Topic: [POOL][Scrypt][Scrypt-N][X11] Profit switching pool - wafflepool.com - page 149. (Read 465769 times)

I see you insist... Ok. Let me show you my reasoning for why IT IS NOT MHD and then you can just slam down your irrefutable proof and I'll stand rebuked.

let's say that your hashrate is 1 MHs. Meaning that your computational power can "solve" 1 million hashes in a second. Analogous to active power being measured in kW, the energy consumption is measured based on the consumption of power in a unit of time thus the kWh unit of measure. When you want to see how much energy you consumed in a DAY you just count the kWh which means you consumed 24 kWh/day (for 1 kWh).

when you use BTC/MHD you are implying that your hash rate is 1 "MH per day" which is false. your hash rate is an average of 1 MHs over a day's time and you contributed with 3600* 1 MH in a day's time. WP states [0.01 btc/(average MHs) in a day] and not the amount of hashes in a day. And lastly, the unit of measure is MHs. you can twist that figure to show a day or a year but it's still MHs as reported by your miners.

I see you insist... Ok. Let me show you my reasoning for why IT IS NOT MHD and then you can just slam down your irrefutable proof and I'll stand rebuked.

let's say that your hashrate is 1 MHs. Meaning that your computational power can "solve" 1 million hashes in a second. Analogous to active power being measured in kW, the energy consumption is measured based on the consumption of power in a unit of time thus the kWh unit of measure. When you want to see how much energy you consumed in a DAY you just count the kWh which means you consumed 24 kWh/day (for 1 kWh).

when you use BTC/MHD you are implying that your hash rate is 1 "MH per day" which is false. your hash rate is an average of 1 MHs over a day's time and you contributed with 3600* 1 MH in a day's time. WP states [0.01 btc/(average MHs) in a day] and not the amount of hashes in a day. And lastly, the unit of measure is MHs. you can twist that figure to show a day or a year but it's still MHs as reported by your miners.

author=comeonalready

And it is payout per MHD!

An easy way of making ASICs unprofitable is to design algorithms that require large memory buffers and that have performance bound by memory bandwidth rather than arithmetic.  ASICs provide the greatest benefits for algorithms that are arithmetic-bound, and they provide the least benefits for algorithms that are bound by memory bandwidth.  By combining a large size memory buffer with random access patterns, we would get a level playing field that evolves very slowly.  GPUs of today have 200-300GB/s memory bandwidth which has only increased by a small margin generation-to-generation.  GPUs are expected to get a nice jump in bandwidth when memory technologies like die-stacked memory show up in a few years, but after that bandwidth growth will be very very slow again.  A large part of the complexity and cost in a GPU is the memory system, and this is something that is only feasible to build because millions of GPUs are sold per week.  By developing an algorithm that requires a hardware capability that is only cost-feasible in commodity devices that are manufactured in quantities of several million or more, it would push ASICs completely out, and keep them for a very long time, perhaps indefinitely.  It's one thing to fab an ASIC chip, it's another thing to couple it to a high-capacity high-bandwidth memory system.  If you design an algorithm that uses the "memory wall" as a fundamental feature, it will make ASICs no better than any other hardware approach.