It is cute how you slap random things together. That phrase refers to repetition and eventually being right, Gary hasn't displayed any of that. You also literally just rewrote what I just said about Gary .
And yes, you just use people to try and forward your position. You make it seem like there are two options there, either supporting Gary or disagreeing him. A falso dichotomy. You could've simply said nothing, but instead you chose to use someone you don't even agree with to try and stick it to someone else in order to make your own position look stronger.
Original indeed.
Why are you so obsessed with me?
You can't be seriously that stupid where you responded to a post that wasn't even about you? lol... Has to be trolling, there is no other way.
You can't be seriously that stupid to say your post wasn't about me yet you mentioned my name 3 times? Once OK, it's cool, twice you got me ticklish, but thrice, thrice I get summoned!
Who was I responding to dude? You're trying really hard to wriggle out of this when you simply glanced over the post you thought it was a response to you because you saw your name, when it wasn't. The post wasn't about you, it was about another person using you and talking to them.
Surface processing verse reader comprehension. I know it's tough, but it completely fits your MO, just like all your other posts where you assume because someone talks out their ass you think they're a developer. You don't spend any time actually reading and just come up with the first knee jerk response you can, typical of kids today. Now you're just trying to save face, which isn't working because we both know the post wasn't about you.
Keccak and skein (and blake) are good for FPGA, don't be surprised if the profit for GPU drops quickly.
A good FPGA programmer can do the miner in some days. It will be 5 time more efficient than GPU, or more.
could you give us some links to Support that Claim?
last time i read about fpga there werent even worth considering, would have more luck with usb stick ascis
I do chip design for them personally. Consider his statement verified.
Would said FPGAs be a commercial venture or just for in-house use?
He occasionally produces code, but there is no commercial venture because either it's too buggy to do or he doesn't actually have a working program. If he did, he would have warehouses full of them, but he doesn't, so he can't. It's just like Chryo talking about how he's going to conquer the universe, but he still has to stop back in here to remind us of his existence, much like Wolf0.
Actions speak louder then words. Everyone, especially online, likes to beat their chest to make what they do seem bigger then it really is.
As far as what Pallas said, some algorithms are easier to paralyze (parallel?) and fit better inside small footprints (that also depends on the kind of FPGA). Also notice where Wolf0 just said "Believe me I'm a developer" and Pallas actually attempted to talk about it a bit. You can't inherit credibility either.
Also chip design (designing ASICs from the ground up) != programming a FPGA.
Also segued the actual question.
Please, bensam - you have done neither, and you know nothing of the subject. While chip design targeting ASIC often has different constraints and techniques that you keep in mind, a hardware design is quite possible to do which will work on both... although, again, you'd change certain things depending on your target if you were going for maximum efficiency.
I not only have done quite a few designs myself, but was hired by the Sia team to consult on their ASIC's chip design - which I was actually quite beneficial to, as I worked with the team at Custom Silicon Solutions. You, on the other paw, wouldn't be able to figure out how to do (for example) a 32-bit addition using only gates - do yourself a favor, and for once in your life, just stop pretending you know what you're on about. You can still have a little bit of dignity.
I've never claimed to be a chip designer, so I'm neither lying nor making false claims to boaster my position. I'm literally on about 'nothing', you're typically trying to turn the argument around to point the opposite direction using my argument as a base because you're unoriginal. Although in this case, at no point did I ever claim to be a chip designer. I was mediating the conversation and pointing out the difference between people in the conversation who actually attempt to answer questions and have credibility verse those that tell you that they have credibility without actually ever displaying it.
Once again you said 'I'm a designer, I worked with SIA' once again absolutely no proof, nor display of your 'abilities', nor did you even answer his question.
Lets look at something great out of Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_wordBasically conveys everything you talk about. You say you're 'reputable', you say you're 'experienced', you say you know what you're talking about, yet you never actually talk about what you say you know you're talking about. It's pretty hilarious. You never offer proof or actually talk in any sort of depth in this specific scenario that would warrant that credibility. Even I know what a 32-bit gate is, could I program it? No. Did you actually convey in any meaningful way that you could? No. You just stated a word, which still didn't actually answer the question earlier.
Yup, SIA consultant, got it, you sent a couple PMs back and forth through BCT and you're a consultant. Got it. That sounds about right. That's why you're listed on their website.
He occasionally produces code, but there is no commercial venture because either it's too buggy to do or he doesn't actually have a working program. If he did, he would have warehouses full of them, but he doesn't, so he can't. It's just like Chryo talking about how he's going to conquer the universe, but he still has to stop back in here to remind us of his existence, much like Wolf0.
As far as what Pallas said, some algorithms are easier to paralyze (parallel?) and fit better inside small footprints (that also depends on the kind of FPGA). Also notice where Wolf0 just said "Believe me I'm a developer" and Pallas actually attempted to talk about it a bit. You can't inherit credibility either.
You are talking about things you don't know, as usual. You are just speculating.
What makes you think Wolf0 doesn't have FPGA implementations ready? What makes you think there aren't any FPGA farms mining blake or keccak based algos?
FPGA is there, even if you don't want it.
But people shouldn't care. As long as a coin is profitable, what's the problem?
Network difficulty, the available pools. The perceived ASICs was Nicehash hashrate.
Curiously do you think that I said that Keccak can't be done on FPGAs very easily, because it seems as though that's what you think and I literally said the opposite of that a couple posts up. What I was talking about was Wolf0 talking out his ass. You guys cut out portions of the quote pyramid and then forget what I'm talking about then assume I took up a position where I said Keccak couldn't be done on FPGAs or ASICs, which is definitely untrue.
The part you're quoting was where I was pointing out that you were much more helpful in explaining why it could be done on FPGAs and Wolf0 just said 'I'm a developer it can be done!' and that was it.
So why do I think Keccak can be done easily? You don't need to be a programmer to understand it or a 'chip designer', because every other basic algorithm, Quark, Qubit, and Sha-256 have been done. Anything basic and without memory. Blake2b (as Wolf0 talked about), Blake14r (DCR), Pascal. Anything that doesn't involve multiple algos chained together. Once again something that is simplistic. Even I understand that. Could I program it? No. Could I explain why a basic algo couldn't be done on a FPGA/ASIC? No. Does it matter? Nope. The more complicated, the less likely it could be implemented. Essentially any algo that can be dual-mined with Ethereum.
