Topic: These new EFFICIENT x11 algos everyone is talking about ?? BULLSHIT or real? - page 8. (Read 16291 times)

Here we go "X11 pro" "X11 fan boy" etc. You seemed partial from the start. Your emphasis on the word "bullshit" in the title, the way you answer to people defending X11. This is not a discussion, this is a statement.

thanks for posting... seems alarming that asics have gone from no way going to mine scrypt to now possibly scrypt N..... so we are saying memory hard is not out of the question based on hardware costs now.

I am not saying it is true or not true... but worrying to see them claiming they have done it already.  So if memory intensive is not the way to go... what is left to halt asics?  multi algos but needing to add more and more of them to stay ahead?

Seems gpu miners perhaps don't have as long left in the game as we hoped.  Unless amd decides it likes having bumper sales and tags on some asic features to the cards.

http://blissdevices.com

It's debatable if the company is legit and going to deliver but I've heard some other asic companies are thinking about doing the same thing.


http://www.reddit.com/r/scryptmining/comments/20x6r0/bliss_devices_announces_new_prices_on_scrypt/cg8xcd6

ERR i'm sorry but i don't get what you are getting at?  post something that backs up your statement.

Although it has to be said you made your x11 fan boy feelings known from the start.

Have i posted something regarding x11 that makes you feel i have not listened and posted fair summary of what has been said here?

If so quote them in your next post so that i may get some clue of what you are hinting at.

really? this is interesting... a new turn of events it seems. Have a link?  wouldn't the level of N determine just how much higher the memory requirement needs to be? Perhaps it's true though..... where is the link and who is the company... if knc were saying it then i guess we could take that at face value. I guess if they can produce asics for high N factor algos then that's another anti asic avenue closed down.

Anyway post the link so we can have a look... thanks.

Don't post in this thread if your answer is not in agreement with the opinion of the OP. The question in the title is purely rhetorical

 

Scrypt N is the least asic resistant of the bunch, considering there are upcoming scrypt asics that have already announced N support.  It's just scrypt with a higher memory req. 

both of you two have been x11 pro from the start... of course you are starting to lose interest in x11 this is understandable

the facts are becoming clear already.


x11 is no more efficient than quark

x11 is no more asic resistant and probably less resistant to asics than quark and scryptN

x11 is quite possibly less secure

x11 is looking like marketing hype plain and simple. If you lost interest now at least you can leave with a greater insight into x11 and help by stopping people parroting the new x11 religion across the board. It simply is not as great as some would have you believe.

It is quite possible that all these coins about to fork to x11 could all be forking back to scryptN or QRK in the near future.

exactly.... losing interest in this thread now....

Seriously, cryptohunter, what are you trying to accomplish in this thread? Do you want a technical discussion, or more drama?

they sound fucked up to you sadly because it turns out you and your fantasies of child abuse are not the norm. Now i know that has sent you reeling back into your chair stunned by this revelation ... but don't panic. These feelings of alienation and self loathing you're experiencing are part of the natural healing process . A lot of things probably seem fucked up to you don't they.. however the world will start making a lot more sense once you're strapped down in that pit with like minded sexual deviants.

Also since you are unable to answer a simple question with a straight answer and when you have answered you seem to either lie or spread more misinformation... it's seems more informed persons than yourself don't agree that x11 is more asic resistant than quark at all, and now it seems throwing more algos together could actually have negative effects i must update the OP with this in bold so more people get to read the truth before they are disturbed into leaving by your unnatural desires.

However, we can't let your unfortunate illness get in the way of our simple quest. We will continue to examine x11.  So far to be honest it has looked a little disappointing .... i was hoping for much better.

The sole proponent flipmeoff(whilstithinkaboutkids) is doing a good job of destroying x11.  Although come on ... we can't really take the crazy sexually charged rantings of this depraved pervert into the equation. It would be unfair of us to allow him to speak up for x11.  

There will probably be someone without serious mental illness come along at some point and sell to us x11 in it's full glory.

So anyway we go a step further... it looks like quark could resist asics a little longer than x11....  will update it all in the OP as we go.

Misplaced 'if' in lookup gap mode Not exactly sure how much it could be optimized

#if (LOOKUP_GAP == 1)
#elif (LOOKUP_GAP == 2)
    if (j&1)
        salsa(V);
#else
    uint val = j%LOOKUP_GAP;
    for (uint z=0; z        salsa(V);
#endif

#pragma unroll
    for(uint z=0; z        X[z] ^= V[z];
    salsa(X);

Just want to pop this sentence up.
Was this ironic or do you have the holy grail of scrypt? 

I know people who work with VHDL, but nothing about ASIC manufacturing prices Numbers out of thin air for FPGA route  - I'd expect 300 MH/s X11 algo board with 6 Spartan 6 LX150 chips to be developed in half of year with 50000 USD development cost, production price would be something like 2000 USD per board. (Anyone with actual field knowledge is welcome to correct me!)

Err... Implementing bit matrix rotation instruction would give AMD a huge advantage in crypto world... and possibly an export ban And for most scientific calculation NVidia is already the best choice.

No offense noticed

My god, all you senior and hero all day posters, you just sound so fucked up in this thread, it's unbelievable.
Do you really consider somebody with a brain between their ears is going to fall for your twitter?

no offense smolen was just stating the facts.. you did what you did before
and it wasn't that big of a deal to me or i would have flamed you instead of popping by your topic before to say hi all friendly like lol
and i had no idea about your newer developments you said now so thanks for that info.
more *honest info ? great !!
so smolen sorry if it sounded like i was coming after you.. we need people who can code in this scene 

Thank you for kind words, but just for record - I worked with very talented hardware engineers, learned a lot in the process, but newer did any HW project myself. Anything I wrote here is just an educated guess.
X11 is a bit simpler to implement in silicon, but I expect that seasoned engineer will not notice the difference. On the other hand, Quark will require less FPGA chips if someone will go crazy route with interconnected FPGA implementation
Regarding chaining - that's very theoretical speculation, even if there is 2^32 preimages for every hash value in Scrypt (or X11, or X1000), I know no way to exploit it...

Believe or not, I didn't mine on my GPU this year and only typed 2 (two) characters of crypto-related code. The core of Smelter - optimized groestl implementation - is published in sph thread. The other possible way of speeding up Quark (not implemented in Smelter) is finally made public by cbuchner1. So I expect sph-miner to become soon almost ideal Quark miner, without much room for optimization. And X11 contains 5 more hash functions to play with

There still is a possibility to speedup Scrypt on GPU (as used in Litecoin and implemented in cgminer, there are too many scrypts today ) - something like 20%, may be 50% with some luck. No one noticed misplaced 'if' operator

Can you comment:

With sufficient funding, how long would it take to roll out usable ASICs based on a multi algo concept?

Do you think you can hold up to AMD and nVidia? They are not gonna miss that boat for very much longer.
Not only for crypto hashing, but for any kind of a custom instruction set for scientific applications.
They are not sleeping on trees.

Would a well meant ASIC be able to keep up with a 3000 stream GPU doing a custom program?
The noise of my GPU cards just said: NO!

Hello

We're a bit off-topic but we got something useful out of the conversation lol
That would be a really great idea actually because lets not forget a lot of new people come here and are going to be overwhelmed by so much info.

CPU only coins don't even exist really.. it's a ploy for when they are launched to lure in users and then all of a sudden there is word of gpu miners being worked on
that can stretch out for months and show me a guy out there that woudln't sit on a gpu miner for 3 months privately while everyone else is stuck cpu mining.
see what i am saying ? i REALLY hope so everyone ..AKA: Smelters gpu miner ring a bell guys ?
And you all out there can't say this has not happened and i have suggested this was a very real possibility with x11 coins and any coin really.
and i have been screamed at in response when all i have ever done since day one is use my skills and experience to point out
how a dev can use a variety of angles to his advantage.. ARE they using the advantage ? that is a whole other question to get into.
All that blah blah blah is deadly obvious and should go with out saying to each one us except noobs that just got here..
and i said it for them ! ..so don't flame me for warning new guys coming along, i am looking out for ever person in crypto myself included.
Lets just keep things honest and on the table. I can take some scammy bs if its up front but i can't tolerate scammy weazles lying and playing deceptive games.

and one guy said earlier SHA256 is 100% optimized and then he said Scypt was not.. pure bullshit..
if there was some major optimization that could be done to scrypt it would been done already so don't feed me that bs to push an angle lol
i know i looked into it specifically actually and aside from some hashing checking optimization which did little i didn't see anything major..

Now X11 on the other hand is something we should be asking questions about.. i have not looked at the source yet but someone said earlier
the difference between x11 and Quark was some RANDOM rounds of hashing using multiple algos.. THAT was *if true a valuable contribution to this topic.
When he said that my ears perked up and i thought ok now we're getting somewhere lol
Let me return with a quick comment on that to perk your ears up now.. try this on for size lol

I made a miner prob 6 months ago that was based off another guys miner that he i found in the source code he had experimented with actually
REMOVING one of the hashing algo's completely (but it gave that guy like 60% invalid shares)
I did this and other various mods and i even coded some super small algos to improve efficiency on the hashing checking too
Simply removing the algo i think produces a LOT invalid shares BUT all i did was add a code check on hash validation that fixed that.
And what that did was show my miner hashing twice as fast but i am not sure it actually made any difference wise with coin earnings (not double at least anyway)
I see it as a an efficiency issue though.. one of many i made / looked into etc
So what does that teach us guys ? What does it tell you if i can delete one of the hashing algos competently from the miner ?
AND STILL submit 100% valid shares at any difficulty !

Anyway i want the same answers as OP does and i have *some insight to this stuff because i have worked on miners for ages (lots of quark miner mods)

I also think OP should self mod the topic next time maybe lol

Lastly i have always shared any coding efficiency experiments etc i have made.. my source is always available and if anyone wants to see.. i have never had anything to hide.

yeah sorry we let it sink into this kind of screaming and shouting... however don't leave now. We have just had input from the only person that coded a gpu miner for the first chained algo coin...

also thanks for your input i am reading the outputs you posted for each algo...

Or if you don't wish to stay in this thread, then create your own one probing about x11 . It is important we find out how good x11 really is before we see most coins moving that way.