU. But I'm interested.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3068



View Profile
January 29, 2019, 07:37:56 PM
Merited by qwk (1)
 #7

Ah. I think it is more the signature s that take a while to validate then in comparison to the hashes.

SHA256 is already accelerated on x86 platforms using SSE4 instructions (since Bitcoin 0.15.0)

Signature verification performance can be improved with batch validation (part of the proposed Schnorr sigs soft fork, hopefully coming this year)

Vires in numeris
jackg (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071


https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 08:42:30 PM
 #8


I agree implementing GPU validation is the cheapest and simplest way to increase validation speed. I have limited experience on writing code for GPU. But I'm interested.

When I run a program on Windows it spossible to run the executable on a gpu. Given Linux has its talents of multitasking I'd have thought it already pushes that sort of process onto a gpu?

@carlton, isn't there something on the Intel instruction set that increases the efficiency of hashing algorithms also. I'm sure someone mentioned that a while back.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3068



View Profile
January 29, 2019, 08:48:19 PM
 #9

isn't there something on the Intel instruction set that increases the efficiency of hashing algorithms also

right, SSE4 (or is it 4.1/2 ?). Bitcoin's been using those instructions for SHA256 on x86 since 0.15.0

Vires in numeris
hosseinamin
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 25


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 09:25:06 PM
 #10


I agree implementing GPU validation is the cheapest and simplest way to increase validation speed. I have limited experience on writing code for GPU. But I'm interested.

When I run a program on Windows it spossible to run the executable on a gpu. Given Linux has its talents of multitasking I'd have thought it already pushes that sort of process onto a gpu?

@carlton, isn't there something on the Intel instruction set that increases the efficiency of hashing algorithms also. I'm sure someone mentioned that a while back.

bitcoin scripting language should get ported to opencl. For it to be able to run on GPU. I'm sure we can find shortcuts to automate most of the process of porting.
hosseinamin
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 25


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 09:32:29 PM
Merited by ABCbits (1)
 #11


I agree implementing GPU validation is the cheapest and simplest way to increase validation speed. I have limited experience on writing code for GPU. But I'm interested.

When I run a program on Windows it spossible to run the executable on a gpu. Given Linux has its talents of multitasking I'd have thought it already pushes that sort of process onto a gpu?

@carlton, isn't there something on the Intel instruction set that increases the efficiency of hashing algorithms also. I'm sure someone mentioned that a while back.

Baking ASICs for validating bitcoin would give the highest efficiency. There are two reason for not doing it.

1. ASIC cannot be changed once it's out there.
2. Cost of manufacturing an ASIC is not realistic at the moment. Also it may raise a security issue.

Instead using small compute units is the perfect solution to scale. It improves efficiency against a CPU core. And it's general purpose computing unit.
Look at the thread i did open. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5103538.0
jackg (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071


https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 09:51:24 PM
 #12

Chips are cheap for one.

Quote

Or we can offer our Clarke ASIC chip 90 GH/s, 75mJ/GH at USD 3.50 per chip.


I made an enquiry as to the price of a bit fury chip. A while ago.

So 90GHs is more than enough.
A block has about 4000 transactions when full.
2 hashes per transaction is 8000.
Then 8000+4000+2000+1000+500+250+125...= <16000
If we don't do any validation of signatures, it becomes 5.6M blocks per second.
hosseinamin
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 25


View Profile
January 29, 2019, 09:54:03 PM
 #13

Chips are cheap for one.

Quote

Or we can offer our Clarke ASIC chip 90 GH/s, 75mJ/GH at USD 3.50 per chip.


I made an enquiry as to the price of a bit fury chip. A while ago.



That's mining chip. ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit). It's only for mining. Doing it for validation needs alot more capital. Some estimated about 100mUSD.
Subspace_Labs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3
Merit: 2


View Profile
March 13, 2019, 04:16:24 PM
 #14

I don't think the hardware is the problem. Given that my netbook is a low spec "celery", and it seems to be quite happy sync'ing, I suspect the problem lies with network connectivity. Give things another few years, and babies will be fitted with blockchain implants shortly after birth.

This is not necessarily true. It's possible to have a hardware configuration that is the bottleneck. This is especially true when running Raspberry Pi or similar. Also, slow USB drives can become the bottleneck as well. Most modern desktops and laptops won't run into this though.

EDIT: To answer OPs original question. Yes, I'm pretty sure dedicated chips could speed things up but as another poster said, the initial investment would be large. Also, they would only be useful on initial sync, they wouldn't really be necessary after that.
jackg (OP)
Copper Member
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2856
Merit: 3071


https://bit.ly/387FXHi lightning theory


View Profile
March 13, 2019, 04:26:44 PM
 #15

I don't think the hardware is the problem. Given that my netbook is a low spec "celery", and it seems to be quite happy sync'ing, I suspect the problem lies with network connectivity. Give things another few years, and babies will be fitted with blockchain implants shortly after birth.

This is not necessarily true. It's possible to have a hardware configuration that is the bottleneck. This is especially true when running Raspberry Pi or similar. Also, slow USB drives can become the bottleneck as well. Most modern desktops and laptops won't run into this though.

EDIT: To answer OPs original question. Yes, I'm pretty sure dedicated chips could speed things up but as another poster said, the initial investment would be large. Also, they would only be useful on initial sync, they wouldn't really be necessary after that.

It's $3 a chip. I probably eat that in 12 hours ($3), not something completely rediculous.

I tried running core on a USB external hard drive and it was definitely a lot slower than running it straight off the machine. (although we need an ecdsa chip for stuff to get really ramped up Cheesy).
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!