Topic: [BBR] Boolberry: Privacy and Security - Guaranteed Since 2014 - page 412. (Read 1210753 times)

GL Dr. Zoidberg

CN movement is strong!

A proper dev & innovation also! Any plans on the table marketing wise?

Maybe it would be cool to implement Alias mining in the pool software so people can donate to get queued for an alias.

https://poloniex.com/exchange/btc_bbr


GUI and LOGO can work wonders!

Just give a name for your wallet. For example: education_savings.bbr

If you'll forgive me for my academic caution, I want to be careful with those numbers -- they're an estimate.

From some numbers Zoidberg shared with me, it sounds like the GPU miner is getting about 7 megahash/s.

From his posts, I believe Christian is mining on 3x NVIDIA 780ti cards.  I confirmed this via PM.  Each of those costs $700, depending on which one you buy.

Simpleminer is now getting about 420kh/s on my i7-4770 (it's actually a xeon e3-1241 v3).  Price is about $280.

So if I put together a few numbers:


That gives an efficiency advantage of about 2.2 (I'm doing this from memory - I think the actual hashrate for the GPU rig was like 7.2, leading to an advantage of 2.3).

But the caution is that this is only one example -- there may be better GPUs for this, in which case the GPU advantage might be higher, or there might be better CPUs in terms of hash/s/$ (the i7 is a pretty expensive CPU), in which case the advantage might be lower.

I'd feel comfortable saying "1.5-4x" based upon these numbers.

Let me throw in one more thing to ponder for the longer term:  It's hard to predict what effect the increasing scratchpad size will have on the GPU to CPU efficiency ratio.    I believe that as the scratchpad starts to slip out of L3 cache on "normal" processors, it will be necessary to re-architect the CPU miners to operate differently for best efficiency.  I'm going to make a more risky prediction and say that compared to XMR, BBR will be a bit more GPU-friendly.  It has a bit more compute for each iteration, and its random memory access width is 256 bits instead of 128 bits).  But BBR will probably be less ASIC-friendly:  its growing scratchpad size (which is already very large by embedded memory standards) seems like a real pain, though I'm sure there are some ways to be super-clever about it.

(Also - there are a ton of other factors involved, such as the cost of the motherboard, or whether you already own the CPU and use it for other things, etc., etc.  -- please don't use this as a guide to trying to decide profitability!

I am trying to Generate New wallet via the GUI and I guess I need to put in a file name but not sure what I need to put in

What is HIVE ?
Anyway, it it technically possible and reasonable - i can do it.
GUI is rendered by WebKit, the same web engine that used in Chrome browser.

Try
  ./simplewallet --generate-new-wallet wallet.bin
to create a new wallet or
  ./simplewallet --wallet-file wallet.bin
to use the existing wallet "wallet.bin"

wallet.bin is the file name of your wallet free to choose

The GUI is in HTML? If so- perhaps we could develop something like HIVE where exchanges can be plugged into the GUI directly?

Great!
There will bi bugs, i'm sure - so i'm waiting for bug reports to fix it ASAP.
And there a lot of places where html need to be adjusted, since i'm not web developer, javascript is just a hobby for me.

yES.

Just use GUI
boolberry.com/downloads.html

hiya , im new here. I got problem when i open the wallet for the first time, it shows

"2014-Jun-17 19:45:04.599522 Boolberry wallet v0.2.0.20(f9bfe73)
2014-Jun-17 19:45:04.600522 Error: you must specify --wallet-file or --generate-new-wallet params
2014-Jun-17 19:45:04.602523 ERROR ..\..\src\simplewallet\simplewallet.cpp:1040[main]Failed to initialize wallet"

anyone know how to do? please help (the bloackchain is synced but just cant set up a wallet)

Hmm, I based my previous post off of the belief that the GPU miner was 7 times faster.  If the difference is 2.3 and will likely become less with CPU miner optimization and as the scratchpad grows, then a hard fork isn't necessary.  But that's just my unsolicited opinion.

BTW, I like the GUI and have been using it.  Going to play around with the HTML.

Basically GPU miners currently have an advantage, but it's not such an extraordinarily large advantage (And this advantage will decrease over time) that it's not worth it to hard fork for this reason, right?

to be more correct - wild keccak scratchpad is increasing with each block. Now scratchpad is about 7Mb. It will grow about 90MB per year, and, since at this moment scratchpad is not big enough - it is possible to use gpu textures cache to mine it faster, as i know.
But according to dga calculations gpu miner is about 2.3 times more cost-effective than cpu, since big advantage gives only expansive cards.

PS: Probability of that i'll do hardfork is less than 1%. Now we focused on optimizing miner and implementing stratum pools.

Sorry, it was typo, i've updated post:
Wild Keccak will stay in any case.

There is a GPU miner that is getting incredible hashrates and is being kept private.  I do not fault the developer for deciding to do that as it is his work and he can do as he wishes as would I.  But If they are getting the performance that has been suggested and is kept private it will not be good for the coin.  They might make short term profit but it will harm the coin long term.  If it takes a hard fork to rectify this then so be it.

Dev said if the hardfork is needed (worst case), it would be about changing whole PoW mining algorithm, not just the size of scratchpad:

there are gpu miners for wild keccack now (which is used by bbr).
as this coin is intended to be cpu only there is a scratchpad needed for mining (just as a added memory requirement).
a gpu dev figured out how to store it effeciently: so we are talking about a hardfork to change the size of the scratchpad (or to change anything else we want to)