@MickGhee
I like your post.
I do think the dev team is thinking very long term with with Decred, which could have been why they went with blake-256 rather than trying to have an algo without a distinct advantage for gpu miners.
If this is a success, asics will be developed.
Blake-256 asics are CHEAP to develop/implement comparatively speaking.
Huge hashpower in the future will help solidify Decred's place in crypto history as well as providing a highly secure environment for future applications utilizing the Decred blockchain.
Topic: [ANN][DCR] Decred - Community Governance | Bitcoin Devs | Lightning Network - page 528. (Read 1201599 times)
January 14, 2016, 12:50:58 PM
January 14, 2016, 11:00:01 AM
Wow this project has been evolving for a very long time, really exciting to see where it is at now compared to a few years ago.
One of the true long term altcoin development projects.
One of the true long term altcoin development projects.
January 14, 2016, 01:33:35 AM
Been watching this for a very long time. Glad to see it the way it is now. I'm back baby!
January 13, 2016, 10:50:19 PM
Suppose I mine with my 5 year old laptop that has 4gb ram, Intel Core i5 and 500gb disk space.
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
Not even close. Cpus have vastly different architecture than gpus or fpgas.
Usually, a memory hard algorithm is required to close this gap. Look at Monero for example.
Thanks for the quick response.
This is very unfortunate for me as I was looking forward to mining Decred and increase the stash of airdrop coins i will get.
Maybe the devs might consider a memory hard algo when it is time to vote and 66% vote for CPU mining to be worth it.
Memory hard algos make it more expensive to develop asics / employ on fpgas. Look at scrypt for example.
Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too
January 13, 2016, 10:31:44 PM
Suppose I mine with my 5 year old laptop that has 4gb ram, Intel Core i5 and 500gb disk space.
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
Not even close. Cpus have vastly different architecture than gpus or fpgas.
Usually, a memory hard algorithm is required to close this gap. Look at Monero for example.
Thanks for the quick response.
This is very unfortunate for me as I was looking forward to mining Decred and increase the stash of airdrop coins i will get.
Maybe the devs might consider a memory hard algo when it is time to vote and 66% vote for CPU mining to be worth it.
January 13, 2016, 10:25:35 PM
Suppose I mine with my 5 year old laptop that has 4gb ram, Intel Core i5 and 500gb disk space.
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
Not even close. Cpus have vastly different architecture than gpus or fpgas.
Usually, a memory hard algorithm is required to close this gap. Look at Monero for example.
January 13, 2016, 10:10:03 PM
Suppose I mine with my 5 year old laptop that has 4gb ram, Intel Core i5 and 500gb disk space.
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
Would it mine just as efficiently as a GPU and would i get the same number of coins mined?
January 13, 2016, 09:45:42 PM
@dbt1033 thanks again. Very well explained
Always brother
Glad to help
January 13, 2016, 09:40:27 PM
@dbt1033 thanks again. Very well explained
January 13, 2016, 06:06:32 PM
Really like this project and will keep a rig ready 
January 13, 2016, 05:07:48 PM
Simple GPU miner - A simple AMD GPU miner that connects to a local daemon will be available before launch. In the future, proper getblocktemplate functionality will be enabled and pool software will be made available.
@decred, I would like to get some detailed clarification about mining.
First of all, why a new miner and why not support for pooled mining from the beginning?
There are already GPU miners available:
For AMD GPUs:
https://github.com/Griffitsj/cgminer-saffron/
Code:
cgminer --blake256 -o stratum+tcp://...
p.s.: this should be migrated to the newer sgminer, otherwise it's just fine
For NVIDIA GPUs:
https://github.com/tpruvot/ccminer or https://github.com/sp-hash/ccminer
Code:
ccminer.exe -a blake -o stratum+tcp://...
These two miners implements Blake256 algo with 14 rounds, the same as Decred is using. So mining software is already here, why not simply use it? Are you planing to make any changes in the algorithm (if yes, why?)? Or will these miners be able to mine on Decred out-of-the-box once pools are out? Also, are you planning to go some non-standard way or will Decred be fully compatible with the standard stratum protocol for pooled mining?
Thanks for the answers!
January 13, 2016, 03:14:49 PM
I am very intrested in the concepts of this 
January 13, 2016, 01:10:32 PM
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6IDpD-2WO8qSnpCNmRpMmNsMlE/edit Paper on Sha-3 finalists
http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-sha3.html Sha-3 candidate testing/benchmarks
Seems like blake-256 is a more fair algo for a wide variety of mining devices. The margins between cpu/gpu/fpga are much more reasonable than keccak.
It uses a lot less memory as well.
edit: Keccak asics seem faster than blake-256 asics...but are also MUCH more expensive.
The dev team has obviously done it's homework. Me likey.
http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-sha3.html Sha-3 candidate testing/benchmarks
Seems like blake-256 is a more fair algo for a wide variety of mining devices. The margins between cpu/gpu/fpga are much more reasonable than keccak.
It uses a lot less memory as well.
edit: Keccak asics seem faster than blake-256 asics...but are also MUCH more expensive.
The dev team has obviously done it's homework. Me likey.
January 13, 2016, 12:57:10 PM
...
Not sure if this helps, but blake-256 is faster and smaller than keccak.
SHA-256 uses the Merkle–Damgård construction method
Blake-256 uses the HAIFA construction method which an improved Merkle–Damgård
Keccak uses the sponge construction method
SHA-256 is weak against length extension that's why they use a double hash as it is suposed to give resistance to that attack, Blake-256 is resistant to length extension due to the HAIFA construction method and Keccak is immune to length extension that's why they picked it for SHA-3 not for its speed
This is cool ref and will give you the background on different construction methods:
http://theglobaljournals.com/paripex/file.php?val=MTExNA==
Looks like FPGA implementation with blake-256 is much easier too (because of its simplicity/size)
Keccak was only chosen as SHA-3 finalist because it met the criteria better than blake-256. This doesn't mean it is a better cryptocurrency hashing algo.
Fun fact: Maxcoin quietly changed their algo from Keccak to blake-256 because it's a better hashing algo for crypto due to its speed/size.
We need FPGAs and eventually ASICS to create a sustainable long term network, so it seems this was a reasonable decision for Decred.
Thanks a lot
January 13, 2016, 12:51:09 PM
please stop paying attention to rizzlarolla
he's just a troll, a bitcoin fanboy trying to bother with endless questions.
He will never stop while receiving answers
He's on a thread called "answer de question above with a new question" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13467853
And please answer this technical question posted by me here:
It was asked by the dev who created the first optimized miner for X11, on brazilian facebook decred group that already has 200 participants for now (and growing). All of then really interested in investing in that currency.
He wondered if was some technical reason for the choice of blake256 instead the sha3 winner which is keccak.
There are in decred technical brief the advantages in relation to SHA2, but not in relation to sha3.
Here's the original question in brazilian portuguese: https://www.facebook.com/groups/667062416769204/permalink/667072613434851/?comment_id=667131273428985&reply_comment_id=667136583428454&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
Thanks
he's just a troll, a bitcoin fanboy trying to bother with endless questions.
He will never stop while receiving answers
He's on a thread called "answer de question above with a new question" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13467853
And please answer this technical question posted by me here:
why was blake chosen instead of any of the other sha3 finalists? What does it have that is better for decred than skein or keccak, for example?
It was asked by the dev who created the first optimized miner for X11, on brazilian facebook decred group that already has 200 participants for now (and growing). All of then really interested in investing in that currency.
He wondered if was some technical reason for the choice of blake256 instead the sha3 winner which is keccak.
There are in decred technical brief the advantages in relation to SHA2, but not in relation to sha3.
Here's the original question in brazilian portuguese: https://www.facebook.com/groups/667062416769204/permalink/667072613434851/?comment_id=667131273428985&reply_comment_id=667136583428454&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
Thanks
Not sure if this helps, but blake-256 is faster and smaller than keccak.
SHA-256 uses the Merkle–Damgård construction method
Blake-256 uses the HAIFA construction method which an improved Merkle–Damgård
Keccak uses the sponge construction method
SHA-256 is weak against length extension that's why they use a double hash as it is suposed to give resistance to that attack, Blake-256 is resistant to length extension due to the HAIFA construction method and Keccak is immune to length extension that's why they picked it for SHA-3 not for its speed
This is cool ref and will give you the background on different construction methods:
http://theglobaljournals.com/paripex/file.php?val=MTExNA==
Looks like FPGA implementation with blake-256 is much easier too (because of its simplicity/size)
Keccak was only chosen as SHA-3 finalist because it met the criteria better than blake-256. This doesn't mean it is a better cryptocurrency hashing algo.
Fun fact: Maxcoin quietly changed their algo from Keccak to blake-256 because it's a better hashing algo for crypto due to its speed/size.
We need FPGAs and eventually ASICS to create a sustainable long term network, so it seems this was a reasonable decision for Decred.
January 13, 2016, 12:32:51 PM
...
I appreciate this. I'm going to make a note and get a detailed answer for you. There are obviously some relatively intense pressures on getting this ready, so if I can't get you an adequate answer soon, I will get you one later, and share it here so everyone can see it. I apologise for missing this too, it can get a bit difficult to spot every question. Thanks for bringing it to light! There is also work being done on formulating an FAQ-type document, and this should be addressed alongside that as well.
Thanks
I can't wait to create a post on that group saying: "COMPREM!" (BUY!)
January 13, 2016, 12:12:09 PM
please stop paying attention to rizzlarolla
he's just a troll, a bitcoin fanboy trying to bother with endless questions.
He will never stop while receiving answers
He's on a thread called "answer de question above with a new question" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13467853
And please answer this technical question posted by me here:
It was asked by the dev who created the first optimized miner for X11, on brazilian facebook decred group that already has 200 participants for now, really interested in investing in that currency.
He wondered if was some technical reason for the choice of blake256 instead the sha3 winner which is keccak.
There are in decred technical brief the advantages in relation to SHA2, but not in relation to sha3.
Here's the original question in portuguese: https://www.facebook.com/groups/667062416769204/permalink/667072613434851/?comment_id=667131273428985&reply_comment_id=667136583428454&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
Thanks
he's just a troll, a bitcoin fanboy trying to bother with endless questions.
He will never stop while receiving answers
He's on a thread called "answer de question above with a new question" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13467853
And please answer this technical question posted by me here:
why was blake chosen instead of any of the other sha3 finalists? What does it have that is better for decred than skein or keccak, for example?
It was asked by the dev who created the first optimized miner for X11, on brazilian facebook decred group that already has 200 participants for now, really interested in investing in that currency.
He wondered if was some technical reason for the choice of blake256 instead the sha3 winner which is keccak.
There are in decred technical brief the advantages in relation to SHA2, but not in relation to sha3.
Here's the original question in portuguese: https://www.facebook.com/groups/667062416769204/permalink/667072613434851/?comment_id=667131273428985&reply_comment_id=667136583428454&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
Thanks
I appreciate this. I'm going to make a note and get a detailed answer for you. There are obviously some relatively intense pressures on getting this ready, so if I can't get you an adequate answer soon, I will get you one later, and share it here so everyone can see it. I apologise for missing this too, it can get a bit difficult to spot every question. Thanks for bringing it to light! There is also work being done on formulating an FAQ-type document, and this should be addressed alongside that as well.
January 13, 2016, 11:40:41 AM
please stop paying attention to rizzlarolla
he's just a troll, a bitcoin fanboy trying to bother with endless questions.
He will never stop while receiving answers
He's on a thread called "answer de question above with a new question" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13467853
And please answer this technical question posted by me here:
It was asked by the dev who created the first optimized miner for X11, on brazilian facebook decred group that already has 200 members for now (and growing). All of then really interested in investing in that currency.
He wondered if was some technical reason for the choice of blake256 instead the sha3 winner which is keccak.
There are in decred technical brief the advantages in relation to SHA2, but not in relation to sha3.
Here's the original question in brazilian portuguese: https://www.facebook.com/groups/667062416769204/permalink/667072613434851/?comment_id=667131273428985&reply_comment_id=667136583428454&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
Thanks
he's just a troll, a bitcoin fanboy trying to bother with endless questions.
He will never stop while receiving answers
He's on a thread called "answer de question above with a new question" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13467853
And please answer this technical question posted by me here:
why was blake chosen instead of any of the other sha3 finalists? What does it have that is better for decred than skein or keccak, for example?
It was asked by the dev who created the first optimized miner for X11, on brazilian facebook decred group that already has 200 members for now (and growing). All of then really interested in investing in that currency.
He wondered if was some technical reason for the choice of blake256 instead the sha3 winner which is keccak.
There are in decred technical brief the advantages in relation to SHA2, but not in relation to sha3.
Here's the original question in brazilian portuguese: https://www.facebook.com/groups/667062416769204/permalink/667072613434851/?comment_id=667131273428985&reply_comment_id=667136583428454&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
Thanks
January 13, 2016, 11:11:36 AM
...this is not forcast to actually happen any time soon, using decreds own numbers.
You are asking for things that nobody can answer for you. If Decred holds no value for anyone, then of course no development can happen. Who would want to develop something that nobody cares about? I haven't seen you go nuts about btcsuite being funded without any income, and that's survived, nay, flourished over the years to a point where it's used at the core of many organisations today. Even Ethereum based its geth implementation on btcd. My point is that you cannot get upset about numbers nobody can answer - anyone who tries to answer them for you is a false prophet because no one can know the future. Decred will adapt to what's required for it to deliver and reach its goals. What other option is there? As we speak people are getting stuck into it and working on it. You just put one foot in front of the other and work - that's what will be done in good and tough times.
One can theorise.
Q. How many of these community devs will be paid, if decred was valued at or below $0.49?
A. 1 and a bit, or less.
I just want this to be clear to any "new devs working on btc for free, looking to get paid work here"
January 13, 2016, 11:06:25 AM
Usually the airdrop ensures that everyone except for the community will get the Decrepit coins.
Anyways, i've just signed up, i'm in. Let's see if i have more chances of receiving this shitcoin than to win the Powerball. I doubt it.
I'm glad to see you here!
Jump to: