|
AnonyMint
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 09:40:25 AM |
|
Claymore has a Win64 AMD *only* miner, locking out all the serious miners who typically use Linux.
Much better. Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1203
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 09:45:46 AM |
|
The L3 cache by itself is almost half of the chip.
I looked at an image of the Haswell die and appears to be less than 20%. The APU (GPU) is taking up more space on the consumer models. On the server models there is no GPU and the cache is probably a higher percentage of the die. Yes you are right, I had looked a a server layout. But the point being that even if it is 10%, then you can't include more than 10 copies on the same size die using the same process. Using a cheaper/inferior process, you will be including far fewer than 10 copies. I make no claim about more qualitative design improvements, cryptographic flaws (though in some cases these might translate to CPU/GPU mining improvements as well as ASIC), etc.. I was simply addressing the "thousands of copies" comment. That approach is not feasible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 09:50:07 AM Last edit: July 22, 2014, 10:09:56 AM by AnonyMint |
|
I make no claim about more qualitative design improvements, cryptographic flaws (though in some cases these might translate to CPU/GPU mining improvements as well as ASIC), etc.. I was simply addressing the "thousands of copies" comment. That approach is not feasible.
We can't make the latter assertion with certitude without knowing the former, because it is possible some insights reduce the size of the memory space required. Such insight could possibly require very fast circuit for some particular computation that could only be done on an ASIC. And such insights could possibly be proprietary (for a while at least) could potentially be a major problem in the future. I assume you will have cryptographers doing cryptanalysis on the proof-of-work soon to head off such a threat.
|
|
|
|
Brad_BCK
Newbie

Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 09:52:27 AM |
|
Finally, I spent enough time trying to understand how to use XMR. My level is too low. BTW I think it is enough to start trading.
I decided to make an arbitrage. To buy XMR on the Poloniex exchange and to sell it on the Hitbtc exchange. There is a nice difference between XMR prices on this exchanges. So if you did not try it before - do it. You can earn additional money. Check rates by yourself and make your own conclusions. After I'll test it with XMR - I'll write here some additional information. If you id it before - write what you think.
|
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1203
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 10:08:31 AM |
|
I make no claim about more qualitative design improvements, cryptographic flaws (though in some cases these might translate to CPU/GPU mining improvements as well as ASIC), etc.. I was simply addressing the "thousands of copies" comment. That approach is not feasible.
We can't make the latter assertion with certitude without knowing the former, because it is possible some insights reduce the size of the memory space required. Such insight could possibly require very fast circuit for some particular computation that could only be done on an ASIC. Those are thousands of copies of something, but not thousands of copies of the original algorithm. The latter is straightforward and reasonable to assume as essentially inevitable for any algorithm that is implementable in a small amount of hardware (as the original post to which I replied suggested was the case here, incorrectly). The former is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 10:11:13 AM |
|
I make no claim about more qualitative design improvements, cryptographic flaws (though in some cases these might translate to CPU/GPU mining improvements as well as ASIC), etc.. I was simply addressing the "thousands of copies" comment. That approach is not feasible.
We can't make the latter assertion with certitude without knowing the former, because it is possible some insights reduce the size of the memory space required. Such insight could possibly require very fast circuit for some particular computation that could only be done on an ASIC. Those are thousands of copies of something, but not thousands of copies of the original algorithm. The latter is straightforward and reasonable to assume as essentially inevitable for any algorithm that is implementable in a small amount of hardware (as the original post to which I replied suggested was the case here, incorrectly). The former is not. I edited my prior post. I think the complexity is working against you, not for you as you assume. Defer to your cryptographers. You've got to characterize it before you can make any such qualitative assumptions with certitude. And such insights could possibly be proprietary (for a while at least) could potentially be a major problem in the future. I assume you will have cryptographers doing cryptanalysis on the proof-of-work soon to head off such a threat.
The worst thing that can happen is a few have a significant advantage. If that degenerate case is the true risk (we can't say since we don't know), much better to have ubiquitous cheap ASICs.
|
|
|
|
|
papa_lazzarou
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 10:21:57 AM |
|
Sure it does. It's 6 months experience for free  Thanks. Also, how can I help getting monero on track? I'm planning on donating to the dev team when I get some spare money, and the Portuguese mnemonic word list is already under way so I don't know what else I can do... At the moment most of the urgent / important tasks require an in-depth knowledge of cryptography and C / C++, but as things progress there will be things that will come up that will require more soft skills. As and when we have a need for that we will definitely put the call out:) If this is not something you can apply for, you can spread the word around about Monero as being a serious coin. Target newcomers in alt first - so much pump and dumps where newcomers get scammed. I know what you mean. Will do that. Instead of them getting scared off they could be supporting Monero. Must find out if there is a crypto community here in Portugal. hasta! Monero to 2100!
|
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1203
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 10:23:24 AM Last edit: July 22, 2014, 10:52:22 AM by smooth |
|
I edited my prior post. I think the complexity is working against you, not for you as you assume. Defer to your cryptographers. You've got to characterize it before you can make any such qualitative assumptions with certitude.
I assume nothing. ASICs may rip this to shreds. I merely state that it isn't inevitable. We don't know how much cryptographic analysis there was, since it was all done in secret by whoever designed it (also secret). Maybe there was a lot, maybe none at all, or maybe something in between. Re: cryptographers, yes, we are paying cryptographers to review it, as has been stated on this thread before. We are conducting a top-to-bottom review of everything. Cryptography is important, of course, but there are plenty of opportunities for other problems throughout the code as well. And this was indeed the case with the deoptimized mining code we discovered when we first started looking at the code we inherited, but certainly the scope of this effort is not now limited to (or even focused on) mining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
HardwarePal
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 12:13:45 PM |
|
I edited my prior post. I think the complexity is working against you, not for you as you assume. Defer to your cryptographers. You've got to characterize it before you can make any such qualitative assumptions with certitude.
I assume nothing. ASICs may rip this to shreds. I merely state that it isn't inevitable. We don't know how much cryptographic analysis there was, since it was all done in secret by whoever designed it (also secret). Maybe there was a lot, maybe none at all, or maybe something in between. Re: cryptographers, yes, we are paying cryptographers to review it, as has been stated on this thread before. We are conducting a top-to-bottom review of everything. Cryptography is important, of course, but there are plenty of opportunities for other problems throughout the code as well. And this was indeed the case with the deoptimized mining code we discovered when we first started looking at the code we inherited, but certainly the scope of this effort is not now limited to (or even focused on) mining. The number of coins produced a day will still be the same 23K+- 10% . As mentioned by Aminorex "Block reward was 17.6 initially (97 days ago) and is now 15.4. It takes 512 days to halve the emission. " As long as Demand-Supply is there , even Asics wont hurt the coin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkota
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 12:22:22 PM |
|
the emission halves every 512 days?
|
|
|
|
|
binaryFate
Legendary

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Still wild and free
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 12:26:36 PM |
|
the emission halves every 512 days?
This is a continuous process, not suddenly halved (like bitcoin). The continuous decrease is such that after 512 days the reward is half of original one.
|
Monero's privacy and therefore fungibility are MUCH stronger than Bitcoin's. This makes Monero a better candidate to deserve the term "digital cash".
|
|
|
r05
Full Member
 

Activity: 193
Merit: 100
test cryptocoin please ignore
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 12:50:58 PM |
|
Quite interested in having a purely OpenCL miner. I know Claymore is OpenCL, but it only works with AMD GPUs. The Intel HD series of GPUs are very poor I know, but they too utilize OpenCL - for those of us that are hoping to squeeze every little last bit from our systems using the onboard GPU would be very advantageous.
|
BTC: 18tS6E9FRnXuh4JitAJykm6YRtJRSkP6jq XMR: 46BzjaUU1fyfFJ2b9vvg9RXUsw3XQtkaoc7cRkzYxMre69GtCaX6jg3Luc4B6ABHAaBmZNpJ4zzmAiX deGsCiXJJMniDbWE
|
|
|
Brad_BCK
Newbie

Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 01:56:48 PM |
|
Quite interested in having a purely OpenCL miner. I know Claymore is OpenCL, but it only works with AMD GPUs. The Intel HD series of GPUs are very poor I know, but they too utilize OpenCL - for those of us that are hoping to squeeze every little last bit from our systems using the onboard GPU would be very advantageous.
So you mean that I can use both AMD GPU and Intel HD graphics for mining on one computer?
|
|
|
|
|
r05
Full Member
 

Activity: 193
Merit: 100
test cryptocoin please ignore
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 02:27:14 PM |
|
Quite interested in having a purely OpenCL miner. I know Claymore is OpenCL, but it only works with AMD GPUs. The Intel HD series of GPUs are very poor I know, but they too utilize OpenCL - for those of us that are hoping to squeeze every little last bit from our systems using the onboard GPU would be very advantageous.
So you mean that I can use both AMD GPU and Intel HD graphics for mining on one computer? And your CPU, yes. They are separate devices with separate resource pools, despite the Intel HD GPU being on the same unit as the CPU. I have read up on it and other coin algos have miners for the Intel HD series and the use of it doesn't impact the CPU mining speed.
|
BTC: 18tS6E9FRnXuh4JitAJykm6YRtJRSkP6jq XMR: 46BzjaUU1fyfFJ2b9vvg9RXUsw3XQtkaoc7cRkzYxMre69GtCaX6jg3Luc4B6ABHAaBmZNpJ4zzmAiX deGsCiXJJMniDbWE
|
|
|
|
hitbtc
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 02:42:42 PM |
|
Hello once again, people! As we’ve announced yesterday, the 100 XMR rewards for taking part in our most recent contest were sent out to their respective winners. Here are the winning deals:1. July 18th: at the price of 0.004976 at 10:33:41.045 by an anonymous person 2. July 19th: at the price of 0.004888 at 21:44:09.451 by equipoise here on Bitcointalk.org. He also shared a link to his personal page. Thanks once again for your partaking and for your intense interest in the coin’s performance on our exchange, and congrats! Please let us know if this was exciting and if you want to see us continue running such contests, and we shall keep doing that. Read the full text of this announcement
|
|
|
|
pallas
Legendary

Activity: 2716
Merit: 1094
Black Belt Developer
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 02:43:36 PM |
|
Quite interested in having a purely OpenCL miner. I know Claymore is OpenCL, but it only works with AMD GPUs. The Intel HD series of GPUs are very poor I know, but they too utilize OpenCL - for those of us that are hoping to squeeze every little last bit from our systems using the onboard GPU would be very advantageous.
So you mean that I can use both AMD GPU and Intel HD graphics for mining on one computer? And your CPU, yes. They are separate devices with separate resource pools, despite the Intel HD GPU being on the same unit as the CPU. I have read up on it and other coin algos have miners for the Intel HD series and the use of it doesn't impact the CPU mining speed. Miner for Intel HD? Rough estimate on h/s on 4000/5000? on scrypt, gpu mined slower than cpu. but probably using less power.
|
|
|
|
r05
Full Member
 

Activity: 193
Merit: 100
test cryptocoin please ignore
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 02:49:17 PM |
|
Quite interested in having a purely OpenCL miner. I know Claymore is OpenCL, but it only works with AMD GPUs. The Intel HD series of GPUs are very poor I know, but they too utilize OpenCL - for those of us that are hoping to squeeze every little last bit from our systems using the onboard GPU would be very advantageous.
So you mean that I can use both AMD GPU and Intel HD graphics for mining on one computer? And your CPU, yes. They are separate devices with separate resource pools, despite the Intel HD GPU being on the same unit as the CPU. I have read up on it and other coin algos have miners for the Intel HD series and the use of it doesn't impact the CPU mining speed. Miner for Intel HD? Rough estimate on h/s on 4000/5000? on scrypt, gpu mined slower than cpu. but probably using less power. Can confirm pretty much the same metrics. It's slower than CPU but can be used at the same time. Seems a bit silly to be having idle processing power 
|
BTC: 18tS6E9FRnXuh4JitAJykm6YRtJRSkP6jq XMR: 46BzjaUU1fyfFJ2b9vvg9RXUsw3XQtkaoc7cRkzYxMre69GtCaX6jg3Luc4B6ABHAaBmZNpJ4zzmAiX deGsCiXJJMniDbWE
|
|
|
monero (OP)
Jr. Member

Activity: 54
Merit: 309
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 02:54:14 PM |
|
New exchange: lazycoins.comDisclaimer: please take note that referencing it do not imply we endorse it. Trade at your own risk. Updated by David Latapie
|
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 02:56:55 PM |
|
the emission halves every 512 days?
This is a continuous process, not suddenly halved (like bitcoin). The continuous decrease is such that after 512 days the reward is half of original one. i always wondered why satoshi designed bitcoin to drop off these gigantic cliffs every few years.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
|
dga
|
 |
July 22, 2014, 03:14:26 PM |
|
There is much more that has to be investigated and I can find nearly nothing on Monero's proof-of-work hash. No benchmarking. No detailed whitepaper. Nothing but the source code.
We have the same issue with the CryptoNight PoW algorithm. To quote the initial CryptoNote whitepaper review we've released: It's absolutely unconscionable to to come up with a new "Proof of Work Algorithm" and then refrain from including any sort of pseudocode to describe that algorithm. Upon which. Your entire. Coin. Is. Based. Ugh.
I've posted an informal summary of my analysis of the CryptoNight algorithm earlier in this thread with respect to GPU balance and its likely eventual balance with ASICs. It's good. I concur with you about the lameness of the ByteCoin release, of course, but it's obvious why they did it -- they took a simple and elegant proof of work function that was clearly designed by someone with a clue, and they wrapped it in a complex load of poop to slow it down artificially. Most likely, they then used that to fake two years of the blockchain, but it's impossible to prove that, so that's purely my speculation.
|
|
|
|
|