http://www.bigblueboo.com/prime/ you can find 6-tuples at 97, 19417, 43777
Did not knew that one, been spending/playing a few minutes on it, very nice indeed!
Topic: [ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record - page 133. (Read 685207 times)
September 25, 2014, 07:56:19 AM
Did not knew that one, been spending/playing a few minutes on it, very nice indeed!
September 25, 2014, 12:15:16 AM
fyi i tried to compile it for windows with mingw using Gatra's fork , no go / lol
We're waiting for dga to merge the stratum code. I'm hoping he could make new binaries for Linux and Windows: that would leave miners no excuse for trying other pools.
I've started working on the superblock thing which feels like the new priority, I'm thinking on the easiest and safest way to implement the difficulty adjustments taking superblocks into account. I'm determined to break at least one record.
Thanks for keeping pushing me to write the updates!
Argh - sorry. This is still on my todo, I'm just lagging a little. I will try to get it done by tomorrow.
Any updates this week Gatra?
We're waiting for dga to merge the stratum code. I'm hoping he could make new binaries for Linux and Windows: that would leave miners no excuse for trying other pools.
I've started working on the superblock thing which feels like the new priority, I'm thinking on the easiest and safest way to implement the difficulty adjustments taking superblocks into account. I'm determined to break at least one record.
Thanks for keeping pushing me to write the updates!
Argh - sorry. This is still on my todo, I'm just lagging a little. I will try to get it done by tomorrow.
September 24, 2014, 05:56:59 PM
The idea is that superblocks would be 70 minutes long, and it would be like 28 standard blocks fused together.
So their difficulty would be 28 times as hard as the difficulty at the moment, and their reward would be 28 times higher, ie 1400.
This way there is no incentive to mine only during superblocks, since the expected reward is always the same. With this implementation there are no timestamp issues or anything special during or around superblocks. We don't need a special difficulty adjustment or tracking of 2 different difficulties.
I agree that this may work as a "one trick pony", but going for the other tricks (records for 7-tuples up to 15-tuples) requires more effort and implies an update to the pool software and all the miners. Superblocks are a simpler change that I'd like to try first, they would give us time to work on the other stuff.
Once per week would help show the power of RIC. A greater display of power could have greater impact, I'd like to stress out how much processing power is used in BTC and how RIC can divert it for more interesting things while still securing the network.
So their difficulty would be 28 times as hard as the difficulty at the moment, and their reward would be 28 times higher, ie 1400.
This way there is no incentive to mine only during superblocks, since the expected reward is always the same. With this implementation there are no timestamp issues or anything special during or around superblocks. We don't need a special difficulty adjustment or tracking of 2 different difficulties.
If the superblock is not found within set time frame then normal blocks can resume, and perhaps it can jackpot over to the next superblock round.
There is no consensus of current time on the network, so using time frames could lead to security problems.I agree that this may work as a "one trick pony", but going for the other tricks (records for 7-tuples up to 15-tuples) requires more effort and implies an update to the pool software and all the miners. Superblocks are a simpler change that I'd like to try first, they would give us time to work on the other stuff.
Once per week would help show the power of RIC. A greater display of power could have greater impact, I'd like to stress out how much processing power is used in BTC and how RIC can divert it for more interesting things while still securing the network.
Indeed the btc network some time ago surpassed 256 times the computational power of the worlds top 500 supercomputers http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/11/28/global-bitcoin-computing-power-now-256-times-faster-than-top-500-supercomputers-combined/ .
September 24, 2014, 10:37:32 AM
The idea is that superblocks would be 70 minutes long, and it would be like 28 standard blocks fused together.
So their difficulty would be 28 times as hard as the difficulty at the moment, and their reward would be 28 times higher, ie 1400.
This way there is no incentive to mine only during superblocks, since the expected reward is always the same. With this implementation there are no timestamp issues or anything special during or around superblocks. We don't need a special difficulty adjustment or tracking of 2 different difficulties.
I agree that this may work as a "one trick pony", but going for the other tricks (records for 7-tuples up to 15-tuples) requires more effort and implies an update to the pool software and all the miners. Superblocks are a simpler change that I'd like to try first, they would give us time to work on the other stuff.
Once per week would help show the power of RIC. A greater display of power could have greater impact, I'd like to stress out how much processing power is used in BTC and how RIC can divert it for more interesting things while still securing the network.
So their difficulty would be 28 times as hard as the difficulty at the moment, and their reward would be 28 times higher, ie 1400.
This way there is no incentive to mine only during superblocks, since the expected reward is always the same. With this implementation there are no timestamp issues or anything special during or around superblocks. We don't need a special difficulty adjustment or tracking of 2 different difficulties.
