The idea of CPU mining is a noble concept but flawed. Once you get the source code out there, someone will privately figure out how to do it via GPU's faster then on CPU's. The job of mining splits up very well into parallel tasks and tricks to make it not work on GPUs will not be effective. In the end someone will end up with HUGE mining power on solidcoin and very few people will know who, why or how they did it if they want to keep it a secret.
Also moving to this model will make solidcoin be quite attractive to standard botnets. You will have them taking up a huge amount of the mining power as they have cpu's to spare.
Topic: SolidCoin v2.0 features new hashing algorithm, faster on CPUs - page 5. (Read 12200 times)
September 19, 2011, 04:12:06 PM
September 19, 2011, 04:08:23 PM
This is such a good idea. Hope this saves electricity. It is a shame we mine bitcoin to enrich coal companies and public sector unions. Anything to lower the cost of electricity use is a mandatory switch.
Sarcasm detector has suffered a buffer overflow in its firmware, and shall remain offline for the time being.
September 19, 2011, 04:06:14 PM
This is such a good idea. Hope this saves electricity. It is a shame we mine bitcoin to enrich coal companies and public sector unions. Anything to lower the cost of electricity use is a mandatory switch.
Please explain how mining bitcoin enriches public sector unions.
September 19, 2011, 03:17:20 PM
This is such a good idea. Hope this saves electricity. It is a shame we mine bitcoin to enrich coal companies and public sector unions. Anything to lower the cost of electricity use is a mandatory switch.
September 19, 2011, 03:19:17 AM
Lets all say FOOK it and just mine StarCraft Coins!
How do yo-
September 19, 2011, 03:07:27 AM
While on the subject, are you all aware that botnet controlling 100k computers may not have GPU but all have CPU ?
Hope your experiment lead to something we can all learn from.
Hope your experiment lead to something we can all learn from.
September 18, 2011, 11:53:51 PM
September 18, 2011, 10:06:50 PM
September 18, 2011, 07:56:18 PM
Lets all say FOOK it and just mine StarCraft Coins!
September 18, 2011, 06:18:39 PM
I just realised that + was defined as concatenation. Can't think of an attack on this one using cryptanalysis. Now the only attacks I can think of right now would be on the specific 'MESS' algorithm's implementation to speed it up.
My point is that this is trivial to get right. It is not even not impossible (as has been suggested in this thread), it is not even challenging. To anyone familiar with the details, it is immediately obvious that one could do this. (And it is trivial to prove that any attack on the composition function would also equally be an attack on the underlying hash function.)The tricky part is designing the 'MESS' so that it has the characteristics you want. As you pointed out, if someone finds a trivial way to accelerate the 'MESS', the whole effort gains you nothing. It is almost trivial to do this passably, you can just take 'scrypt'. But it is very challenging to do this well. (And, in fact, it can backfire if someone finds a way to, say, implement the 'MESS' 1,000 times faster than anyone else can and they can keep that method secret.)
I didn't say it is impossible, I said
Quote
The reason I ask is coz I cannot even fathom what you could possibly put in there in an attempt to thwart GPU mining without causing ridiculous trouble for the client program.
And yes your excess memory use ideas are still silly in that regard 
(I'm still sure you're just messing with him to make him use these ideas ... but hey if you are serious ... that's a worry
) 
September 18, 2011, 11:00:26 AM
CPU mining sounds very nice on my toasty new CPU 
Bring it on as long as I can mine on Linux and mine bitcoins at the same time.
Bring it on as long as I can mine on Linux and mine bitcoins at the same time.
September 17, 2011, 10:02:54 PM
I just realised that + was defined as concatenation. Can't think of an attack on this one using cryptanalysis. Now the only attacks I can think of right now would be on the specific 'MESS' algorithm's implementation to speed it up.
My point is that this is trivial to get right. It is not even not impossible (as has been suggested in this thread), it is not even challenging. To anyone familiar with the details, it is immediately obvious that one could do this. (And it is trivial to prove that any attack on the composition function would also equally be an attack on the underlying hash function.)The tricky part is designing the 'MESS' so that it has the characteristics you want. As you pointed out, if someone finds a trivial way to accelerate the 'MESS', the whole effort gains you nothing. It is almost trivial to do this passably, you can just take 'scrypt'. But it is very challenging to do this well. (And, in fact, it can backfire if someone finds a way to, say, implement the 'MESS' 1,000 times faster than anyone else can and they can keep that method secret.)
September 17, 2011, 04:34:09 PM
Quote
you couldn't design an algorithm for 'MESS' that made it any weaker
You're kidding right ? This is exactly the kind of errors amateurs (and I count myself in) do. Just what do you think would happen ifCode:
MESS(header) = 1 - SHA(header)
orCode:
MESS(header) = SHA(header) xor MAXINT
(depending on what + is defined as).I'm no cryptoanalyst so if I can find a counter example to what you thought was robust, just imagine what someone hacking through MD5 and SHA as part of his job would do... As CoinHunter seems to appreciate your argument in this topic, he is most probably incompetent.
September 17, 2011, 04:12:16 PM
The good thing is, everyone can mine SC2 in addition to his usual mining. So just don't mine free extra coins because of some ideology thing? We will see if the greed wins
September 17, 2011, 04:06:15 PM
Quote
you couldn't design an algorithm for 'MESS' that made it any weaker
You're kidding right ? This is exactly the kind of errors amateurs (and I count myself in) do. Just what do you think would happen ifCode:
MESS(header) = 1 - SHA(header)
orCode:
MESS(header) = SHA(header) xor MAXINT
(depending on what + is defined as).I'm no cryptoanalyst so if I can find a counter example to what you thought was robust, just imagine what someone hacking through MD5 and SHA as part of his job would do... As CoinHunter seems to appreciate your argument in this topic, he is most probably incompetent.
September 17, 2011, 12:01:12 PM
Joules: Could you please clean up your quotes so I can figure out what you are trying to communicate? Thanks.
September 17, 2011, 11:56:25 AM
Since I haven't tested this on OpenCL (and it's fairly difficult to port it in my opinion) I'm not going to give a 100% guarantee that there won't be a GPU out there which may be faster at it than a typical CPU. But kano, leave the definitive programming "facts" to the real developers before you embarrass yourself yet again (I'm saying this knowing full well you won't listen) .
.Would that be the same "expert" opinion that stated the original SC was unbreakable but once proven otherwise you dropped like hot potato to go back to the stone age of hashing for your new "solution"... SC version 2.0 SlowCoin for the masses come and get it, roflmao
can you link me or provide a screen shot of him saying SC was totally unbreakable? from what i have seen he always says it has the same bugs of bitcoin and he has been trying to fix them. And are you trying to get info or just troll realsolid?
Quote
I woudln't bother commenting on Realsolid's work until he actually shows it. Up until this point, all we have is a failed fork with promises to make it better in every imaginable way. Since the original promise used to promote Solidcoin was that it was better than bitcoin in every way, I am skeptical about 2.0.
How is it failed? because he shut down and decided a new direction rather than just copy the timeshifting patch? People said it was failed and dead when he released his new licensing and yet the price recovered. And as for a failed fork, why is everyone copying the diff algo?
and people at pepsi say pepsi is better than coke in everyway, you can choose to believe it or not, but really the fact is, had bitcoin suffered the same set back as solidcoin did, when he released his new license.. losing 5/6ths of his hashes, bitcoin would be dead.. it would take 3 months for the diff to adjust to the drop in miners. IN that way solidcoin was definitely better then bitcoin, and so is i0coin now and ixcoin. for that simple adjustment.
Do yall have real complaints or just "omg he is a liar" with no links, or "omg he never fulfills his promises" with no further info besides that.
Hey if you can provide me with something real, i am all ears but I havent heard anything beyond trollish crap lately.
September 17, 2011, 11:55:36 AM
LOL - OK I understand now - your messing with him so that he does this stupid idea and slows down his 'solidcoind' to a piece of crap.
Well, it doesn't matter how long it takes to perform the mining operation for a miner. If the operation takes ten times as long, the difficulty will just be one-tenth. However, it does mean that it will take each client a bit longer to verify that the proof of work is valid.Fortunately, you could make that verification about 1,000 times more expensive than it is now without a problem. And remember, it's typically the CPU that has to verify the PoW, and we're talking about algorithms CPUs can do efficiently anway. Theoretically, it could even be possible to make it easier to verify on a CPU than Bitcoin is, but that would be hard.
Quote
I thought you were being serious.
You did realise that he had no idea before you answered the question for him right?
I'm being serious that these are all things that can be done and might even be improvements over the way Bitcoin does things. However, I'm quite doubtful that he's actually done these things or gotten them right. I too will believe it when I see it. (I also see little point in a new currency with fees if it brings nothing significant to the table.) You did realise that he had no idea before you answered the question for him right?
September 17, 2011, 11:41:21 AM
I woudln't bother commenting on Realsolid's work until he actually shows it. Up until this point, all we have is a failed fork with promises to make it better in every imaginable way. Since the original promise used to promote Solidcoin was that it was better than bitcoin in every way, I am skeptical about 2.0.
Claiming to have an algorithm that is proof against something but refusing to publish said algorithm is a very bad sign.
I will reserve judgementt until we see the source code.
Claiming to have an algorithm that is proof against something but refusing to publish said algorithm is a very bad sign.
I will reserve judgementt until we see the source code.
September 17, 2011, 11:36:54 AM
LOL - OK I understand now - your messing with him so that he does this stupid idea and slows down his 'solidcoind' to a piece of crap.
So you don't understand that the protocol is not about fastest hashing?
Of course it's not. This is about making an average user's CPU producing 1 valid solution per hour.
On a network with 3-minute blocks.
And a difficulty of 1.
Forever.
Ahh, the sweet smell of forever....
Diff 1 will be adjusted according the new proof of work speed...
Jump to: