Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] MemoryCoin - page 22. (Read 100345 times)

hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
Its as easy as 0, 1, 1, 2, 3
August 17, 2013, 09:40:26 PM
1. Got the Scrypt wrong and can still be supermined by GPUs

Thanks for your comments and links on this. I haven't had time to fully digest them - there's a lot of information there and there are some competing demands on my time.  From what I've seen, adding cores does not produce linear improvements, even with the small numbers of cores in a CPU. But if MC is vulnerable to GPU mining, I'd like to see it fail fast, so I'd encourage you to post any ideas you have for how one might go about creating a GPU miner.

4. Afaik, has made no advances on improved anonymity

Actually, MC has gone backwards on this a little by always sending change to first address in a wallet to support the voting system, and because this is more intuitive for new users. Generally with MC where there is a choice between ease of use and anonymity, I'll choose ease of use. I care about privacy too, but I care about adoption more. The privacy options of Bitcoin are obviously still there in the protocol, but users will need to take more care to ensure they are utilized.



Hey Freetrade, read the surrounding posts to where he linked. Be careful who you associate with, he has a tendency to expect worship....unless you were planning on changing religion then thats cool I guess.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 17, 2013, 09:08:32 PM
1. Got the Scrypt wrong and can still be supermined by GPUs

Thanks for your comments and links on this. I haven't had time to fully digest them - there's a lot of information there and there are some competing demands on my time.  From what I've seen, adding cores does not produce linear improvements, even with the small numbers of cores in a CPU. But if MC is vulnerable to GPU mining, I'd like to see it fail fast, so I'd encourage you to post any ideas you have for how one might go about creating a GPU miner.

It doesn't need to be linear, because the FLOPS cost in GPUs is so much lower than in a CPU system.

It appears to me that what happens in a GPU (which is why Intel's hyperthreading is faster than just 4 hardware cores) is that when there are many logical threads, then thread blocks on main memory latency are not a factor, because some other thread can run which has already loaded its main memory access into cache. Thus the GPU is always able to achieve the 200+GB/s main memory throughput, because the latency is masked by the probability of numerous threads.

My idea is the way to defeat this is require so much memory for the Scrypt that the GPU can not run enough threads to get that probability to work in its favor. (Or even better run in a larger main memory footprint than any known GPU can handle, but this is not an absolute since demand for GPUs from miners can in theory drive larger main memories).

But to hash over such a large main memory footprint makes the hash slow, as MemoryCoin demonstrates at a claimed 1 second. Also CPU main memory bandwidth is an order-of-magnitude slower than for top-of-line GPUs. So my idea is to run an inner Scrypt (think of a for loop inside of a for loop) and outer Scrypt, linking them together in cryptographic sequentiality (will explain this later in pseudo-code), such that the entire algorithm becomes memory-bound at the speed of L1 cache, i.e. we force the CPU to compete with us on L1 cache speed not on FLOPS and main-memory bandwidth. So then the computation of the hash is very fast (relatively speaking to MemoryCoin's thrashing of main memory latency) and the GPU then has to compete on L1 cache speed and on having enough multiples of the main memory foot print to run that many multiples of extra threads.

So then the GPU-cost-ROI becomes tied to GDDR memory cost versus CPU system cost. I worked some numbers, and the GPU can't gain an order-of-magnitude advantage in any theoretical case (not to mention market dynamics pragmaticism).

Also we need to make the Salsa hash in the BlockMix run much more slowly than the Salsa hash in the ROMix so that GPUs can't use their superior FLOPS (and idle CU cores due to our large main memory footprint) to lower the memory requirements by recomputing at say modulo 4 of every element.

I am willing to rewrite your Scrypt if you think my idea has merit?

4. Afaik, has made no advances on improved anonymity

Actually, MC has gone backwards on this a little by always sending change to first address in a wallet to support the voting system, and because this is more intuitive for new users. Generally with MC where there is a choice between ease of use and anonymity, I'll choose ease of use. I care about privacy too, but I care about adoption more. The privacy options of Bitcoin are obviously still there in the protocol, but users will need to take more care to ensure they are utilized.

I am going to avoid talking about your holistic design because we have some disagreement, but it does not preclude me from helping you on the Scrypt refinements, which will help me prove them for the holistic coin design I want.

Open source (sharing what is mutual, separating orthogonal concepts so we can) at its best!
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 17, 2013, 08:33:20 PM
Thanks for your comments and links on this. I haven't had time to fully digest them - there's a lot of information there and there are some competing demands on my time.

Wow a guy who is worth working with.

Let's see if we could combine our resources to get the job done?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 17, 2013, 08:27:34 PM
And all Alt Coin advances are incremental by nature.

Not necessarily. Stay tuned...

You can only achieve some degree of "GPU resistance"...
Without taking drastic, undemocratic measures like saying...
"Must be run on 64-bit with 16 GB RAM", etc.

Correct, but we can make that potential advantage (i.e. GPUs with any amount of GDDR memory the user chooses) memory-bound:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2950451
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2954801

So if the coin requires 32 KB inner Scrypt, then HD 7970 is going to be at the 0.25 to 0.5 TB/s of the GDDR RAM but with much latency and only 4 threads so much slower than the CPU. Even if the coin requires only 16 KB inner Scrypt or later version of the GPU has 32 KB L1 cache, the GPU is still going to be employing only 4 threads same as for the CPU, but may run at twice the speed of the CPU because of the double L1 cache speed.

...

My other idea is to force the total memory requirement of the outer Scrypt higher than any GPU, since I know of no GPU which allows addon GDDR memory. There is no retail market for GDDR memory.

The idea for nested scrypt is to keep the duty-cycle of memory-bound to L1 cache near to 100% and it also provides the flexibility to control the duty-cycle of the main memory, i.e. 100% - percentage of the time that the algorithm is memory-bound in L1 cache while not writing out to the main memory. Lowering the latter duty-cycle will increase the execution-time of the hash, yet also lower the individual and society-wide electricity requirements of the coin, because for the same hardware less electricity is consumed.


Without taking drastic, undemocratic measures like saying...
"Must be run on 64-bit with 16 GB RAM", etc.

I don't consider that to be undemocratic. It kills Botnets also if serious users spend $50 to upgrade their memory.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1030
August 17, 2013, 08:15:34 PM
1. Got the Scrypt wrong and can still be supermined by GPUs

Thanks for your comments and links on this. I haven't had time to fully digest them - there's a lot of information there and there are some competing demands on my time.  From what I've seen, adding cores does not produce linear improvements, even with the small numbers of cores in a CPU. But if MC is vulnerable to GPU mining, I'd like to see it fail fast, so I'd encourage you to post any ideas you have for how one might go about creating a GPU miner.

4. Afaik, has made no advances on improved anonymity

Actually, MC has gone backwards on this a little by always sending change to first address in a wallet to support the voting system, and because this is more intuitive for new users. Generally with MC where there is a choice between ease of use and anonymity, I'll choose ease of use. I care about privacy too, but I care about adoption more. The privacy options of Bitcoin are obviously still there in the protocol, but users will need to take more care to ensure they are utilized.

hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 17, 2013, 08:15:16 PM
1. Got the Scrypt wrong and can still be supermined by GPUs
Is that a fact?

In my mind yes, because I understand which algorithm properties are required to defeat GPUs:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2944399

Someone needs to implement a GPU miner to prove it.

The key algorithm point is that GPUs can mask the latency of hitting big memory by using massive multi-threading.

2. Introduced socialism into the debasement
Not sure how accurate this is, since coins can be freely traded.

3. Got the level of the eternal debasement wrong, since 1790 the nominal GDP grows at 5% not 2%.
How realistic is it to go by the GDP growth rate all the way back to 1790?

It has been consistent over any few decades hence. Realize I wrote "nominal", not "real" (i.e. inflation adjusted).

If MemoryCoin became the only money in the world, then the economy could not grow faster than 2% long-term (in short bursts it could, because V is independent of M, M * V = nominal GDP). V = velocity of money

4. Afaik, has made no advances on improved anonymity
5. Afaik, has no improved blockchain scaling (Bitcoin can't scale to even 1/10 of Visa scale).
I haven't seen anyone claiming innovation in these particular areas.

4. Anoncoin using I2P:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2950849

5. I offered a new design that solves the problem. Challenge is for you to find it in my writings.

6. Didn't improve the speed of approval of transactions (10 mins in Bitcoin, also Litecoin if you want same confidence)
The block target is supposed to be six minutes.

Shorter block times not only do not provide instantaneous transactions, but don't decrease the time needed to wait to gain a certain level of probability of confidence-- it is always the same for Bitcoin = Litecoin = MemoryCoin. The probability is independent of the time taken to compute a block. Study PoW in Satoshi's white paper.

I have proposed a solution that gives instantaneous transactions.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1030
August 17, 2013, 08:06:37 PM
I would like to propose a new address for a grant. I think it's quite unfair that people having huge balances take advantadge of the voting system to feed their own private grant addresses which, at the same time, gives them more voting power. So I think it's necessary to post new public goals to be supported by the community to avoid the misuse of the voting system. I propose to create a giveaway grant

MVTEoEot8ZGKWmDi8pZS6tJMHR5ba9MnNN

All the funds received at this address (if funded) will be used to send 10 MEG to anyone posting his/her memorycoin address in a 'Memorycoin giveaway' thread that I will create. In this thread there will be posted all the transactions' id so anyone can check that all the coins received are used for this purpose. I think that spreading the coin will be more beneficial for the coin than someone getting more and more 'rich'.
 

Thanks for this - generally I don't like giveaways from a marketing point of view, it devalues a coin as people might wonder why someone would give away something that is valuable. However the wider distribution garnered by a giveaway is more community oriented than concentration of coin in large private holder so overall I'm supportive. Also I'd ask you to be careful not to draw support away from other community grants - I think the awards of both 21st Century and MCF are looking vulnerable in the latest vote.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1030
August 17, 2013, 07:57:54 PM
Is the stability issue still being worked on? New releases used to come every day but now I haven't seen one for a while.
The software has gotten a bit more reliable with the last few releases but I still get runtime errors or it hangs on a grant-block.
My 6-core and 4-core still cant run all night long without stopping Sad

Yes - got an update here and I'm going to be posting further updates here - this thread is becoming very crowded with many different issues, and I don't want to spam the main altcoins forum with continual MC posts -

http://21stcenturymoneytalk.org/index.php/topic,38.0.html
legendary
Activity: 1420
Merit: 1010
August 17, 2013, 07:50:19 PM
10 Megs to the first 10 people here Smiley

http://21stcenturymoneytalk.org/index.php/topic,41.0.html
full member
Activity: 217
Merit: 100
August 17, 2013, 06:38:57 PM
1. Got the Scrypt wrong and can still be supermined by GPUs
Is that a fact?

2. Introduced socialism into the debasement
Not sure how accurate this is, since coins can be freely traded.

3. Got the level of the eternal debasement wrong, since 1790 the nominal GDP grows at 5% not 2%.
How realistic is it to go by the GDP growth rate all the way back to 1790?

4. Afaik, has made no advances on improved anonymity
5. Afaik, has no improved blockchain scaling (Bitcoin can't scale to even 1/10 of Visa scale).
I haven't seen anyone claiming innovation in these particular areas.

6. Didn't improve the speed of approval of transactions (10 mins in Bitcoin, also Litecoin if you want same confidence)
The block target is supposed to be six minutes.

7. etc.
Possibly irrelevant.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 17, 2013, 06:02:35 PM
This will not work.  There is no mechanism to assure that people posting in the thread are NEW users and not existing users gaming the system.  I like the idea, but it needs more thought before advertising to the whole forum.

Indeed. The more I think about Grants, the more I realize they are a bad idea and like socialism. The people who want some work done, should pay for it out their own money, not jockeying for position to control the awarding of 1/20 of the debasement.

Some Iron Laws of Political Economics:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984

So let's see MemoryCoin:

1. Got the Scrypt wrong and can still be supermined by GPUs
2. Introduced socialism into the debasement
3. Got the level of the eternal debasement wrong, since 1790 the nominal GDP grows at 5% not 2%.
4. Afaik, has made no advances on improved anonymity
5. Afaik, has not improved blockchain scaling (Bitcoin can't scale to even 1/10 of Visa scale).
6. Didn't improve the speed of approval of transactions (10 mins in Bitcoin, also Litecoin if you want same confidence)
7. Afaik, no mandatory transaction fees to eliminate spamming of transactions (sending from self-to-self at no cost).
8. etc.

Yawn.
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
August 17, 2013, 02:42:22 PM
13 days behind and then crushes ? on both of my comps ??
member
Activity: 96
Merit: 10
August 17, 2013, 01:15:31 PM
I would like to propose a new address for a grant. I think it's quite unfair that people having huge balances take advantadge of the voting system to feed their own private grant addresses which, at the same time, gives them more voting power. So I think it's necessary to post new public goals to be supported by the community to avoid the misuse of the voting system. I propose to create a giveaway grant

MVTEoEot8ZGKWmDi8pZS6tJMHR5ba9MnNN

All the funds received at this address (if funded) will be used to send 10 MEG to anyone posting his/her memorycoin address in a 'Memorycoin giveaway' thread that I will create. In this thread there will be posted all the transactions' id so anyone can check that all the coins received are used for this purpose. I think that spreading the coin will be more beneficial for the coin than someone getting more and more 'rich'.
 

This will not work.  There is no mechanism to assure that people posting in the thread are NEW users and not existing users gaming the system.  I like the idea, but it needs more thought before advertising to the whole forum.


I never said that the giveaways were addressed to new users of the coin. I'm aware that I cannot check if an address corresponds to a new user or someone having 10k MEG, but at least the coins of the grant (if obtained) would be spread over different users of the forum ( I doubt that anyones creates an account to get 10 MEG) which I think is much better than a large coinholder to keep increasing his balance for nothing
member
Activity: 96
Merit: 10
August 17, 2013, 11:23:44 AM
I would like to propose a new address for a grant. I think it's quite unfair that people having huge balances take advantadge of the voting system to feed their own private grant addresses which, at the same time, gives them more voting power. So I think it's necessary to post new public goals to be supported by the community to avoid the misuse of the voting system. I propose to create a giveaway grant

MVTEoEot8ZGKWmDi8pZS6tJMHR5ba9MnNN

All the funds received at this address (if funded) will be used to send 10 MEG to anyone posting his/her memorycoin address in a 'Memorycoin giveaway' thread that I will create. In this thread there will be posted all the transactions' id so anyone can check that all the coins received are used for this purpose. I think that spreading the coin will be more beneficial for the coin than someone getting more and more 'rich'.
 
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
August 17, 2013, 10:18:08 AM
Is the stability issue still being worked on? New releases used to come every day but now I haven't seen one for a while.
The software has gotten a bit more reliable with the last few releases but I still get runtime errors or it hangs on a grant-block.
My 6-core and 4-core still cant run all night long without stopping Sad

I'm now running 3-4 machines for 6 days...
And have not seen anything like you describe on Windows 7 64-bit.

SMOOTH SAILING except a machine occasionally starts producing "orphans"...
And needs to be rebooted/reseeded as previous page.

Your machine producing orphans is because it is stuck on a block while the blockchain moves on. This is the hanging-on-block problem I describe.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
August 17, 2013, 08:21:56 AM
sounds interesting, can you speak more about the hashing algo?

   SHA512((pbegin == pend ? pblank : (unsigned char*)&pbegin[0]), (pend - pbegin) * sizeof(pbegin[0]), (unsigned char*)&csoh);
   for(int i=0;i<12;i++){
      scrypt(csoh, HASHLENGTH, csoh, HASHLENGTH, 12, 1, 1, (unsigned char*)&csoh, HASHLENGTH);
      for(int j=0;j<10;j++){
         scrypt(csoh, HASHLENGTH, csoh, HASHLENGTH, 8, 1, 1, (unsigned char*)&csoh, HASHLENGTH);      
         SHA512(csoh, HASHLENGTH, (unsigned char*)&csoh);
      }
   }
   scrypt(csoh, HASHLENGTH, csoh, HASHLENGTH, 10, 8, 1, (unsigned char*)&csoh, HASHLENGTH);
   uint256 hash2;
   SHA256((unsigned char*)&csoh, sizeof(csoh), (unsigned char*)&hash2);


It's designed to hit L2 cache for 128K, L3 cache for 2MB, and main memory for 64MB - and mixes in some SHA512 for complexity.

I am late to see this, and apparently I discovered a related nesting strategy for breaking GPUs:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2944399

1 hash a second? damn no wonder the diff is so low

Kudos except (without testing my hypothesis) you want to be in 32 KB the entire time but interleaved over a large memory space. Won't be as simple as the code you have above.

I like your no nonsense OP. Grants are an interesting idea.

My frank posts in other alt coin show I don't respect nonsense:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2949736

Kudos on not stopping debasement (maintaining 2% per annum), but 5% is the required historic growth rate:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2930843
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1537
August 17, 2013, 07:26:31 AM
I keep having a problem. It just stops mining and hangs. If you put any commands in the debug box nothing comes up. Have to restart the client after shutting it down via the possesses end all. Seems to be some stability issues left.

Using windows 7 64bit
hero member
Activity: 695
Merit: 500
August 17, 2013, 07:09:02 AM
Is the stability issue still being worked on? New releases used to come every day but now I haven't seen one for a while.
The software has gotten a bit more reliable with the last few releases but I still get runtime errors or it hangs on a grant-block.
My 6-core and 4-core still cant run all night long without stopping Sad

Same here, still geting hangups, so I can´t let it run all night Tongue
FreeTrade, are you still working on this issue?
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
August 17, 2013, 02:58:34 AM
Is the stability issue still being worked on? New releases used to come every day but now I haven't seen one for a while.
The software has gotten a bit more reliable with the last few releases but I still get runtime errors or it hangs on a grant-block.
My 6-core and 4-core still cant run all night long without stopping Sad
member
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
August 17, 2013, 01:22:23 AM
or we could call it power coin Smiley, judging a coin price based on its power costs is a starting point i guess. Other factors come in such as support, uniqueness, following, complexity.  Just a guess I put the coin at 1500  / btc. Thats what  around 0.0008 starting price.  This sits just above mincoin. just a guess, i think it will go well beyond this,  but just my opinion. I cant compare it to XPM, but considering it launched near .005 ? then maybe 1/8th the launch price of that ?  i could be way off here,
Pages:
Jump to: