[ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development - page 168.

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: ecliptic on May 21, 2013, 06:10:19 PM

crossposting

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 05:39:57 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on May 21, 2013, 05:29:55 PM

This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe

I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.

Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).

You're actually crossposting to a thread where this isn't particularly groundbreaking news. This thread is where the information sairon posted came from, and I believe I'm one of the 3 people sairon refers to as having benchmarked a working OpenCL kernel (which had relatively low hash rates). Recommend reading more than just the last page of this thread and the official YACoin thread, as this has been discussed to death already (in both threads).

bitdwarf

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

The cryptocoin watcher

"moneysupply" : 2826236

If anyone is GPU mining, they are definitely not moving much the total supply.

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

crossposting

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 05:39:57 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on May 21, 2013, 05:29:55 PM

This is a very bad idea. You have just introduced another litecoin cgminer gpu catastrophe

I would not be surprised if people, maybe even many people independently, have forked and created their own cgminer in secret which is capable of utilizing GPUs, giving them several order of magnitude advantage over everyone else.

Actually, this is already happening. I've seen 3 people posting they have working opencl kernels (two of them had relatively low hashrates, the third one claims to be the dev of the Reaper litecoin gpu miner and has hashrates in the Mh/s range).

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: sairon on May 21, 2013, 04:39:19 PM

maybe it would be sufficient to just drop "unofficial client fork" from the topic, it might scare a lot of people

True. That is now dropped from the topic title.

sairon

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

One does not simply mine Bitcoins

maybe it would be sufficient to just drop "unofficial client fork" from the topic, it might scare a lot of people

ginjou

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

As it seems like pocopoco was only a multi account and that he won't show his face again, maybe you windmaster, should post your thread and the news about this fork on the official thread and ask a moderator to get the control of the first post of the official thread, don't you think?
This way, it will become official and the monney can regain a little bit of its previous fame

Because the way it is now, the official thread seems dead and the warning on the official windows wallet looks frightening for the noobs, so it doesn't look good for the reputation of the monney :/

I'm suggesting the idea because i beleave in this monney, but my skills in programming don't allow me to help in a better way Sad

PS: sorry for the not so fluent english Sad

cryptohunter

legendary

Activity: 2100

Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 03:19:08 PM

Quote from: cryptohunter on May 21, 2013, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 06:11:57 AM

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 04:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

Im getting this warning too? checkpoint too old? on win7 64bit? will the wallet still be able to send and receive coins? thanks

The warning is harmless. But for Win 64-bit, you have the option of using an interim Windows 64-bit binary that hanzac compiled of my version of the client (which doesn't show that warning) and provided a link to it a page back in this thread. All the usual warnings about running third-party binaries apply of course.

Thanks for quick reply

very helpful.

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: cryptohunter on May 21, 2013, 03:11:50 PM

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 06:11:57 AM

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 04:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

Im getting this warning too? checkpoint too old? on win7 64bit? will the wallet still be able to send and receive coins? thanks

The warning is harmless. But for Win 64-bit, you have the option of using an interim Windows 64-bit binary that hanzac compiled of my version of the client (which doesn't show that warning) and provided a link to it a page back in this thread. All the usual warnings about running third-party binaries apply of course.

cryptohunter

legendary

Activity: 2100

Merit: 1167

MY RED TRUST LEFT BY SCUMBAGS - READ MY SIG

Quote from: WindMaster on May 21, 2013, 06:11:57 AM

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 04:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

Im getting this warning too? checkpoint too old? on win7 64bit? will the wallet still be able to send and receive coins? thanks

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Changes committed to my GitHub repository:

- Fix my previously added feature that reports N and Nfactor in the getmininginfo command. It was only reporting what N and Nfactor were when yacoind was last started, not what it is at the immediate moment. Duh, fixed.

- Added getnetworkhashps command to show estimated network hash rate. This implementation was mostly lifted from Litecoin, still need to verify that it makes sense and operates correctly for YACoin.

- Added network hash rate and the PoW block reward of the highest block on the blockchain to the info reported by the getmininginfo command:

Quote

yacoin@blah:~/wm/yacoin/src$ ~/yacoind getmininginfo
{
   "blocks" : 67663,
   "currentblocksize" : 1000,
   "currentblocktx" : 0,
   "difficulty" : 4.10475631,
   "errors" : "",
   "generate" : false,
   "genproclimit" : 8,
   "hashespersec" : 0,
   "networkhashps" : 88885983,
   "pooledtx" : 0,
   "testnet" : false,
   "Nfactor" : 7,
   "N" : 256,
   "powreward" : 19.75000000
}

Note that this is reporting what the block reward was for the last block on the blockchain, not necessarily what the block reward is going to be for the next mined block. So use this as an estimate of approximately what the current block reward is, knowing that the actual reward of the next mined block may/will differ slightly.

Sahtor

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

N rising is not a problem if we get back to CPU server/laptop based mining. The problem is if GPU or AWS farms raised the difficulty too high to not readjust back to lower levels before even speculated future profitability drops and the mining freezes.

Basicly it doesnt matter which hardware works best but we can't have sudden volatility in difficulty or the currency dies.

eule

hero member

Activity: 756

Merit: 501

Someone with a GPU farm and a GPU miner could easily 51%-attack the coin right now, right?
Should be top priority to get a GPU miner for the masses, even if it's unoptimized. Maybe everyone of us should donate to the bounty or we should do some effort to get an open source miner.
0.02€

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: sumantso on May 21, 2013, 04:45:33 AM

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

For Win32, just ignore it. The warning is harmless, an artifact left over from the original developer who should've at least adjusted the time before the warning appears to a more reasonable timeframe than 10 days after the release (or more accurately, 10 days after the last checkpoint, which he added just after the coin was released).

WindMaster

sr. member

Activity: 347

Merit: 250

Quote from: CryptoMaster on May 21, 2013, 03:18:35 AM

This last N increase has hit my CPU mining hash rate hard, around 42%. It would be interesting to see how it hit GPU mining to see if the algorithm is going in the right direction.

Fortunately, difficulty will drop accordingly over time. It's too bad it doesn't rise or fall with a larger increment (faster rate) per block though. It's just a bit of a waiting game at this point for difficulty to become more reasonable. It's dropping quickly though, I see it's down to about 4.4 now.

Quote from: CryptoMaster on May 21, 2013, 03:18:35 AM

I'm a bit concerned that N might be getting too big even for CPUs though. My single core EC2 micro-instance was capable of mining (at a slow rate) before the N increase, but now it's pretty much unable. Wondering what the rest of N increases might cause, perhaps the pools need to start adding variable difficulty to cater for slower CPUs or the next N increase might kill a good amount of lower-end ones.

I think at a minimum, pool operators need to stay on top of Nfactor++ events and adjust work size / difficulty to keep things working smoothly and keep the average time to solve a share below the average time between blocks. Otherwise everyone solo mining (like me) actually beat out pools with poorly adjusted work size. I still leave a handful of dual Xeon servers mining for testing purposes and their block solving rate still seems to be tracking inversely proportional with hash rate and difficulty. At this point, N is still way lower than Litecoin always had.

An Amazon micro instance mining on a poorly adjusted pool would indeed be a losing battle at this point, I'd think. That's basically just a small shared fraction of a single Xeon core!

sumantso

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

Opened the wallet and it says 'Checkpoint too old......'. I will just ignore it for now? On windows 32 bit.

cryptrol

hero member

Activity: 637

Merit: 500

Quote from: CryptoMaster on May 21, 2013, 03:18:35 AM

This last N increase has hit my CPU mining hash rate hard, around 42%. It would be interesting to see how it hit GPU mining to see if the algorithm is going in the right direction.

+1

feeling2011

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: CryptoMaster on May 21, 2013, 03:18:35 AM

This last N increase has hit my CPU mining hash rate hard, around 42%. It would be interesting to see how it hit GPU mining to see if the algorithm is going in the right direction.

I'm a bit concerned that N might be getting too big even for CPUs though. My single core EC2 micro-instance was capable of mining (at a slow rate) before the N increase, but now it's pretty much unable. Wondering what the rest of N increases might cause, perhaps the pools need to start adding variable difficulty to cater for slower CPUs or the next N increase might kill a good amount of lower-end ones.

It seems that mining has no profit with the current YaCoin price.

CryptoMaster

newbie

Activity: 41

Merit: 0

This last N increase has hit my CPU mining hash rate hard, around 42%. It would be interesting to see how it hit GPU mining to see if the algorithm is going in the right direction.

I'm a bit concerned that N might be getting too big even for CPUs though. My single core EC2 micro-instance was capable of mining (at a slow rate) before the N increase, but now it's pretty much unable. Wondering what the rest of N increases might cause, perhaps the pools need to start adding variable difficulty to cater for slower CPUs or the next N increase might kill a good amount of lower-end ones.

cryptrol

hero member

Activity: 637

Merit: 500

Quote from: microxp on May 20, 2013, 10:49:40 PM

So the unofficial client has became the official client?

There has been no word from the original developer since the release so it is "officially" dead.
However in a P2P currency model, "official" development could be taken over whenever there is enough consensus.
And with consensus I mean that people installs and supports the new "unofficial" client.

microxp

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

So the unofficial client has became the official client?

Topic: [ANN][YAC] YACoin ongoing development - page 168. (Read 380060 times)