[BCN] Uncovering CryptoNote technology and Bytecoin BCN FAQ

[tromp]

1) Cache sizes slowly grow over time (Moore's law). Currently, high-end x86 has 2.5MB / core.
   The proof-of-work should use as much of this as possible.
   You want each core running its own instance while fully utilizing its cache.
   Ideally, the dynamic difficulty adjustment should be able to increase the memory requirement,
   so as to keep up with hardware improvements.

It's interesting though. RAM is not that much slower than L3 cache,^* and in fact this algorithm runs faster with two instances per core (with hyperthreading), suggesting that cache doesn't really matter here.

^* RAM = 60 cycles, L3 unshared - 40 cycles. See page 22 at https://software.intel.com/sites/products/collateral/hpc/vtune/performance_analysis_guide.pdf

Thanks for the reference. That's a much smaller difference than I thought.

I just ran some tests with the simple cuckoo miner, and here's how the runtime scales with memory
on a Xeon with a total of 12MB L3 cache:

1M    0.075s
2M    0.15s
4M    0.32s
8M    0.7s
16M  1.9s
32M  5.5s
64M  13.7s
128M 31s

So we do see an extra slowdown when it crosses the L3 cache size, but it's indeed not very dramatic.

This suggests that a memory-bound proof-of-work should just try to use as much memory as possiible
to frustrate GPUs/ASICs rather than try to optimize for L3 cache size.

[imready2rock]

1) Cache sizes slowly grow over time (Moore's law). Currently, high-end x86 has 2.5MB / core.
   The proof-of-work should use as much of this as possible.
   You want each core running its own instance while fully utilizing its cache.
   Ideally, the dynamic difficulty adjustment should be able to increase the memory requirement,
   so as to keep up with hardware improvements.

It's interesting though. RAM is not that much slower than L3 cache,^* and in fact this algorithm runs faster with two instances per core (with hyperthreading), suggesting that cache doesn't really matter here.

^* RAM = 60 cycles, L3 unshared - 40 cycles. See page 22 at https://software.intel.com/sites/products/collateral/hpc/vtune/performance_analysis_guide.pdf

Thanks for the reference. That's a much smaller difference than I thought.

I just ran some tests with the simple cuckoo miner, and here's how the runtime scales with memory
on a Xeon with a total of 12MB L3 cache:

1M    0.075s
2M    0.15s
4M    0.32s
8M    0.7s
16M  1.9s
32M  5.5s
64M  13.7s
128M 31s

So we do see an extra slowdown when it crosses the L3 cache size, but it's indeed not very dramatic.

This suggests that a memory-bound proof-of-work should just try to use as much memory as possiible
to frustrate GPUs/ASICs rather than try to optimize of L3 cache size.

Can you sum up for not_so_smart people? Is Bytecoin super ASIC proof or ?

[creamynebula]

1) Cache sizes slowly grow over time (Moore's law). Currently, high-end x86 has 2.5MB / core.
   The proof-of-work should use as much of this as possible.
   You want each core running its own instance while fully utilizing its cache.
   Ideally, the dynamic difficulty adjustment should be able to increase the memory requirement,
   so as to keep up with hardware improvements.

It's interesting though. RAM is not that much slower than L3 cache,^* and in fact this algorithm runs faster with two instances per core (with hyperthreading), suggesting that cache doesn't really matter here.

^* RAM = 60 cycles, L3 unshared - 40 cycles. See page 22 at https://software.intel.com/sites/products/collateral/hpc/vtune/performance_analysis_guide.pdf

Thanks for the reference. That's a much smaller difference than I thought.

I just ran some tests with the simple cuckoo miner, and here's how the runtime scales with memory
on a Xeon with a total of 12MB L3 cache:

1M    0.075s
2M    0.15s
4M    0.32s
8M    0.7s
16M  1.9s
32M  5.5s
64M  13.7s
128M 31s

So we do see an extra slowdown when it crosses the L3 cache size, but it's indeed not very dramatic.

This suggests that a memory-bound proof-of-work should just try to use as much memory as possiible
to frustrate GPUs/ASICs rather than try to optimize of L3 cache size.

Can you sum up for not_so_smart people? Is Bytecoin super ASIC proof or ?

