Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 09:38:15 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]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Offline mining?  (Read 11972 times)
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
January 03, 2012, 09:48:20 PM
 #41


Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig

From what I was told, the machines I am interested in using are often used for sha256 hashing.
Unless they have GPU's, it doesn't really matter.  P4man is right - you'll get hashes on the order of GH/s, not TH/s.  They may often be used for sha256 hashing, but 12 GH/s is quite enough for most sha256 hashing needs.  It's just not a whole lot when used for Bitcoin mining.

But good luck.  I only hope you DON'T have 2 TH/s, because I would hate to see my own miniscule mining profits drop by 20% overnight.  Do tell us whether it works out for you though.
1481319495
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319495

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319495
Reply with quote  #2

1481319495
Report to moderator
1481319495
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319495

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319495
Reply with quote  #2

1481319495
Report to moderator
1481319495
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319495

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319495
Reply with quote  #2

1481319495
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481319495
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319495

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319495
Reply with quote  #2

1481319495
Report to moderator
1481319495
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319495

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319495
Reply with quote  #2

1481319495
Report to moderator
1481319495
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319495

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319495
Reply with quote  #2

1481319495
Report to moderator
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792



View Profile
January 03, 2012, 09:49:53 PM
 #42


Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig

From what I was told, the machines I am interested in using are often used for sha256 hashing.
Unless they have GPU's, it doesn't really matter.  P4man is right - you'll get hashes on the order of GH/s, not TH/s.  They may often be used for sha256 hashing, but 12 GH/s is quite enough for most sha256 hashing needs.  It's just not a whole lot when used for Bitcoin mining.

But good luck.  I only hope you DON'T have 2 TH/s, because I would hate to see my own miniscule mining profits drop by 20% overnight.  Do tell us whether it works out for you though.

No prob.  I should be meeting with some colleagues to discuss everything this weekend.

DeathAndTaxes
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Gerald Davis


View Profile
January 03, 2012, 10:38:16 PM
 #43


Yes.  I am not sure of the exact computational power of the machines I am interested in using.  It actually may be a very poor estimation because I am guessing based on petaflop output which, to my knowledge, is more or less irrational.

Regardless, it's a shit-ton of power.

FLOPs are floating point operations. If you can get access to a supercomputer thats any good at flops, it will almost certainly stink when it comes to sha256 hashing (integer). A typical TOP500 supercomputer may have trouble delivering higher hashrates than your typical 3x dual GPU mining rig

From what I was told, the machines I am interested in using are often used for sha256 hashing.
Unless they have GPU's, it doesn't really matter.  P4man is right - you'll get hashes on the order of GH/s, not TH/s.  They may often be used for sha256 hashing, but 12 GH/s is quite enough for most sha256 hashing needs.  It's just not a whole lot when used for Bitcoin mining.

But good luck.  I only hope you DON'T have 2 TH/s, because I would hate to see my own miniscule mining profits drop by 20% overnight.  Do tell us whether it works out for you though.

Exactly.  Outside of Bitcoin nothing needs to perform trillions of hashes per second.

1 GH = 2 billion hashes per second (Bitcoin is a double hash).  

Say you have a login server w/ passwords hashed as SHA-256.  Now everyone on the planet needs to login and they might all login at the same exact second.  Assuming you had fast enough disks, network, memory, etc you would "only" need roughly 4 GH to allow global simultaneous login of every human living (including those without computers or electricity "just in case").

That's just 4 GH.  Terra hash would be 250 times that.

I won't do the math but the same terra-scale factors apply to VPN/IPsec, digital signatures, document analysis, data sorting, deduplication, and other applications for hashing functions.
gat3way
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 256


View Profile
January 04, 2012, 11:56:48 AM
 #44

Quote
Exactly.  Outside of Bitcoin nothing needs to perform trillions of hashes per second.

Password recovery and SL3 unlocking for sure does. Actually I would not be surprised if overall more computing resources are thrown at SL3 rather than bitcoin. It's more profitable overall.
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
January 06, 2012, 03:10:58 PM
 #45

I can haz botnet?  Grin

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
shads
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


View Profile WWW
January 08, 2012, 02:37:14 AM
 #46

bitcoin network
  \|/
my bitcoind w/ static ip x.x.x.x <-- addnode=y.y.y.y
   |
(the internet)
   |
firewall <-- allow x.x.x.x:8333-y.y.y.y:8333 (bitcoin binary protocol)
   |
bitcoind w/ static ip y.y.y.y <-- connect x.x.x.x:8333 (only one outbound connection)
   |
firewall <-- allow z.z.z.z:8332-y.y.y.y:8332 (bitcoin rpc protocol)
   |
(my internal network)
   |
poolserver w/ static ip z.z.z.z
 /|\
mystery hash monsters


PoolServerJ Home Page - High performance java mining pool engine

1LezqRatQz7MeNoCVziYwcdwtqeEbvrdAq - http://payb.tc/shads

Quote from: Matthew N. Wright
Stop wasting the internet.
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 08, 2012, 03:17:59 AM
 #47

bitcoin network
  \|/
my bitcoind w/ static ip x.x.x.x <-- addnode=y.y.y.y
   |
(the internet)
   |
firewall <-- allow x.x.x.x:8333-y.y.y.y:8333 (bitcoin binary protocol)
   |
bitcoind w/ static ip y.y.y.y <-- connect x.x.x.x:8333 (only one outbound connection)
   |
firewall <-- allow z.z.z.z:8332-y.y.y.y:8332 (bitcoin rpc protocol)
   |
(my internal network)
   |
poolserver w/ static ip z.z.z.z
 /|\
mystery hash monsters

Thats exactly what I envision.  Am hoping he will update soon with having the server pc he is going to use for this so we can move on form there with tweaking it out.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
plastic.elastic
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168


View Profile
January 12, 2012, 12:42:24 PM
 #48

What a load of crap
And its amazing some of you guys actually believe he has a legitimate access to such computational power.

Op, you really think you can feed me with BS? read your last fcking thread about stealing then tell me you're doing a right thing this time.

When a guy got no fcking clue of what hes doing, its easy to catch his lies/bs.


Tips gladly accepted: 1LPaxHPvpzN3FbaGBaZShov3EFafxJDG42
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
January 12, 2012, 12:56:01 PM
 #49

What a load of crap
And its amazing some of you guys actually believe

Is there a need to believe anything when we're discussing a theoretical idea in the first place?

If nothing else, I desire to have a convo about this type of layout because I would also have interest in utilizing such a configuration for the security of my future mining ops.



P.S. Would you like a hug?

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
January 12, 2012, 02:01:30 PM
 #50

I think it is entirely possible that the government MAFIAA Iran rich folks of this world might have access to SHA256 cracking monsters, and that the market for such devices is only just starting to be realized. Such a device could be re-purposed (with a little work) to mine coins when it isn't being used for cracking passwords legit purposes.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
April 30, 2012, 12:56:37 AM
 #51

Edit:  In short, couldn't you simply have a computer take the hashing algorithm, process it offline, save the results of the work, connect to the network, then dump all the results at once?


Blocks are linked. You need the previous block to calculate the nonce (which includes a hash of the previous block). Thats why you cant mine offline for longer than ~10 minutes. After 10 minutes you are essentially forking.

^^ This answers te orignal question.

May I ask what is your goal? Are you trying to save bandwidth? Looking to 'mask' the reporting daemon? Trying to minimize net exposure?

Well, I may have access to 2 T/hash under certain conditions, and hashing offline may be one of those conditions.

I'd be interested in whatever came of this... MysteryMiner?

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  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!