[ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record - page 136.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: bsunau7 on September 11, 2014, 07:09:52 AM

Quick and dirty test didn't find any p0-2 primes, tested code by running the same test with p0-0 (i.e. p0) which 'found' most of them aside from some in the 60k block range... There is an anomaly at block hight 61000-62000 where the limb size doubles, I suspect it might be the source file/gmp parsing but I've not investigated.

It's probably a bug on my side, I changed the storage format around that, a range might have gotten corrupted. Let me check.

edit: yes, encoding bug, the values in that range are actually the hexadecimal ASCII values, f.i. 60001 says "36353836..." is actually "6586..."

edit2: fixed & updated zip, now with 122000 primes.

bsunau7

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: bsunau7 on September 11, 2014, 07:09:52 AM

There is an anomaly at block hight 61000-62000 where the limb size doubles, I suspect it might be the source file/gmp parsing but I've not investigated.

fairglu, can you check the file? The problem primes are twice as long as they should:

Code:

The difficulty and the size of the prime for block 60010 don't match (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/block.dws?60010.htm). Also the p0 for block height 60010 does not match what the block chain says:

Code:

$ riecoind getprimes c128a2f6a3ebb5afa55cd3896959697059b8bd36a16b1e50e56b5fb1349230f7
{
"p0" : "6583993995561192360346046251200206127224654587084325937668318951846051159452993920231623250817659319742419550076619488702317466896549240871168724940491399822598666002168585392207972987955918925506288180520886691254442379378219899029781268734901605154351243323483934758451516491217058653000969212415484447222824114991142710278105797334598372470805981538498172580073950216353959647551925237059810296823999141391673270944333694570238718103456560515918954735187487480245413428471638426754875981718775052397",

Regards,

--
bsunau7

bsunau7

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: fairglu on September 11, 2014, 01:38:32 AM

No problem, I'll run the update and generate a complete zip (had not bothered since diff went down).

edit: updated the zip with the first 120k primes (p0), get it from https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/

Quick and dirty test didn't find any p0-2 primes, tested code by running the same test with p0-0 (i.e. p0) which 'found' most of them aside from some in the 60k block range... There is an anomaly at block hight 61000-62000 where the limb size doubles, I suspect it might be the source file/gmp parsing but I've not investigated.

Code used (so people and extend/validate):

Code:

//bsunau7

#include
#include
#include "gmp.h"

int count,m2 = 0;
mpz_t tmp,p0;

int test_minus2(mpz_t p) {
mpz_sub_ui(tmp,p,2);

if(mpz_millerrabin(tmp, 12)) {
m2++;
gmp_printf("p0 %#Zd\n",p);
}
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
FILE *f;

mpz_init(p0); mpz_init(tmp);

f = fopen("Riecoin_Primes.txt","r");

//while(EOF != gmp_fscanf(f,"%Zd\n",p0)) {
while(mpz_inp_str(p0,f,10)) {
test_minus2(p0);
count++;

if(count%1000 == 0) {
printf("count = %u minus-2's = %u limbs = %u\n",count,m2,p0->_mp_size);
}
}

fclose(f);

printf("count = %u minus-2's = %u\n",count,m2);
}

To compile & run:

Code:

pukcab% gcc -L /usr/local/lib -I /usr/local/include -O3 -o p7 p7.c -lgmp
pukcab% ./p7

No error checking (but a progress counter!!!!) just make sure that the file "Riecoin_Primes.txt" is in the same directory as you run it from.

Regards,

--
bsunau7

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: bsunau7 on September 11, 2014, 01:19:10 AM

Quickest way is https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/ has the first 60k blocks p0 in a zip file. fairglu might be willing to run this script to get a complete set...

No problem, I'll run the update and generate a complete zip (had not bothered since diff went down).

edit: updated the zip with the first 120k primes (p0), get it from https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/

bsunau7

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: aamarket on September 11, 2014, 12:55:25 AM

This is much nicer think to do - than the hard fork.
I had that idea before when checking Riecoin, here are the k-tuples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_k-tuple

but did not have the time ...

if anybody has tips, how to parse ric blockchain for 6tuplets, it's ease to do.

Anybody ?

Quickest way is https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/ has the first 60k blocks p0 in a zip file. fairglu might be willing to run this script to get a complete set...

Other wise it looks like and extract the transaction id (looks like custom code to process the block chain) and run "riecoind getprimes ". A perl DBM based script should also be able to do it, but I've not the time :-/

And yes, no hard fork would be nicer.

Regards,

--
bsunau7

zeus101

newbie

Activity: 1

Merit: 0

Quote from: bsunau7 on September 10, 2014, 11:46:54 PM

Quote from: gatra on September 10, 2014, 11:06:47 PM

Quote from: dga on September 10, 2014, 03:28:13 PM

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already? Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

You're right, but looking at the admissible patterns for sextuplets vs septuplets:
0 4 6 10 12 16
vs
0 2 6 8 12 18 20
0 2 8 12 14 18 20

it doesn't fit...looks like we're screwed... we won't have septuplets with minimal distance (p ... p+20)
I didn't verify this, but the source is Anthony Forbes

same thing with octuplets:
0 2 6 8 12 18 20 26
0 2 6 12 14 20 24 26
0 6 8 14 18 20 24 26

am in search of a hacker who can help me with malawares and viruses, willing to pay for the services rendered..thank you
my email is [email protected]

I spotted that as well, but it might not be as bad as you think (but not as easy as testing one extra prime).

If you take the first p7 variant and subtract 2 you get the pattern:

Code:

-2 0 4 6 10 16 18

Aside from "12" is a very good match for the 6-tuplet pattern (for the second p7 variant you ignore the "4"). In both cases you just need to test p-2 and p+18 for a valid p7 chain. In effect a valid 6-tuplet means you know you have 5 out of 7 valid primes for the 7-tuplet.

A quick look at the others shows similar tricks to "re-use" valid 6-tuplets probably also exist.

Once again check my assumptions....

EDIT: For the 7-tuplet, you can also subtract 4 and get another pretty good subset to use as the basis of a test. Should also increase chance of finding a valid chain.

Regards,

--
bsunau7

aamarket

sr. member

Activity: 259

Merit: 250

This is much nicer think to do - than the hard fork.
I had that idea before when checking Riecoin, here are the k-tuples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_k-tuple

but did not have the time ...

if anybody has tips, how to parse ric blockchain for 6tuplets, it's ease to do.

Anybody ?

bsunau7

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: gatra on September 10, 2014, 11:06:47 PM

Quote from: dga on September 10, 2014, 03:28:13 PM

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already? Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

You're right, but looking at the admissible patterns for sextuplets vs septuplets:
0 4 6 10 12 16
vs
0 2 6 8 12 18 20
0 2 8 12 14 18 20

it doesn't fit...looks like we're screwed... we won't have septuplets with minimal distance (p ... p+20)
I didn't verify this, but the source is Anthony Forbes

same thing with octuplets:
0 2 6 8 12 18 20 26
0 2 6 12 14 20 24 26
0 6 8 14 18 20 24 26

I spotted that as well, but it might not be as bad as you think (but not as easy as testing one extra prime).

If you take the first p7 variant and subtract 2 you get the pattern:

Code:

-2 0 4 6 10 16 18

Aside from "12" is a very good match for the 6-tuplet pattern (for the second p7 variant you ignore the "4"). In both cases you just need to test p-2 and p+18 for a valid p7 chain. In effect a valid 6-tuplet means you know you have 5 out of 7 valid primes for the 7-tuplet.

A quick look at the others shows similar tricks to "re-use" valid 6-tuplets probably also exist.

Once again check my assumptions....

EDIT: For the 7-tuplet, you can also subtract 4 and get another pretty good subset to use as the basis of a test. Should also increase chance of finding a valid chain.

Regards,

--
bsunau7

gatra

hero member

Activity: 583

Merit: 505

CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev

Quote from: dga on September 10, 2014, 03:28:13 PM

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already? Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

You're right, but looking at the admissible patterns for sextuplets vs septuplets:
0 4 6 10 12 16
vs
0 2 6 8 12 18 20
0 2 8 12 14 18 20

it doesn't fit...looks like we're screwed... we won't have septuplets with minimal distance (p ... p+20)
I didn't verify this, but the source is Anthony Forbes

same thing with octuplets:
0 2 6 8 12 18 20 26
0 2 6 12 14 20 24 26
0 6 8 14 18 20 24 26

dga

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 511

Quote from: gatra on September 09, 2014, 08:38:58 AM

Quote from: vidarn on September 09, 2014, 04:23:31 AM

Quote from: bsunau7 on September 09, 2014, 01:20:34 AM

The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months. It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.

Unlike Riecoin, Primecoin makes it possible to submit POW well above the current difficulty. The present Primecoin record is a 2nd kind Cunningham chain of length 14 from May this year (when the difficulty was 10.96)

http://primecoin.io/index.php
http://primerecords.dk/Cunningham_Chain_records.htm

That's true: there is the possibility that, by chance, a primecoin POW will be a chain of greater length than what's specified by the difficulty. However this happens "by luck", and since they are limited on the size of their primes, I agree with bsunau7 that they won't be seeing much new records for a while.

On the other hand, Riecoin cannot find sextuplets above difficulty (as you said)... BUT, analogous to what you decribed with primecoin, RIC can find sextuplets that are also part of septuplets or octuplets. The records for septuplets are much lower than those of sextuplets, so we may have broken some of those already! wow, I haven't realized this before... I'll have to make a script to test it, but with 120000 sextuplets there's a chance one of those is also a septuplet (and a world record breaking one)! the numbers are so large that the chance may be too small, but we have to test it...

Am I crazy, or should we not expect to have a few tens of septuplets already? Perhaps I'm mis-thinking the math -- 1/ln(2^1700) ~= 1/1200 chance of a sextuplet being a septuplet?

gatra

hero member

Activity: 583

Merit: 505

CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev

Quote from: vidarn on September 09, 2014, 04:23:31 AM

Quote from: bsunau7 on September 09, 2014, 01:20:34 AM

The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months. It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.

Unlike Riecoin, Primecoin makes it possible to submit POW well above the current difficulty. The present Primecoin record is a 2nd kind Cunningham chain of length 14 from May this year (when the difficulty was 10.96)

http://primecoin.io/index.php
http://primerecords.dk/Cunningham_Chain_records.htm

That's true: there is the possibility that, by chance, a primecoin POW will be a chain of greater length than what's specified by the difficulty. However this happens "by luck", and since they are limited on the size of their primes, I agree with bsunau7 that they won't be seeing much new records for a while.

On the other hand, Riecoin cannot find sextuplets above difficulty (as you said)... BUT, analogous to what you decribed with primecoin, RIC can find sextuplets that are also part of septuplets or octuplets. The records for septuplets are much lower than those of sextuplets, so we may have broken some of those already! wow, I haven't realized this before... I'll have to make a script to test it, but with 120000 sextuplets there's a chance one of those is also a septuplet (and a world record breaking one)! the numbers are so large that the chance may be too small, but we have to test it...

vidarn

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 1

Quote from: bsunau7 on September 09, 2014, 01:20:34 AM

The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months. It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.

Unlike Riecoin, Primecoin makes it possible to submit POW well above the current difficulty. The present Primecoin record is a 2nd kind Cunningham chain of length 14 from May this year (when the difficulty was 10.96)

http://primecoin.io/index.php
http://primerecords.dk/Cunningham_Chain_records.htm

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: gatra on September 08, 2014, 11:21:28 AM

If it's not poloniex nor mintpal my guess is that it's btc38, but how could we really know?

We probably need some chinese guy to confirm. The btc38 website is basically unresponsive and timing out from here, I couldn't even run automated translation on it because I could even see complete pages :/

Quote from: esuncloud on September 08, 2014, 11:47:25 AM

Meanwhile, the cold wallet of btc38 riecoin is public as RUrTHyyKiPr1SkAraTHvSY9d3vsdQHBjca, which has 3487644.
Therefore, we know that more than 50% of Riecoins are sitting in btc38.

Great to know! do you have some official link/url about it?

RUrTHyyKiPr1SkAraTHvSY9d3vsdQHBjca has only 550k however, and so far isn't related by taint to the large exchange wallet (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ric/wallet.dws?87250.htm), where does that 3487644 figure comes from?

bsunau7

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: vidarn on September 08, 2014, 11:50:45 AM

The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.

The difficulty on the primecoin network has been stuck at 10.95-10.98 (give or take) for months. It only seems to be increasing in response to miner efficiency.

I doubt they will be seeing any new records for a while.

Regards,

--
bsunau7

Ellieo

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

Quote from: vidarn on September 08, 2014, 11:50:45 AM

I believe you guys are making your estimates based on an old world record.
The 1857 difficulty corresponds to a 559 digits 6-tuplet found in 2009. The present record, according to Tony Forbes, is 593 digits or a difficulty of about 1970. The record 6-tuplet is

219946485329 * 1399# / 2 + d, d = −8, −4, −2, 2, 4, 8, found by Serge Batalov in December 2013.

Tony Forbes' k-tuplet page may be found here:

http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm

But as (1973/1441)^9 = 16.9 using gatra's estimates, we should be able to beat the record with an extra digit within an hour or so. The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.

Too bad the Tony Forbes' K-tuplet page didn't indicate the amount of time required for making the world record. Having a world record in record time is totally a different league.

gatra

hero member

Activity: 583

Merit: 505

CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev

Quote from: vidarn on September 08, 2014, 11:50:45 AM

I believe you guys are making your estimates based on an old world record.
The 1857 difficulty corresponds to a 559 digits 6-tuplet found in 2009. The present record, according to Tony Forbes, is 593 digits or a difficulty of about 1970. The record 6-tuplet is

219946485329 * 1399# / 2 + d, d = −8, −4, −2, 2, 4, 8, found by Serge Batalov in December 2013.

Tony Forbes' k-tuplet page may be found here:

http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm

But as (1973/1441)^9 = 16.9 using gatra's estimates, we should be able to beat the record with an extra digit within an hour or so. The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.

F*ck! ^$&$^%$&%$&%$^@#$%^! Angry

thanks vidarn for noticing
so we would have 1 hour blocks once per week.... let's wipe that list!

vidarn

newbie

Activity: 20

Merit: 1

I believe you guys are making your estimates based on an old world record.
The 1857 difficulty corresponds to a 559 digits 6-tuplet found in 2009. The present record, according to Tony Forbes, is 593 digits or a difficulty of about 1970. The record 6-tuplet is

219946485329 * 1399# / 2 + d, d = −8, −4, −2, 2, 4, 8, found by Serge Batalov in December 2013.

Tony Forbes' k-tuplet page may be found here:

http://anthony.d.forbes.googlepages.com/ktuplets.htm

But as (1973/1441)^9 = 16.9 using gatra's estimates, we should be able to beat the record with an extra digit within an hour or so. The Primecoin lot have broken quite a few world records, it would be nice if we could get some too.

esuncloud

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: gatra on September 08, 2014, 11:21:28 AM

Quote from: fairglu on September 08, 2014, 10:25:09 AM

Diff 1857 is close enough to the ATH to probably not enter truly uncharted territory.

What about the proposal of weekly/monthly superblocks of ever-increasing difficulty?

I'm leaning towards a 30min block once a week. With current difficulty this would get us slightly above world record. If difficulty increases, the goal of the weekly superblock would increase too, going farther where no man has gone before.

Quote from: fairglu on September 08, 2014, 10:25:09 AM

Question is, which exchange has the dominating exchange wallet? they would have to be notified, and seem to be neither poloniEx nor Mintpal.

If it's not poloniex nor mintpal my guess is that it's btc38, but how could we really know?

Quote from: fairglu on September 08, 2014, 10:25:09 AM

Almost 50% of the network is on 0.8.x versions though, according to the sample seen by the explorer, they would have to update, that can be seen as both a bad or a good thing.

I'd give a couple of weeks for everyone to update and use the built-in alert system to let everyone know.

I hate it that we still have one pool dominating, however it does make hard-forking easier and I'm thankful that it's ypool because it's behaving really well.

According to http://api.riecoin.org/minted.php, the total Riecoin is 6022200.
Meanwhile, the cold wallet of btc38 riecoin is public as RUrTHyyKiPr1SkAraTHvSY9d3vsdQHBjca, which has 3487644.
Therefore, we know that more than 50% of Riecoins are sitting in btc38.

gatra

hero member

Activity: 583

Merit: 505

CTO @ Flixxo, Riecoin dev

Quote from: fairglu on September 08, 2014, 10:25:09 AM

Diff 1857 is close enough to the ATH to probably not enter truly uncharted territory.

What about the proposal of weekly/monthly superblocks of ever-increasing difficulty?

I'm leaning towards a 30min block once a week. With current difficulty this would get us slightly above world record. If difficulty increases, the goal of the weekly superblock would increase too, going farther where no man has gone before.

Quote from: fairglu on September 08, 2014, 10:25:09 AM

Question is, which exchange has the dominating exchange wallet? they would have to be notified, and seem to be neither poloniEx nor Mintpal.

If it's not poloniex nor mintpal my guess is that it's btc38, but how could we really know?

Quote from: fairglu on September 08, 2014, 10:25:09 AM

Almost 50% of the network is on 0.8.x versions though, according to the sample seen by the explorer, they would have to update, that can be seen as both a bad or a good thing.

I'd give a couple of weeks for everyone to update and use the built-in alert system to let everyone know.

I hate it that we still have one pool dominating, however it does make hard-forking easier and I'm thankful that it's ypool because it's behaving really well.

fairglu

legendary

Activity: 1100

Merit: 1032

Quote from: gatra on September 08, 2014, 08:42:48 AM

When difficulty was 1700, it would have been 1.7 times harder, meaning that choosing a block interval target of 5 minutes instead of 2.5 would have made us break the record a couple of months ago.

Interesting side-effect of the block interval.

Diff 1857 is close enough to the ATH to probably not enter truly uncharted territory.

What about the proposal of weekly/monthly superblocks of ever-increasing difficulty?

Higher risk of stall in the long term, but some opportunity to test less-complex superblocks first with the current network hashrate.

Quote from: aamarket on September 08, 2014, 04:07:44 AM

Is the network 'slowdown' for (possibly much more than) 30 minutes - and the need for everybody to update his clients -
really worth the risk of 'hard fork' problems ?

TBH the network isn't terribly busy, especially once you filter-out the yPool payouts (check the explorer), and during the superblock, yPool wouldn't have to issue payouts, so the stall shouldn't be too problematic in itself.

The hard fork risks should also be limited given there are few pools to be notified (and yPool is dominating).

Question is, which exchange has the dominating exchange wallet? they would have to be notified, and seem to be neither poloniEx nor Mintpal.

Almost 50% of the network is on 0.8.x versions though, according to the sample seen by the explorer, they would have to update, that can be seen as both a bad or a good thing.

Topic: [ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW *CPU* HARD FORK successful, world record - page 136. (Read 685207 times)

Topic: [ANN][RIC] Riecoin: constellations POW CPU HARD FORK successful, world record - page 136. (Read 685207 times)