I'm not an expert either, but his main explanation was in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557322.msg6249426#msg6249426
and it indicates that it is harder/more expensive to implement ASIC for bytecoin pow than it was for Scrypt, and it also indicates that the ratio of how much more efficient it would be to GPU/ASIC mine it (after such things are developed) instead of CPU will also be smaller in relation to the Scrypt case.

[tromp]

Can you sum up for not_so_smart people? Is Bytecoin super ASIC proof or ?

We can only talk about ASIC resistance.

To be "ASIC-proof" would mean that no ASIC implementation is possible,
because the algorithm requires way more memory than can fit on an ASIC
in the foreseeable future. Even then, an ASIC solution is possible, but it
just wouldn't be self-contained and still need to be hooked up to some DIMMs.

So I would say Bytecoin is ASIC-resistant, and significantly more so than scrypt.

I'm not a big fan of the word super, which gets abused alot.
Like all these hash-mish-mash algorithms being called "super-secure".
That's just "super-laughable"...

[Christopher RF]

Good reasons. I agree.
I personally prefer Hy-quolity products whoever developed by.

Fame can execute several tasks but it's just a tool nevertheless.

[sorryforthat]

And here I am again, confused. Another bot?

Most likely a bad translation.

bra with detectors of affection

I do think this is the best Idea I have seen on the site

[Rias]

I've posted updates on puzzles, CryptoNight, and community opportunities posted at CN forum.

Guys, what would you like to see covered in this FAQ? I'm quite stuck at the moment.

[DStrange]

I've posted updates on puzzles, CryptoNight, and community opportunities posted at CN forum.

Guys, what would you like to see covered in this FAQ? I'm quite stuck at the moment.

I think you may add devs' emails (bytecoin@mail.org and contact@cryptonote.org)

[ndonnard]

Good reasons. I agree.
I personally prefer Hy-quolity products whoever developed by.

Fame can execute several tasks but it's just a tool nevertheless.

Good reasons. I agree.
I personally prefer Hy-quolity products whoever developed by.
Fame can execute several tasks but it's just a tool nevertheless.
Our conversation as not such invention like bra with detectors of affection, it's about new currency. Cheap boom is unnecessarily thing for this. 

Weird! Is it any marketing technology making clones?

[Wanesst]

Good reasons. I agree.
I personally prefer Hy-quolity products whoever developed by.

Fame can execute several tasks but it's just a tool nevertheless.

It looks very strange really!

[Wanesst]

I've posted updates on puzzles, CryptoNight, and community opportunities posted at CN forum.

Guys, what would you like to see covered in this FAQ? I'm quite stuck at the moment.

I think you can add:

* the info about GPU / ASIC resistance, high-level API (for BCN) and another features

* this links (official bitcoin wiki):

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNote
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/CryptoNight
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bytecoin

* the first BCN-fork which was named BitMonero there is link to thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821

[Rias]

I forgot about Bitmonero, added it to the FAQ. Thanks!

[sorryforthat]

I forgot about Bitmonero, added it to the FAQ. Thanks!

Please dont support this coin. It is a rushed fork that will hinder Cryptonote. It could have made severe improvements but I will stand by my thought of this being something to turn a quick buck. People will outlash and disagree because they get to participate in its release and are harboring the same ideal.

[tacotime]

I forgot about Bitmonero, added it to the FAQ. Thanks!

Please dont support this coin. It is a rushed fork that will hinder Cryptonote. It could have made severe improvements but I will stand by my thought of this being something to turn a quick buck. People will outlash and disagree because they get to participate in its release and are harboring the same ideal.

what would your severe improvements have been?

[Naka]

I forgot about Bitmonero, added it to the FAQ. Thanks!

Please dont support this coin. It is a rushed fork that will hinder Cryptonote. It could have made severe improvements but I will stand by my thought of this being something to turn a quick buck. People will outlash and disagree because they get to participate in its release and are harboring the same ideal.

Despite mining, I agree.
I'd like to see the ByteCoin developers make a fork that hasn't been kept secret, them being a team that has shown worthy of creating and maintaining a coin.

I forgot about Bitmonero, added it to the FAQ. Thanks!

Please dont support this coin. It is a rushed fork that will hinder Cryptonote. It could have made severe improvements but I will stand by my thought of this being something to turn a quick buck. People will outlash and disagree because they get to participate in its release and are harboring the same ideal.

what would your severe improvements have been?

