u have to put it in litecoin.conf & just run reaperdemo.exe without any arguments.
Litecoin.conf for
host mine.pool-x.eu
port 9332
user urpoolname with worker like xxx.1
pass ur password for pool
Topic: Thread about GPU-mining and Litecoin - page 3. (Read 33227 times)
I tried both: with http, without http, also with IP instead of host name, different ports (using pool-x so I could try port 80, 8080, etc), nothing worked 
Same here, tried 4 pools, nothing would connect.
Doesn't work for me: always times out when trying to reach the pool...
hostname used should be without prefix http://Same here, tried 4 pools, nothing would connect.
A hoax to instill uncertainty in a competing crypto currency? Given how outspoken the SC team are against LTC, I don't see why they are holding back with Demo versions if they have a real opportunity to cripple a competitor.
I saw in my own eyes, a 5870 mining litecoins, & i put screen shot.
For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
Doesn't work for me: always times out when trying to reach the pool...For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
Given that it's currently not worth it to mine LTC using GPU, having a GPU miner out is not going to change much. But there are few potential problems I can think of:
1) This puts a cap on LTC price. When LTC price rises to make GPU mining profitable, we will see a bunch of people switching their GPU farms to Litecoin and sell the mined litecoins for bitcoins. This will put a downward pressure on Litecoin price. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because price doesn't matter that much.
2) Could lead to wild swings in difficulty as GPU miners move in and out of Litecoin mining. This will be similar to what happened with Namecoin before the merged mining. But since Litecoin retargets at 1/4 the time as compared to Bitcoin (3.5 days as oppose to 2 weeks), the swings shouldn't be that painful.
3) GPU mining makes it easier to 51% the chain. It would be easy for a decently sized GPU farm to 51% the chain.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
1) This puts a cap on LTC price. When LTC price rises to make GPU mining profitable, we will see a bunch of people switching their GPU farms to Litecoin and sell the mined litecoins for bitcoins. This will put a downward pressure on Litecoin price. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because price doesn't matter that much.
2) Could lead to wild swings in difficulty as GPU miners move in and out of Litecoin mining. This will be similar to what happened with Namecoin before the merged mining. But since Litecoin retargets at 1/4 the time as compared to Bitcoin (3.5 days as oppose to 2 weeks), the swings shouldn't be that painful.
3) GPU mining makes it easier to 51% the chain. It would be easy for a decently sized GPU farm to 51% the chain.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
Number 2 is the biggest danger. With the next Litecoin retarget, as long as price stays above 0.0015, it will be more profitable to mine LTC (yes, with that closed source miner). Maybe not this time around, but by the next time when more people will have heard of it, you could get a few hundred MH/s switching to LTC mining, reach retarget with a 4x difficulty in a few hours, and then they leave, which will then make it very difficult (2 weeks or more) for the rest of the miners to fix by retargeting to a lower (0.25x) difficulty. Also take into account that, at this point, it will be largely unprofitable to mine LTC even with GPUs, so you might have even more miners shutting down.
The difficulty swings that happen because of exchange rates have been proven to be non-converging. Profitable difficulty periods get shorter and unprofitable periods get longer. It happened to NMC, I0C, IXC, FBX and TBX in the same way. Eventually the chain dies, unless merged mining takes over. In LTC's case this is not possible.
We shall see. It will be at least interesting to watch.
Doesn't work for me: always times out when trying to reach the pool...
hostname used should be without prefix http:// 
What looks interesting is that they still claim the SC2 algorithm to be GPU-resistant. I'm not at all convinced. Any technical opinion on this?
It's not GPU resistant, but random reads on constant 4MB buffer make the difference of CPU/GPU slightly lower cause GPU lucks on a lot of cache. But it's still 4-6 times faster on GPU as on CPU I saw in my own eyes, a 5870 mining litecoins, & i put screen shot.
For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
Doesn't work for me: always times out when trying to reach the pool...For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
hostname used should be without prefix http://
I saw in my own eyes, a 5870 mining litecoins, & i put screen shot.
For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
Doesn't work for me: always times out when trying to reach the pool... For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
Current algorithm is:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
Not really. SHA256 is part of scrypt. The sequence looks more like this:1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
1) PBKDF2 using HMAC-SHA-256
2) Memory-hard mixing loop using salsa20/8
3) PBKDF2 using HMAC-SHA-256
This will be VERY slow and L1 cache-dependent. 
Current algorithm is:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
Not really. SHA256 is part of scrypt. The sequence looks more like this:1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
1) PBKDF2 using HMAC-SHA-256
2) Memory-hard mixing loop using salsa20/8
3) PBKDF2 using HMAC-SHA-256
Something I've wondered:
Why are you using N=1024, r=1, and p=1 for scrypt? Why didn't the recommended values from the paper, N=1024, r=8, p=1 get used?
If I remember correctly, ArtForz said that the parameters (1024, 1, 1) resulted in a lower GPU/CPU performance ratio.Why are you using N=1024, r=1, and p=1 for scrypt? Why didn't the recommended values from the paper, N=1024, r=8, p=1 get used?
Some analysis by him can be found here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/tenebrix-scaling-questions-45849
What looks interesting is that they still claim the SC2 algorithm to be GPU-resistant. I'm not at all convinced. Any technical opinion on this?
I am not a follower of coin hunter or solid coin & all their stuffs...........
I saw in my own eyes, a 5870 mining litecoins, & i put screen shot.
For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
First they CPU mined bitcoins & thought nothing is there other than CPU, then GPU mining came to bitcoins & even FPGA.....
The question now is first it was told its only CPU mining, but now GPU also can mine them.
Profit or loss is another question. Can GPU mine litecoins? Yes.
Now what Litecoin developers going to do about GPU mining?
I saw in my own eyes, a 5870 mining litecoins, & i put screen shot.
For those who still saying no proof, better download & try urself.
http://solidcoin.info/reaper.html
First they CPU mined bitcoins & thought nothing is there other than CPU, then GPU mining came to bitcoins & even FPGA.....
The question now is first it was told its only CPU mining, but now GPU also can mine them.
Profit or loss is another question. Can GPU mine litecoins? Yes.
Now what Litecoin developers going to do about GPU mining?
3) GPU mining makes it easier to 51% the chain. It would be easy for a decently sized GPU farm to 51% the chain.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
The addition of GPU mining to bitcoin actually enhanced security of the coin. I saw this discussed on BTCe with Artforz and it was generally held that the more expensive the mining hardware required, the more reinforced the bitcoin chain becomes.
What I think would really add a lot to LTC is to implement a chain that halves in six months but does so incrementally, that is, every block or 200 blocks or whatever decreases a certain percent, with 50% block size at six months. Liquidcoin has proved this to be easily possible.
Something I've wondered:
Why are you using N=1024, r=1, and p=1 for scrypt? Why didn't the recommended values from the paper, N=1024, r=8, p=1 get used?
Why are you using N=1024, r=1, and p=1 for scrypt? Why didn't the recommended values from the paper, N=1024, r=8, p=1 get used?
Given that it's currently not worth it to mine LTC using GPU, having a GPU miner out is not going to change much. But there are few potential problems I can think of:
1) This puts a cap on LTC price. When LTC price rises to make GPU mining profitable, we will see a bunch of people switching their GPU farms to Litecoin and sell the mined litecoins for bitcoins. This will put a downward pressure on Litecoin price. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because price doesn't matter that much.
2) Could lead to wild swings in difficulty as GPU miners move in and out of Litecoin mining. This will be similar to what happened with Namecoin before the merged mining. But since Litecoin retargets at 1/4 the time as compared to Bitcoin (3.5 days as oppose to 2 weeks), the swings shouldn't be that painful.
3) GPU mining makes it easier to 51% the chain. It would be easy for a decently sized GPU farm to 51% the chain.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
1) This puts a cap on LTC price. When LTC price rises to make GPU mining profitable, we will see a bunch of people switching their GPU farms to Litecoin and sell the mined litecoins for bitcoins. This will put a downward pressure on Litecoin price. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because price doesn't matter that much.
2) Could lead to wild swings in difficulty as GPU miners move in and out of Litecoin mining. This will be similar to what happened with Namecoin before the merged mining. But since Litecoin retargets at 1/4 the time as compared to Bitcoin (3.5 days as oppose to 2 weeks), the swings shouldn't be that painful.
3) GPU mining makes it easier to 51% the chain. It would be easy for a decently sized GPU farm to 51% the chain.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
well without decent network hashrate it can be attacked easy by any botnet ... having GPU miner makes it cheaper to get better hashrate.
LTC is designed from start on to be smthg like 1/4 of Bitcoin ? bitcoins silver
)) so we can't go around of it both currencies will be dependent on eachother.there will be couple of Miners on Nvidia, cause it makes same hashrate as ATI for scrypt. so i think if network hasrate goes up with GPU miners it will be not lead to wild swings. and even better protection for 51% attack from botnet. Sure atm we have dangerous time where network hasrate is low and GPU miner makes it possible to attack the chain, but shouldn't we just try to make Network stronger insted of swing it with changes?
My idea is do nothing.
OP_NOP is the simplest solution of any problem. At the moment mining on GPU isn't effective for LTC and we can do nothing. But we must think about future, anyway.
Given that it's currently not worth it to mine LTC using GPU, having a GPU miner out is not going to change much. But there are few potential problems I can think of:
1) This puts a cap on LTC price. When LTC price rises to make GPU mining profitable, we will see a bunch of people switching their GPU farms to Litecoin and sell the mined litecoins for bitcoins. This will put a downward pressure on Litecoin price. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because price doesn't matter that much.
2) Could lead to wild swings in difficulty as GPU miners move in and out of Litecoin mining. This will be similar to what happened with Namecoin before the merged mining. But since Litecoin retargets at 1/4 the time as compared to Bitcoin (3.5 days as oppose to 2 weeks), the swings shouldn't be that painful.
3) GPU mining makes it easier to 51% the chain. It would be easy for a decently sized GPU farm to 51% the chain.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
1) This puts a cap on LTC price. When LTC price rises to make GPU mining profitable, we will see a bunch of people switching their GPU farms to Litecoin and sell the mined litecoins for bitcoins. This will put a downward pressure on Litecoin price. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because price doesn't matter that much.
2) Could lead to wild swings in difficulty as GPU miners move in and out of Litecoin mining. This will be similar to what happened with Namecoin before the merged mining. But since Litecoin retargets at 1/4 the time as compared to Bitcoin (3.5 days as oppose to 2 weeks), the swings shouldn't be that painful.
3) GPU mining makes it easier to 51% the chain. It would be easy for a decently sized GPU farm to 51% the chain.
I think I'm most worried about the last one.
If more effective GPU miner will be released, simple changes in algorithm will make it completely unusable. For example, we can use bcrypt() result as additional salt. I.e. add stage in hashing process.
Current algorithm is:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
Probably future algorithm:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
4) Calculate D = bcrypt(C)
3) Calculate E = SHA256(B, D)
4) Return E
Like scrypt(), bcrypt() is also using many pseudo-random operations with memory during encryption process.
Current algorithm is:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
Probably future algorithm:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
4) Calculate D = bcrypt(C)
3) Calculate E = SHA256(B, D)
4) Return E
Like scrypt(), bcrypt() is also using many pseudo-random operations with memory during encryption process.
1) Well i'm sure there is NO WAY to create an Algorythm that will NEVER better implemented on some piece of future hardware.
2) LTC is used by bot-nets to generate some cash, and aslong it is in this situation it will never be accepted as "stable" currency.
3) The limits on how good current Algoritm can be implemented on GPU i've calculated somewhere above, on common hardware best can be Nvidia GT 590 with smthg like 1.2 MH/s (unreachable maximum). Is this that dangerous for LTC ? i think NO.
I think we should leave it atm as it is and spare afford for "fixing" situation for other more dangerous situation.
P.S. i think GPU mining for LTC can even be good for LTC stabilizing network hashrate. My idea is do nothing.
If more effective GPU miner will be released, simple changes in algorithm will make it completely unusable. For example, we can use bcrypt() result as salt. I.e. add stage in hashing process.
Current algorithm is:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
Probably future algorithm:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
4) Calculate D = bcrypt(C)
3) Calculate E = SHA256(B, D)
4) Return E
Like scrypt(), bcrypt() is also using many pseudo-random operations with memory during encryption process.
Current algorithm is:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
3) Calculate D = SHA256(B, C)
4) Return D
Probably future algorithm:
1) Calculate B = SHA256(A)
2) Calculate C = scrypt(B)
4) Calculate D = bcrypt(C)
3) Calculate E = SHA256(B, D)
4) Return E
Like scrypt(), bcrypt() is also using many pseudo-random operations with memory during encryption process.
lol this demo is broken for me.
Only works for 58xx and 69xx because its precompiled for them.
Jump to: