SgtSpike
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
 |
January 03, 2012, 09:48:20 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This isn't the kind of software where we can leave so many unresolved bugs that we need a tracker for them." -- Satoshi
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
the joint (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
January 03, 2012, 09:49:53 PM |
|
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
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
|
|
January 03, 2012, 10:38:16 PM |
|
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
|
|
January 04, 2012, 11:56:48 AM |
|
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
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
January 06, 2012, 03:10:58 PM |
|
I can haz botnet?  |
|
|
|
|
shads
|
|
January 08, 2012, 02:37:14 AM |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
sadpandatech
|
|
January 08, 2012, 03:17:59 AM |
|
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
|
|
January 12, 2012, 12:42:24 PM |
|
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
|
|
January 12, 2012, 12:56:01 PM |
|
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
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
January 12, 2012, 02:01:30 PM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
April 30, 2012, 12:56:37 AM |
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