Are you kidding?

[tacotime]

Are you kidding?

No.  Why do you think LiteCoin won out against all the other alts?  Minor changes to the Bitcoin protocol, which works.  ByteCoin created their own protocol and assumably knows what they were doing, what within it have you decided needs messing with?

[Naka]

Are you kidding?

No.  Why do you think LiteCoin won out against all the other alts?  Minor changes to the Bitcoin protocol, which works.  ByteCoin created their own protocol and assumably knows what they were doing, what within it have you decided needs messing with?

Oh, so you are kidding, kidding about overlooking the GUI, ease-of-use, rate of block-chain synchronization, Linux binaries, and so on. Funny man.

No, LiteCoin wasn't a winner because of "minor changes", it was a winner because of scrypt, a relatively major change compared to Bitmonoronorono, along with the fact that "altcoin" was a practically a new concept. And, don't forget booming popularity causing an influx of new users wanting a piece of the cake on an already proven, mostly stable platform. Unlike Bytecoin, Bitcoin is actually big and can take a hit.

[tacotime]

Oh, so you are kidding, kidding about overlooking the GUI, ease-of-use, rate of block-chain synchronization, Linux binaries, and so on. Funny man.

No, LiteCoin wasn't a winner because of "minor changes", it was a winner because of scrypt, a relatively major change compared to Bitmonoronorono, along with the fact that "altcoin" was a practically a new concept. And, don't forget booming popularity causing an influx of new users wanting a piece of the cake on an already proven, mostly stable platform. Unlike Bytecoin, Bitcoin is actually big and can take a hit.

It's as simple as installing Ubuntu 13.10, extracting a zip to a folder, and typing "make" into a terminal.  It's literally that easy.  Then you run the daemon and the wallet and type "start_mining".  How could it be any easier?

There's instructions for Windows too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=544715

Litecoin was a simple fork of Tenebrix with 4x Bitcoin parameters.  Tenebrix introduced scrypt.  Coblee made Litecoin in three hours (I would know, I talked to him at the conference last week).

When Litecoin came out, alt coins were not a new concept -- there were plenty of scam/useless coins (SolidCoin, Tenebrix, Ixcoin, I0coin) then too.

[Naka]

Oh, so you are kidding, kidding about overlooking the GUI, ease-of-use, rate of block-chain synchronization, Linux binaries, and so on. Funny man.

No, LiteCoin wasn't a winner because of "minor changes", it was a winner because of scrypt, a relatively major change compared to Bitmonoronorono, along with the fact that "altcoin" was a practically a new concept. And, don't forget booming popularity causing an influx of new users wanting a piece of the cake on an already proven, mostly stable platform. Unlike Bytecoin, Bitcoin is actually big and can take a hit.

It's as simple as installing Ubuntu 13.10, extracting a zip to a folder, and typing "make" into a terminal.  It's literally that easy.  Then you run the daemon and the wallet and type "start_mining".  How could it be any easier?

There's instructions for Windows too: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=544715

Litecoin was a simple fork of Tenebrix with 4x Bitcoin parameters.  Tenebrix introduced scrypt.  Coblee made Litecoin in three hours (I would know, I talked to him at the conference last week).

When Litecoin came out, alt coins were not a new concept -- there were plenty of scam/useless coins (SolidCoin, Tenebrix, Ixcoin, I0coin) then too.

About the binaries, you forgot "install dev packages", but yes it's easy. Is it Necessary? Nah. My issue regarding this is that the release isn't very polished.

As for altcoins, no, it wasn't a "new" concept, but it practically was. Tenebrix came afterwards. Solidcoin was a scam and I0Coin, Ixcoin and Litecoin all came out within a month of each other.

Scrypt and litecoin was indeed simple, but it was still major in comparison to this, it stood well resisting ASICs, and for a while, GPUs.
I'd just like to see things mature a bit first, the BCN blockchain's already 2 years old, it can wait another few months. To each his own, though.

[tacotime]

No, it wasn't a new concept, but it practically was. Tenebrix came afterwards. Solidcoin was a scam and I0Coin, Ixcoin and Litecoin all came out within a month of each other.

No
Tenebrix launch: September 26, 2011, 12:09:44 AM
Litecoin launch: Thursday Oct 13 2011, 03:00 GMT