Yesterday I was convinced that Monero devs engage an instamine, but today you posted the source code of the optimized miner. I apologize.
I believe that cryptocurrency with the CryptoNight algorithm will have a great future, and our market is for everyone.
Here is announcement new cryptocoin, QuazarCoin - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-qcn-quazarcoin-full-privacydata-protection-egalitarian-pow-600658. This is not MRO relaunch, this is QCN launch, welcome.
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2072. (Read 4671108 times)
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
I ran the same test on my dedicated boxes (mostly Xeon E5-2620 v2 processors) on Ubuntu 12.04. Hashrate pulled from screenlog (screen -L) and averaged after an hour of mining. Boost 1.55 is installed from source, and built with gcc 4.8. The results:
1. Original build from source: 9.8741h/s
2. Original build from source w/ march=native, -funroll-loops: 10.2491h/s
3. Pre-compiled binaries from this topic: 20.7734h/s
4. Build from updated source: 21.8741h/s (faster than pre-compiled binaries!!)
5. Build from updated source with constants instead of divs: 22.8004h/s
6. Build from updated source with constants instead of divs, w/ march=native, -funroll-loops: 23.0526h/s
Out the box the changes NoodleDoodle committed are faster than his precompiled bins. I am not building with icc at this stage, but that might give a slight improvement.
Difficulty is absolutely insane now
Blockchain was deliberately attacked by someone. Checkpointing permitted fast sync by skipping verification of early blocks. Attacker used this to flood the chain with fake blocks and corrupted it.
To be clear: it's not enough to recompile and relaunch. Delete your blockchain.bin first. A clean blockchain will be uploaded when available and it will be dated May 8.
To be clear: it's not enough to recompile and relaunch. Delete your blockchain.bin first. A clean blockchain will be uploaded when available and it will be dated May 8.
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
You should try compiling with ubuntu/linux, you'll see that it will run as fast as the "pre-compiled" windows binaries. This means that the build environment is the difference. For windows, you need the intel C++ compiler (version 14.0 sp1) and turn SSE3 optimization and loop unrolling for the "crypto" project only. The rest can be built using the VS2012 compiler.
Cheers.
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Absolute Bullshit - i get an increase from 9 to 22 hashes with the actual master branch. You have no idea what you do, thats the problem i guess.
Everyone please update your clients and remove your blockchain.bins and resync with the network. It looks like we are experiencing blockchain corruption.
New windows binaries will be out soon. In the meantime, you can still mine OK with old binaries.
New windows binaries will be out soon. In the meantime, you can still mine OK with old binaries.
developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up.
Checkpointing disabled in latest commit, as I'm worried about blockchain corruption attacks.
TODO: multithread blockchain validation
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/5ceffa8c8abb96bb8314939bf75c9b935ea7b5bc
TODO: multithread blockchain validation
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/5ceffa8c8abb96bb8314939bf75c9b935ea7b5bc
OK，I have to give up mine this
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
Strange even at 10h/s on a laptop Ive found a block in the last 36 hours.
I had the bad luck
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
With the Bytecoin reference code and original build put out, Windows was roughly 2-3x slower than Linux. Noodle doubled Windows hashrates twice. The first time was with compiler optimization and affected Windows only. The second time was the loop change (now incorporated) and that doubled both Linux and Windows hashrates. From IRC:
14:57 NoodleDoodle: No, the first one is compiler "optimization" and the second one is the commit.
14:58 equipoise: which compiller are you using? I tried with intel
14:59 equipoise: compilling with avx
15:00 NoodleDoodle: You don't need avx.
15:00 NoodleDoodle: Just sse3.
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Which compiler you using? I think Noodle said he built with intelc++
I've made a research on the commit that the NoodleDoodle has claimed to make publicly available. And you know what, I have found something very weird.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
Experiment
Core I5, Windows.
Two attempts
1) Binaries compiled from the source code that NoodleDoodle committed yesterday.
2) Pre-compiled binaries that were spread on this topic.
Results
Hashrate:
1) Compiled binaries: 8.3 - 8.9 hr/s
2) Pre-compiled binaries: 15.1 - 15.5 hr/s
Come on guys, this stinks! Aren't you lying again?
My questions:
1) How exactly can the hash rates differ by the factor of 2 if they are on the same code? (Hint: it is impossible).
2) Why do the "team" claim that they've made the source code publicly available when they actually hide the real optimization?
3) Doesn't this mean that instamine is actually going on?
4) How much more the "team's" miners are optimized?
I guess, explanation is required.
Everyone is welcome to try it out themselves.
OK，I have to give up mine this
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
Strange even at 10h/s on a laptop Ive found a block in the last 36 hours.
OK，I have to give up mine this
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
I have 4 E3 CPUs mined at 100H/S for two days and got none block
anonymint
my recommendations is join the group now. participate in open source. coin is still young. has pontial. your contribution can add to the value of the coin and its success. since you are participating now, i am sure your efforts will be handsomely rewarded. I imagine anyone participating with bitcoin in the first year did very well. you would be here in the first 4 weeks.
my recommendations is join the group now. participate in open source. coin is still young. has pontial. your contribution can add to the value of the coin and its success. since you are participating now, i am sure your efforts will be handsomely rewarded. I imagine anyone participating with bitcoin in the first year did very well. you would be here in the first 4 weeks.
eizh: Will these changes help exchange owners that want to add MRO?
Yes, #1 is mostly for commercial entities so that they can identify payments. #2 is more general and useful for building tools that interface with the Monero software.
strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm..
I just found out about it a few days ago. I was aware of CryptoNote and Bytecoin for a few weeks.
Don't be so paranoid. Politics isn't what wins the race, rather it is development of features. I have already listed several features that no CN coin has, and I have several more in mind on top of that. And more on top of that, until all the major killer features have been satiated.
The race has only just begun and being ahead by a few weeks is meaningless.
Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading. Tomorrow you can watch this Monero "relaunch" troll coin fail when it goes live.
The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge.
The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge.
I never advocated entirely closed source, nor a long term partial open source.
There are many things that give confidence and I think the ability to hold off clones and fund rapid development, and demonstrate superior features also generates confidence.
Thus I am stating that I think Monero has adopted the wrong model, but only time will tell.
Specifically I don't think radical innovation can come from design by open source committee. There needs to be a strong leader who drives the innovation. For example, you make a bounty for a pool design, but there are many innovations that could come in a the pool that won't be there due to lack of a strong innovative leader driving the project.
Open source is very good at copying and propagating existing innovation, but not very good at creating it. Open source is a refinement protocol, not an innovation and creation protocol.
eizh: Will these changes help exchange owners that want to add MRO?
Is it possible to use daemon and wallet across proxy?
?Nothing within the code provides this yet. You would have to configure your connections on your own.
Newest windows binaries
Win32
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jmg7ax68zpa704r/monero.win.x86.050714.zip
Win64
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j6kdxxkd1mx4g1b/monero.win.x64.050714.zip
Win32
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jmg7ax68zpa704r/monero.win.x86.050714.zip
Win64
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j6kdxxkd1mx4g1b/monero.win.x64.050714.zip
Whats the benefit of these new ones?
Previously 32-bit wasn't possible, which is the biggest change. These were the other improvements:
1. Simplwallet can set extra for transfers
2. Improvements in JSON RPC for wallet
3. Minor user experience improvements in simplewallet
The top two don't really matter for ordinary users.
Jump to: