Topic: [ANN][MOON] Mooncoin: You know where it's headed! KGW exploit FIXED 4/3/2014 - page 206. (Read 1106889 times)

If you could "choose" the prize for the upcoming Blazecoin giveaway, which of these would you choose?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624778.0;all

So you really want to tell us, that you cannot spare 0.001 BTC, which equals ~0.6 USD?
If BTC as such is the problem, you can also donate in LTC or DOGE. So if you own some Mooncoin, you could exchange them for DOGE or LTC and then vote for our coin on https://www.coinpayments.net/vote

Remember: The donation is a charitable contribution, as described on the site.

Thank you!

Need 0.001BTC.

Important:

Have you all already voted for getting Mooncoin to Coinpayments.net?
If not, please do so here: https://www.coinpayments.net/vote

Remember: it is of highest importance to USE the coin. And using the coin is done by spending it. And since we need a coin-processer for merchants, so that they can accept Mooncoin for payments in their shops, please vote! Even if you are "only" an investor, you should vote there, because if the coin is being USED, it is worth more, so the price can rise - which, I think, will be good for you.


Thanks to you all!


BTW: Please spread the word about voting for MOON.

Yes he is and he wrote here 48 min ago:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MoonCoin/comments/2acozv/coinpaymentsnet_a_very_real_solution/

is the dev alive?

3 litoshi

good job 

hahahah some guy sold me a lot of mooncoins at 4 litoshi 

I'm also of the opinion that we need to focus on what the average Joe-Moonie needs. In my opinion it is relatively irrelevant, on which algo a coin is based. If you get attention of the normal users first, the coin will gather importance. If it gathers importance, the price will rise. If the price rises, the miners will get their rewards and are content (edit: btw, if you look at www.cointweak.com, Mooncoin is not doing bad already in terms of mining-profitabilty, compared to all the other Scrypt-based coins, including DOGE - just sayin').
So we have to focus what we want: Do we wanna please the miners or the users of the coin? If we wanna please the miners: Do we wanna please those with big machines (ASIC-monsters) or do we focus on the next best algo, that has to be switched again after the next best ASIC-monster-developer finds a way to create a miner, that can mine this multi-criss-cross-double-special-algo-mixer-miracle ...?

The primary claims are couched in classic marketing-speak

“The Groestl algorithm is possibly the single most GPU-efficient algorithm implemented in any cryptocoin on the market.”

“A comparison between many different algorithms shows that it has the lowest power consumption, heat, and noise of the array of newer ones being implemented in cryptocoins.”

I prefer more more traditional promotional vacuities: “The Groestl algorithm: farm fresh and quality assured.”

I meant something more like Third-Round Report of the SHA-3 Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition, something that affords a more nuanced understanding. I found sections 5.1 Software performance, 5.2 Hardware performance and 5.3 Discussion to be invaluable in their coverage and clarity. There doesn't seem to be anything in there which singles out Groestl as particularly efficient other than a mild observation that it has good throughput/area - but that's a quality of the ASIC implementation in hardware, not of the GPU implementation in software. All of the SHA-3 final round candidate hash functions were implemented as ASICs, the NIST committee was slightly apologetic that they could only afford the 256-bit versions.

That was worth following up, TIL quite a lot and I discovered the delights of the iacr eprint list. Thanks utahjohn for prompting me to ask awkward questions.

So ... x11? Yeah, maybe - if there's a well-supported argument that can be made then I think the community can be offered a stimulating change. I'm very sympathetic to any change that benefits the Moonie-on-the-Clapham-bendibus.

I'm particularly keen to see a balanced discussion. Thus far, all the discussion has been about changing the coin's economics to better suit the objectives of the miners. Basically, this one-sidedness is increasing the risk that the tilt in favour of miners, already noticeably acute, will become even more angled away from the non-miner and with billions of MOON to be generated, the only way this coin can survive is by embracing the community of coin-users that gave the currency the velocity that was assumed in the original formulation and who now, after much Mooncoin inaction, understandably have found other interests to pursue.


Cheers,

Graham

Ah, the penny's just dropped for me, the difference is due to changes in the implementation on GPU architecture. ofc.


Cheers

Graham

http://www.cryptoarticles.com/crypto-news/2014/4/23/groestlcoin-efficient-mining-on-both-cpu-and-gpu

http://altcurrencyhelp.com/Groestl

I'd be grateful for some help, I can't find a mention of Groestl on any of the pages of that thread, which of the pointers should I follow?

Cheers

Graham

@Graham
The groestl algorithm used in part of X11 seems to be the major factor in reduction of power usage and lower temps on GPU's.
See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/x11mod-x13mod-x15-and-catalyst-147-rc-666252

Thanks for the suggestion and pointer, apologies for subsequent hiatus, I needed to dig deep into the cryptographic underpinnings of folklore combiners such as x11.

I'm currently looking at a couple of sources of hard data.

1. The original Classification of the SHA-3 candidates, including reported performance statistics in cpb (cycles per message block) for 256 and 512 output lengths (sometimes labelled "-32" or "-64") on 32 & 64-bit host architectures:

Name_of_hash_function	32-bit_arch	Class'n	64-bit_arch	Class'n
ARIRANG-256	20	A	55.3	E
ARIRANG-512	14.9	AA	11.2	B
AURORA-256	24.3	B	15.4	B
AURORA-512	46.9	B	27.4	E
BLAKE-32	28.3	B	16.7	B
BLAKE-64	61.7	C	12.3	B
Blender-32	105.8	E	105.8	E
Blender-64	122.4	E	164.2	E
BMW-256	8.6	AA	7.85	AA
BMW-512	13.37	AA	4.06	AA
Cheetah-256	15.3	A	10.5	A
Cheetah-512	83.8	D	15.6	C
Chi-256	49	C	26	D
Chi-512	78	D	16	C
CRUNCH-256	29.9	C	16.9	B
CRUNCH-512	86.4	D	46.9	E
CubeHash8/1-256	14	A	11	A
CubeHash16/1-512	14	A	11	A
DynamicSHA-256	27.9	B	27.9	D
DynamicSHA-512	47.2	B	47.2	E
DynamicSHA2-256	21.9	B	21.9	C
DynamicSHA2-512	67.3	C	67.1	E
ECHO-256	38	D	32	D
ECHO-256	83	D	66	E
Edon-R-256	9.1	AA	5.9	AA
Edon-R-512	13.7	AA	2.9	AA
EnRUPT-256	8.3	AA	8.3	A
EnRUPT-512	5.1	AA	5.1	AA
Essence-256	149.8	E	19.5	B
Essence-512	176.5	E	23.5	D
Fugue-256	36.2	C	61	E
Fugue-512	74.6	D	132.7	E
Grøstl-256	22.9	B	22.4	D
Grøstl-512	37.5	A	30.1	E
Hamsi-256	22	B	25	D
JH-256	21.3	B	16.8	B
JH-512	21.3	AA	16.8	D
Keccak-256	35.4	C	10.1	A
Keccak-512	68.9	C	20.3	D
LANE-256	40.4	D	25.6	D
LANE-512	152.2	E	145.3	E
Lesamnta-256	59.2	E	52.7	E
Lesamnta-512	54.5	B	51.2	E
Luffa-256	13.9	AA	13.4	A
Luffa-512	25.5	AA	23.2	D
Lux-256	16.7	A	28.2	D
Lux-512	14.9	AA	12.5	B
MD6-256	68	E	28	D
MD6-512	106	D	44	E
NaSHA-256	39	D	28.4	D
NaSHA-512	38.9	A	29.3	E
SANDstorm-256	62.5	E	36.5	D
SANDstorm-512	296.8	E	95.3	E
Sarmal-256	19.2	A	10	A
Sarmal-512	23.3	AA	12.6	B
SHA-256	29.3	C	20.1	C
SHA-512	55.2	C	13.1	C
Shabal-256	18.4	A	13.5	A
Shabal-512	18.4	AA	13.5	C
SHAvite-3-256	35.3	C	26.7	C
SHAvite-3-512	55	B	38.2	E
SIMD-256	12	AA	11	A
SIMD-512	118	E	85	E
Skein-256	21.6	A	7.6	AA
Skein-512	20.1	AA	6.1	AA
TIB3-256	12.9	AA	7.6	A
TIB3-512	17.5	AA	6.3	AA
Twister-256	35.8	C	15.8	B
Twister-512	39.6	A	17.5	D
Vortex-256	46.2	D	69.4	E
Vortex-512	56	C	90	E

This is, of course, a preliminary classification performed in 2009.

2. Contemporary detail is less accessibly presented:

http://cryptography.gmu.edu/athenadb/asic_hash/table_view

http://bench.cr.yp.to/results-sha3.html

Looking at those benchmarks, I can't immediately see anything that might explain why x11 should run cooler. You're probably closer to the x11 details than I am, (I'm still ploughing my way through the relevant literature on folklore and other combiners to see if there's any traction there), did Euan provide a technical appreciation for the choice and ordering of the chain of hash fns for x11?

Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn has provided (IMO) the clearest description of the trade-offs in a choice of basic folklore combiner.


My rapid review of the x11/GPU issue (hands-off, I'm afraid; my altcoin experience is circumscribed by my entry-level Acer Sandybridge) suggests that there were contemporaneous changes to the coding of the mining app. This would be unfortunate if true; it introduces a confounding factor that undermines the credibility of claims of improved efficiency accruing from the introduction of the x11 combiner in that it's impossible to disentangle the relative contributions of performance gains from i) enhancements to the application code and/or ii) the change in combo.

But it's an ill wind that blows no good - I now have at least a plausible explanation of the difference in reception between c11 and x11 ---  I've had a very hard time persuading myself that such a significant effect was due to a simple change in the batting order. Given what I now know, Occam's Razor tells me that it probably isn't and I should look elsewhere for the source of the difference in reception/perception. If there's any reliable, robust data which points to the opposite conclusion, I'd really appreciate a pointer.

Perhaps the most significant element to emerge from my consideration of a switch to x11 is that it would come at the cost of completely ruling out any possibility of merge-mining with our current altcoin kith and kin.

Cheers

Graham

Edit: extended header for more tabular space. enumerated

At the moment the coin just works. So what is the REAL problem? 

Any idea, why your Pool does not show up in the node-scanner-list? Normally it finds each and every P2Pool-node, that is setup as a public one. Could you check with the NOMP-developer on how to set it up to be found? Would be nice.

There is a 0.1% fee as a thank you to the NOMPs devs (https://github.com/zone117x/node-open-mining-portal/)

To the coin Dev's
What is the status of coin development?  Without active development and reports interest will continue to fall.
Why the F**k am I still holding coins  PoS need to be implemented for bagholders