Topic: Re: [AXIOM] AxiomMemHash, Schnorr Sigs Implemented, APOS 3.0, AXH 2.0 Proposed - page 107. (Read 204903 times)

eh.. network expansion was extremely natural and I have been watching this since the very beginning. There was no signs what so ever of any shady activity with gpu miners or something of the sort. At this point it doesn't even matter, and strengthening the network is more important imo. You can mine just as much as anyone, go buy some coins.

I heard too many times these words.
And i do not like these coin where only few can mine more than others, with shitty tricks.
who know the real number of people are using it?
smells too much for me....

AxiomHash fully live on NiceHash now ... try out the first ever CPU-based hashing algorithm on NiceHash; news announcement for miners: https://www.nicehash.com/?p=news&id=20

 AXIOM will be soon the best crypto coin for invest mark my words.

true that!!!

 

 AXIOM will be soon the best crypto coin for invest mark my words.

AXIOM developers pinged me to give an opinion on the GPU speedup of the AXIOM PoW function.

I wrote the draft of the paper about RandMemoHash back in 2013, after playing with RandMemoHash a bit. I tested it with a SINGLE GPU (that was even older), and could not get any speedup. My paper does not show any proof, not any real world comparison over several GPU models, so it is definitively unfinished. The suggested parameters are not proven to be valid for all existent GPU models (and less for future models). People should never take for granted what an non-peer-reviewed privately-published draft paper says.

I would have liked that Axiom developers would have pinged me to give an update on it before implementing it.

Having said this, I find that a 5x GPU speedup quite good resistance, considering that a GPU is generally better than a CPU in almost every task. CPUs are good at executing large programs, doing paging, protecting memory, doing I/O. Nothing that a PoW can make use of.

GPU memory system is designed for throughput, and it has generally about 6 times the bandwidth available to a CPU. RandMemoHash bottleneck is the DDR/GDDR memory bus, so that speedup can be expected.

Also you must consider power-usage in the equation: that may make it better or worse for GPU-mining.

I don't know if tweaking the parameters would improve it. Maybe using 8 MB instead of 2 MB can prevent the use of some L2 caches in some boards. But the more space you require, the slower it is to verify the PoW. And this is a cat-and-mouse race, since future models will probably increase the size of the cache.

The Axiom developers & community could collect some real world numbers and try to find an improved parameter set (if it is really needed and if there is a better one).

I wish AXIOM users the best luck.

Sergio.

AXIOM developers pinged me to give an opinion on the GPU speedup of the AXIOM PoW function.

I wrote the draft of the paper about RandMemoHash back in 2013, after playing with RandMemoHash a bit. I tested it with a SINGLE GPU (that was even older), and could not get any speedup. My paper does not show any proof, not any real world comparison over several GPU models, so it is definitively unfinished. The suggested parameters are not proven to be valid for all existent GPU models (and less for future models). People should never take for granted what an non-peer-reviewed privately-published draft paper says.

I would have liked that Axiom developers would have pinged me to give an update on it before implementing it.

Having said this, I find that a 5x GPU speedup quite good resistance, considering that a GPU is generally better than a CPU in almost every task. CPUs are good at executing large programs, doing paging, protecting memory, doing I/O. Nothing that a PoW can make use of.

GPU memory system is designed for throughput, and it has generally about 6 times the bandwidth available to a CPU. RandMemoHash bottleneck is the DDR/GDDR memory bus, so that speedup can be expected.

Also you must consider power-usage in the equation: that may make it better or worse for GPU-mining.

I don't know if tweaking the parameters would improve it. Maybe using 8 MB instead of 2 MB can prevent the use of some L2 caches in some boards. But the more space you require, the slower it is to verify the PoW. And this is a cat-and-mouse race, since future models will probably increase the size of the cache.

The Axiom developers & community could collect some real world numbers and try to find an improved parameter set (if it is really needed and if there is a better one).

I wish AXIOM users the best luck.

Sergio.

Bittrex is the most reputable exchange there is besides Polo.

I'm the whale that's been accumulating with that 20 btc wall. This is prime for us because there are still 1.5 weeks left for staking and it's obvious to us that these developers are skilled. Staking is netting us significantly more than any GPU miner or cpu miner. I'm hitting blocks of 60 roughly every half an hour.. What's all the fuss about. Everyone here should know by now that when the coin was listed on exchange it rose significantly in value on practically 0 news from the developer. The developer has demonstrated time and time again a massive amount of knowledge in this space. Do you really think we're accumulating at 13k for nothing? I shouldn't even be sharing this with you guys, I just was reading the ann and it astounds me how worked up people are. The coin has a built in profit model in the staking system, USE IT!

I like this coin but I'm starting to get a funny feeling about something mischievous behind the scenes.

Our code will be perfect, no worries!

take your time devs 

quality above quantity 

AXIOM developers pinged me to give an opinion on the GPU speedup of the AXIOM PoW function.

I wrote the draft of the paper about RandMemoHash back in 2013, after playing with RandMemoHash a bit. I tested it with a SINGLE GPU (that was even older), and could not get any speedup. My paper does not show any proof, not any real world comparison over several GPU models, so it is definitively unfinished. The suggested parameters are not proven to be valid for all existent GPU models (and less for future models). People should never take for granted what an non-peer-reviewed privately-published draft paper says.

I would have liked that Axiom developers would have pinged me to give an update on it before implementing it.

Having said this, I find that a 5x GPU speedup quite good resistance, considering that a GPU is generally better than a CPU in almost every task. CPUs are good at executing large programs, doing paging, protecting memory, doing I/O. Nothing that a PoW can make use of.

GPU memory system is designed for throughput, and it has generally about 6 times the bandwidth available to a CPU. RandMemoHash bottleneck is the DDR/GDDR memory bus, so that speedup can be expected.

Also you must consider power-usage in the equation: that may make it better or worse for GPU-mining.

I don't know if tweaking the parameters would improve it. Maybe using 8 MB instead of 2 MB can prevent the use of some L2 caches in some boards. But the more space you require, the slower it is to verify the PoW. And this is a cat-and-mouse race, since future models will probably increase the size of the cache.

The Axiom developers & community could collect some real world numbers and try to find an improved parameter set (if it is really needed and if there is a better one).

I wish AXIOM users the best luck.

Sergio.