If the superblock is not found within set time frame then normal blocks can resume, and perhaps it can jackpot over to the next superblock round.
There is no consensus of current time on the network, so using time frames could lead to security problems.I agree that this may work as a "one trick pony", but going for the other tricks (records for 7-tuples up to 15-tuples) requires more effort and implies an update to the pool software and all the miners. Superblocks are a simpler change that I'd like to try first, they would give us time to work on the other stuff.
Once per week would help show the power of RIC. A greater display of power could have greater impact, I'd like to stress out how much processing power is used in BTC and how RIC can divert it for more interesting things while still securing the network.
September 24, 2014, 10:34:30 AM
Beyond the world records, are there interesting things that could be more "visual" about RIC constellations? (like what Ulam's spiral does for the regular primes)
Any work or ideas on "plotting" the constellations?
Any work or ideas on "plotting" the constellations?
these have nice visualizations:
http://www.bigblueboo.com/prime/ you can find 6-tuples at 97, 19417, 43777
http://www.sievesofchaos.com/
A prime number wheel with 210 numbers on each concentric circle would show all sextuplets aligned starting from 97. This could be nice.
September 24, 2014, 06:42:22 AM
What are the chances that everyone that jumps on for the super block day would be there just for exactly the time needed to find the superblock, even if superblocks have thier own diff curve (which u can safely assume they would) if its a one day a month thing u can expect that the extra mining power will start sometime before the superblock and linger some time after, in which case it will effect the network till next retarget.
Low, when ypool's riecoin wallet was being re-built there were still 4k clients "mining" nothing. There are a lot of miners (either knowingly or un-knowingly) mining while their machines are on. If they can't stop mining when there is no reward I don't think they will change their behaviour if they are mining the superblock or not.
--
bsunau7
September 24, 2014, 04:33:48 AM
What are the chances that everyone that jumps on for the super block day would be there just for exactly the time needed to find the superblock, even if superblocks have thier own diff curve (which u can safely assume they would) if its a one day a month thing u can expect that the extra mining power will start sometime before the superblock and linger some time after, in which case it will effect the network till next retarget.
September 24, 2014, 03:51:02 AM
But i would think that making the superblock infrequent might promote miners to mine for that particular day once per month/week leaving dedicated miners carrying the network the majority of the time
If that happens, it might not be bad actually, it could make for a sort of prime marathon event.
Of course that means superblocks would have to follow their own difficulty curve so such events don't wreck the blockchain for the rest of the week.
September 24, 2014, 03:47:49 AM
Breaking records is a one trick pony, you don't want to flog that pony any more than you need to. We'll get a nice up tick on the first record and the second but over time breaking the same record will have less and less value; it'll become the norm not the exception. Going on a slower path extends the marketing benefits while keeping the record difficulty somewhat in check.
Agreed.The "one trick ponies" of beating world records for different constellation sizes might offer a couple more ponies to flog around, but it would still run out of juice.
"Slower" might also allow enough time for scientific and academic press to pick it up.
Beyond the world records, are there interesting things that could be more "visual" about RIC constellations? (like what Ulam's spiral does for the regular primes)
Any work or ideas on "plotting" the constellations?
September 24, 2014, 02:37:41 AM
Why settle for 52 world records per year when u could have more 
Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical.
My preference of each world records breaking would come in this form Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical.
and subjected to this condition
where the variable t could represents the total time needed for mininng all Riecoin, etc.
September 24, 2014, 01:54:08 AM
Why settle for 52 world records per year when u could have more Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical.
Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical.I think once a week is more than enough, once a month would be my personal preference. Or 13 a year and make it a "full moon" thing
Breaking records is a one trick pony, you don't want to flog that pony any more than you need to. We'll get a nice up tick on the first record and the second but over time breaking the same record will have less and less value; it'll become the norm not the exception. Going on a slower path extends the marketing benefits while keeping the record difficulty somewhat in check.
Also knowing how superblocks will be sized would be nice. While you've touched on some of them there are significant risks if the superblock is a guaranteed record (i.e superblock difficulty only ever increases). Also you need to consider that once the "record euphoria" passes we'll see a reduction in overall network performance potentially making the next record block a huge liability.
Just some thoughts...
--
bsunau7
September 24, 2014, 01:04:22 AM
Why settle for 52 world records per year when u could have more Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical.
Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical.I think once a week is more than enough, once a month would be my personal preference. Or 13 a year and make it a "full moon" thing
Breaking records is a one trick pony, you don't want to flog that pony any more than you need to. We'll get a nice up tick on the first record and the second but over time breaking the same record will have less and less value; it'll become the norm not the exception. Going on a slower path extends the marketing benefits while keeping the record difficulty somewhat in check.
Also knowing how superblocks will be sized would be nice. While you've touched on some of them there are significant risks if the superblock is a guaranteed record (i.e superblock difficulty only ever increases). Also you need to consider that once the "record euphoria" passes we'll see a reduction in overall network performance potentially making the next record block a huge liability.
Just some thoughts...
--
bsunau7
September 24, 2014, 12:45:51 AM
What is the logic behind only once per week, 1 hour every few days wouldn't be a terrible interruption to the network?
yes, that was the idea, one small interruption per week felt like a small price for the records
To implement this, how would the restrictions on block timestamp change? It may affect the security level around superblocks IMO.
September 24, 2014, 12:40:54 AM
Why settle for 52 world records per year when u could have more Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical.
Say at least 3 super blocks per week? I don't think 3 hours a week would be a big impact on the riecoin network. I originally thought even everyday would be fine and would make mining more interesting for the average miner hopefully attracting more miners and having the flow on effect of making records easier to achieve. Though i can see the reasoning behind wanting to cause the least disruption while still breaking records. Perhaps you could also have POS blocks for the duration of the superblock this way tx can still be processed and you can have as many superblocks as deemed practical. September 23, 2014, 01:03:40 PM
What is the logic behind only once per week, 1 hour every few days wouldn't be a terrible interruption to the network?
yes, that was the idea, one small interruption per week felt like a small price for the records
September 23, 2014, 12:40:00 PM
Hi gatra, do we have P2Pool support for RIC?
Not yet, but it's on my to do list
Any update this week Gatra?
I'm currently on the hardfork. After some analysis and testing, I think that the best is to start with one superblock of (about one hour) per week and break the record for sextuplets. We would add an entry to the top ten once per week.
After that and with more time we can think of breaking the others. I've been thinking on how to work with much larger tuplets that would take hours or days to find, without the need for superblocks. It would work similar to how pooled mining works: blocks would allow tuplets with one or two composites until we finally find the record tuple of all primes. Doing this we could obliterate all records for tuples of size 6 and onwards!
Tuplets of fewer primes, like twin primes or even single primes are still out of reach until we have more ideas because block verification would take too long.
It's nice to see this idea sparking discussion
What is the logic behind only once per week, 1 hour every few days wouldn't be a terrible interruption to the network?
September 23, 2014, 08:56:48 AM
You'll need the version of the miner that supports stratum https://github.com/gatra/fastrie/tree/stratum
Hmmm, did a build all under debian, it generated "-b15" executables and when mining I'm seeing
Code:
Invalid share
Reason: Merkleroot is invalid or corrupted. Update your miner.
Reason: Merkleroot is invalid or corrupted. Update your miner.
The -b16 from dga seem to work fine.
September 21, 2014, 10:14:04 PM
I was considering the idea of having two threads going on simultaneously with mining a "superblock" on one and the regular 2.5 min transactions blocks on the other. Possibly generating 1/2 of the coins on the superblock and 1/2 on the standard blocks. That way we don't gum up the transactions while processing superblocks.... That being said, I'm starting to dislike the idea of superblocks interrupting the 2.5 min transaction cycle less and if we want to do a hard fork we should do it one time only and get it right.
mmm.... I don't want to spread the computing power in 2 parallel threads... it would make breaking the records slower while at the same time make the blockchain less secure... I'd rather have all the "hashrate" focused on one task that serves both goals.
September 20, 2014, 07:04:15 PM
I'm currently on the hardfork. After some analysis and testing, I think that the best is to start with one superblock of (about one hour) per week and break the record for sextuplets. We would add an entry to the top ten once per week.
After that and with more time we can think of breaking the others. I've been thinking on how to work with much larger tuplets that would take hours or days to find, without the need for superblocks. It would work similar to how pooled mining works: blocks would allow tuplets with one or two composites until we finally find the record tuple of all primes. Doing this we could obliterate all records for tuples of size 6 and onwards!
Tuplets of fewer primes, like twin primes or even single primes are still out of reach until we have more ideas because block verification would take too long.
I was considering the idea of having two threads going on simultaneously with mining a "superblock" on one and the regular 2.5 min transactions blocks on the other. Possibly generating 1/2 of the coins on the superblock and 1/2 on the standard blocks. That way we don't gum up the transactions while processing superblocks.... That being said, I'm starting to dislike the idea of superblocks interrupting the 2.5 min transaction cycle less and if we want to do a hard fork we should do it one time only and get it right.
September 20, 2014, 05:09:54 AM
And down to 1292...
Jump to: