Topic: [ANN] Slimcoin : Proof of Burn NEW BLOCK GEN, Mineable by low power computer! - page 13. (Read 284894 times)
October 29, 2014, 07:20:02 AM
oops. it appears the rpc command sendmany wasnt implemented.. will work on this! ur shares shd b safe
October 29, 2014, 06:38:51 AM
October 29, 2014, 05:56:24 AM
what is the minimum payout value? - 5 blocks confirmed and still nothing on wallet side
Yep same here.
Anyone gets payout from pool ?
October 29, 2014, 05:39:00 AM
Maybe PoB+PoS is much better! Why waste power for GPU-CPU mining, when even RasPi can be used to complete SlimCoin usage? SlimCoin, SlimWallet & SlimMiner (RasPi 
)
"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
)"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
Actually PoS+PoB might be a good idea. I've been thinking a lot about it too! The whole code base is built off Peercoin, and we can't migrate out to a PoW only coin cos of the PoS heritage blocks.
We will have PoB generation and PoS to secure the blockchain.
We may not even have to migrate our PoB. Just tweak PoS to make it generate blocks more frequently (aka undo what slimcoin did before he got busy elsewhere) and I remember the difficulty even reached 1 at some time back then. No one would bother to PoW then!
PoS did cause a lot of trouble for us last time though, in particular it interferes with PoW. But if PoW is meant to be an afterthought this isn't a problem then.
)(PS -- I downloaded the 0.3.2.1 Windows build from the Git releases, and it was crashing again like the old wallet did. I've had to go back to 0.3.2.0 for the time being. 
)
)Any idea why? Dya have a debug log of what led to the crashes?
October 29, 2014, 01:21:03 AM
Ouch. Bad news galore On the bright side, we must have quite a bit of volume today on Bter and prices have fallen, so acquisition and mining would hopefully be cheaper. The coins would also hopefully have been bought by people committed to the growth of SLM.
I learnt about the weakness once someone about 4 pages back mentioned about the low scratch space requirements, and the slimcoin.club web miner was experimenting with an iteration limit of 64.
The improvement is actually rather little, around 20% max and you have to tweak for an optimal iteration limit. I haven't checked johnnylatte's hex acceleration routine.
However, once this news gets out (like now) I suspect it would be trivial for experienced GPU coders to accelerate it, if it wasn't already.
POB uses single-SHA256 and not dcrypt, so no iteration-based improvement would help it.
The dump is likely by someone with a GPU miner or a botnet; I've seen single addresses recently hashing with over 5MH.
I'll try to quickly implement the changes into the miner and release it; that should help level the playing field and buy us some time to change the algo, or just go completely GPU friendly.
I'm still for a version of CPU only algorithm though, but we oughta use one that has been well established.
On the bright side, we must have quite a bit of volume today on Bter and prices have fallen, so acquisition and mining would hopefully be cheaper. The coins would also hopefully have been bought by people committed to the growth of SLM.I learnt about the weakness once someone about 4 pages back mentioned about the low scratch space requirements, and the slimcoin.club web miner was experimenting with an iteration limit of 64.
The improvement is actually rather little, around 20% max and you have to tweak for an optimal iteration limit. I haven't checked johnnylatte's hex acceleration routine.
However, once this news gets out (like now) I suspect it would be trivial for experienced GPU coders to accelerate it, if it wasn't already.
POB uses single-SHA256 and not dcrypt, so no iteration-based improvement would help it.
The dump is likely by someone with a GPU miner or a botnet; I've seen single addresses recently hashing with over 5MH.
I'll try to quickly implement the changes into the miner and release it; that should help level the playing field and buy us some time to change the algo, or just go completely GPU friendly.
I'm still for a version of CPU only algorithm though, but we oughta use one that has been well established.
My improvement was 20% as well plus another ~30% for optimizing digest_to_string, feel free to use my code for that in the public miner but I will keep my acceleration to myself as its not an improvement over what you have and it sounds like they have done the exact same thing as me anyway. I also set REALLOC_BASE_SZ to (MAX_COUNT * 64 + SHA256_DIGEST_LENGTH) so that the buffer never needs to be expanded since realloc is expensive although they may want to do that in a way that can be adjusted on the command line if the right iteration limit is very different for different computers. You can also make the buffer a global variable and initialize / free it separately so that you are not constantly allocating and freeing it.
Have you considered talking to Sunny King (the developer of Peercoin and Primecoin) for suggestions on PoW. He has helped out other altcoin developers in the past and being able to think of and develop Cunningham chain based PoW shows he knows what he is talking about at least. Now that I think of it he has gone down both paths that we are evaluating without trying to go down both at the same time in the same coin.
October 29, 2014, 12:06:29 AM
Maybe PoB+PoS is much better! Why waste power for GPU-CPU mining, when even RasPi can be used to complete SlimCoin usage? SlimCoin, SlimWallet & SlimMiner (RasPi )
"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
)"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
Actually PoS+PoB might be a good idea. I've been thinking a lot about it too! The whole code base is built off Peercoin, and we can't migrate out to a PoW only coin cos of the PoS heritage blocks.
We will have PoB generation and PoS to secure the blockchain.
We may not even have to migrate our PoB. Just tweak PoS to make it generate blocks more frequently (aka undo what slimcoin did before he got busy elsewhere) and I remember the difficulty even reached 1 at some time back then. No one would bother to PoW then!
PoS did cause a lot of trouble for us last time though, in particular it interferes with PoW. But if PoW is meant to be an afterthought this isn't a problem then.
I like it too if you think you could do it with a stable wallet- it would take the power-saving model one step further
October 29, 2014, 12:02:34 AM
Maybe PoB+PoS is much better! Why waste power for GPU-CPU mining, when even RasPi can be used to complete SlimCoin usage? SlimCoin, SlimWallet & SlimMiner (RasPi )
"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
)"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
Actually PoS+PoB might be a good idea. I've been thinking a lot about it too! The whole code base is built off Peercoin, and we can't migrate out to a PoW only coin cos of the PoS heritage blocks.
We will have PoB generation and PoS to secure the blockchain.
We may not even have to migrate our PoB. Just tweak PoS to make it generate blocks more frequently (aka undo what slimcoin did before he got busy elsewhere) and I remember the difficulty even reached 1 at some time back then. No one would bother to PoW then!
PoS did cause a lot of trouble for us last time though, in particular it interferes with PoW. But if PoW is meant to be an afterthought this isn't a problem then.
October 28, 2014, 11:59:28 PM
Now I'm not much of a miner, but my only worry about a asic friendly algorithm would be that especially early on after the switch it'd be easy for one person to get all the blocks. On the flip side, cpu-only means someone with a botnet can do the same thing. Tricky decisions.
True. And there's also the spectre of 51% attack.
Definitely a worrisome thought while the coin is just starting to regain traction.
October 28, 2014, 11:54:03 PM
What is the ratio of PoB blocks to PoW blocks?
The ratio is set to target 1 every 3 PoW blocks.
October 28, 2014, 11:53:04 PM
Now I'm not much of a miner, but my only worry about a asic friendly algorithm would be that especially early on after the switch it'd be easy for one person to get all the blocks. On the flip side, cpu-only means someone with a botnet can do the same thing. Tricky decisions.
True. And there's also the spectre of 51% attack.
October 28, 2014, 11:49:48 PM
There are Prime-based algos (Rie, Prime, Gap), Blockchain-based scratchpad algos (Wild Keccak) and memory-intensive ones (Cryptonight). Can take a look at http://cpucoinlist.com/. These are all based on high random access memory requirements which GPUs perform poorly with.
These are mostly well-established algos with known optimised GPU miners, actually. But the main difference is the GPU miners don't have much of a Hash/Watt advantage over CPUs even after heavy and public optimisation, whereas for Dcrypt it could be a lot higher and still private.
Alternatively, we can also focus on PoB for the masses, and just use an established Scrypt or SHA256 PoW for miners.
These are mostly well-established algos with known optimised GPU miners, actually. But the main difference is the GPU miners don't have much of a Hash/Watt advantage over CPUs even after heavy and public optimisation, whereas for Dcrypt it could be a lot higher and still private.
Alternatively, we can also focus on PoB for the masses, and just use an established Scrypt or SHA256 PoW for miners.
Now I'm not much of a miner, but my only worry about an asic friendly algorithm would be that especially early on after the switch it'd be easy for one person to get all the blocks. On the flip side, cpu-only means someone with a botnet can do the same thing. Tricky decisions.
October 28, 2014, 11:41:49 PM
There are Prime-based algos (Rie, Prime, Gap), Blockchain-based scratchpad algos (Wild Keccak) and memory-intensive ones (Cryptonight). Can take a look at http://cpucoinlist.com/. These are all based on high random access memory requirements which GPUs perform poorly with.
These are mostly well-established algos with known optimised GPU miners, actually. But the main difference is the GPU miners don't have much of a Hash/Watt advantage over CPUs even after heavy and public optimisation, whereas for Dcrypt it could be a lot higher and still private.
Alternatively, we can also focus on PoB for the masses, and just use an established Scrypt or SHA256 PoW for miners.
These are mostly well-established algos with known optimised GPU miners, actually. But the main difference is the GPU miners don't have much of a Hash/Watt advantage over CPUs even after heavy and public optimisation, whereas for Dcrypt it could be a lot higher and still private.
Alternatively, we can also focus on PoB for the masses, and just use an established Scrypt or SHA256 PoW for miners.
October 28, 2014, 11:32:26 PM
I'm still for a version of CPU only algorithm though, but we oughta use one that has been well established.
Quark? Primecoin? Are those CPU only?
October 28, 2014, 11:25:38 PM
Ouch. Bad news galore On the bright side, we must have quite a bit of volume today on Bter and prices have fallen, so acquisition and mining would hopefully be cheaper. The coins would also hopefully have been bought by people committed to the growth of SLM.
I learnt about the weakness once someone about 4 pages back mentioned about the low scratch space requirements, and the slimcoin.club web miner was experimenting with an iteration limit of 64.
The improvement is actually rather little, around 20% max and you have to tweak for an optimal iteration limit. I haven't checked johnnylatte's hex acceleration routine.
However, once this news gets out (like now) I suspect it would be trivial for experienced GPU coders to accelerate it, if it wasn't already.
POB uses single-SHA256 and not dcrypt, so no iteration-based improvement would help it.
The dump is likely by someone with a GPU miner or a botnet; I've seen single addresses recently hashing with over 5MH.
I'll try to quickly implement the changes into the miner and release it; that should help level the playing field and buy us some time to change the algo, or just go completely GPU friendly.
I'm still for a version of CPU only algorithm though, but we oughta use one that has been well established.
On the bright side, we must have quite a bit of volume today on Bter and prices have fallen, so acquisition and mining would hopefully be cheaper. The coins would also hopefully have been bought by people committed to the growth of SLM.I learnt about the weakness once someone about 4 pages back mentioned about the low scratch space requirements, and the slimcoin.club web miner was experimenting with an iteration limit of 64.
The improvement is actually rather little, around 20% max and you have to tweak for an optimal iteration limit. I haven't checked johnnylatte's hex acceleration routine.
However, once this news gets out (like now) I suspect it would be trivial for experienced GPU coders to accelerate it, if it wasn't already.
POB uses single-SHA256 and not dcrypt, so no iteration-based improvement would help it.
The dump is likely by someone with a GPU miner or a botnet; I've seen single addresses recently hashing with over 5MH.
I'll try to quickly implement the changes into the miner and release it; that should help level the playing field and buy us some time to change the algo, or just go completely GPU friendly.
I'm still for a version of CPU only algorithm though, but we oughta use one that has been well established.
October 28, 2014, 04:07:24 PM
Well I give up. Try at least 10 times with different nodes, including from rfcdejong. Always stucks at 10xxx blocks, no matter what. It takes forever to sync from start to block 10xxx and then stop to sync.
blockchain snapshot
(from slimcoin.club)
October 28, 2014, 04:05:42 PM
Well I give up. Try at least 10 times with different nodes, including from rfcdejong. Always stucks at 10xxx blocks, no matter what. It takes forever to sync from start to block 10xxx and then stop to sync.
October 28, 2014, 03:58:18 PM
if something ASIC-powered will be chosen, the reward for PoW must be recalculated to very low values, so the direct mining will never give some extra privileges.
Maybe PoB+PoS is much better! Why waste power for GPU-CPU mining, when even RasPi can be used to complete SlimCoin usage? SlimCoin, SlimWallet & SlimMiner (RasPi )
"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
Maybe PoB+PoS is much better! Why waste power for GPU-CPU mining, when even RasPi can be used to complete SlimCoin usage? SlimCoin, SlimWallet & SlimMiner (RasPi
)"Why use expensive and power-hungry hardware, when even Android smartphone can be your e-Wallet & Miner?"
October 28, 2014, 03:46:46 PM
Oh wow someone is going to burn 150K i guess
Looking at the block explorer the seller's address might be SS1grkp5FhhzYy2U3unqwMeSs4Lzq2v1qN
But i don't want to search for long..
Where is our statistics guy? TheRealSteve?
Looking at the block explorer the seller's address might be SS1grkp5FhhzYy2U3unqwMeSs4Lzq2v1qN
But i don't want to search for long..
Where is our statistics guy?
TheRealSteve? October 28, 2014, 03:44:23 PM
I think we should change the algorithm to SHA-256 and skip right past all the drama and speculation of a GPU miner being built.
Yeah- doesn't matter which algo to me, but it makes sense to use a tried and true one. PoB is what makes this coin unique, why complicate things with an algorithm like dcrypt that no one seems to know much about?
October 28, 2014, 03:32:37 PM
I think we should change the algorithm to SHA-256 and skip right past all the drama and speculation of a GPU miner being built.
Jump to: