It was about the best starting difficulty I recall noticing in a log time. Scammers typically don't care or make some trivially tiny increase so they can try to pretend they tried.
-MarkM-
Topic: [XPM] [ANN] Primecoin Release - First Scientific Computing Cryptocurrency - page 87. (Read 688812 times)
July 16, 2013, 09:05:52 PM
July 16, 2013, 09:02:19 PM
If the initial code had been properly optimized then starting difficulty could have been nearly 9 and we wouldn't be seeing such a short block time. This is a lesson, if your going to release a new algorithm for CPU mining, optimize the CPU code or else you've get quasi-ASIC like behavior in which hash rates explode and the coins may end up monopolized by people who have access to the high potency mining ability even if this is by software rather then hardware.
Starting difficulty would have still been where Sunny set it, 7. I don't know what the distribution looks like, but I am still finding blocks on 5 micro instances and a laptop running while I am sleeping. If difficulty adjustments took two weeks, I would agree with you, but it's dynamic.
If his starting difficulty was in any way chosen to reflect the mining rate of some target number of PCs (the method Satoshi used) then optimized code would certainly have lead him to choose a higher difficulty, do you think 7 was just a number he pulled out of his ass with no regard to the target block time?
So not only does he have to code and promote the coin, now he has to divine the future? I imagine that he set it where it to wouldn't be jammed up with orphan chains initially when utilizing CPU mining and then allowed it to self regulate. There is no way to predict adoption or hashing power or optimization. You are just some tool upset about the first WEEK of mining. Entitlement is an ugly thing. Didn't get enough of those 200k coins, or what?
Fuckin' a...some people will bitch about anything.
Oh get off it you twit, I'm pointing out how Sunny King could have had a better initial release that meet HIS goals. From what I've read on the optimization threads the original client was doing really obviously un-optimized stuff like calling malloc repeatedly which any first year programmer knows is a performance killer. Optimization CAN be predicted and the factor of 100x we have seen so far would be considered quite easy and 'low hanging fruit' to most programmers.
SK was clearly trying to avoid overly fast blocks per his own pre-release thread that advertised "Reasonably high starting difficulty to limit instamining" but that effort was defeated by lack of optimization to the mining code under which the initial difficulty was chosen. Its a lesson anyone working on a new hash algorithm in the future should take to heart, it is meant as a constructive postmortem of this coins release.
Your statements are simply knee-jerk defensiveness and seem to be ignorant of SK stated intentions as well, I assure you he is capable of taking constructive criticism and learning from mistakes, I recommend you do likewise.
Your claim that optimization is predictable are dubious, to say the least, and is a pretty moot point in the grand scheme of things. Big picture, my man. Does it matter now? Anyone who wants to can still get their piece of the pie. This was much less of an instagrab clusterfuck that most altcoin launches I've observed. Still doesn't address that there is absolutely no way to predict adoption. Maybe Sunny wasn't expecting tens of thousands of people to jump on board and open dozens of VPS instances. If people stuck to their physical equipment, and even their botnets, we'd probably have seen much less downward pressure on blocktime. Hell, maybe he has never messed with miners before and focused his creative efforts on the important foundation, knowing full well that the community would continue yielding optimizations even if he spent years dialing in his miner. Bitcointalk is full of brilliant people. It never ceases to amaze me. I am sure others are as confident as I am in the skills and fortitude of the crypto community.
I just really don't get your original point. "Hey Sunny! Things would be different if you had done things differently, Let me point some mining fundamentals for you; a higher starting difficulty would have slowed down blocktimes." Pretty sure he's hip to it, just underestimated things. You somehow imply he lobbed the miner over the plate, and fucked up. I am pretty sure there was no insane moneygrab. I am still getting blocks on 5 micro DO instances and my laptop. I think you are just inventing conspiracy theories about robber barons taking your blocks. Variance, son!
Something no one ever consideres either, is that, lets say difficulty was at 9 at launch, then no-one would've got blocks, most solo miners would've got nothing, and XPM would be dead on arrival. It's a poorly thought out suggestion to simply say "Higher starting difficulty!!!"
July 16, 2013, 08:42:24 PM
If the initial code had been properly optimized then starting difficulty could have been nearly 9 and we wouldn't be seeing such a short block time. This is a lesson, if your going to release a new algorithm for CPU mining, optimize the CPU code or else you've get quasi-ASIC like behavior in which hash rates explode and the coins may end up monopolized by people who have access to the high potency mining ability even if this is by software rather then hardware.
Starting difficulty would have still been where Sunny set it, 7. I don't know what the distribution looks like, but I am still finding blocks on 5 micro instances and a laptop running while I am sleeping. If difficulty adjustments took two weeks, I would agree with you, but it's dynamic.
If his starting difficulty was in any way chosen to reflect the mining rate of some target number of PCs (the method Satoshi used) then optimized code would certainly have lead him to choose a higher difficulty, do you think 7 was just a number he pulled out of his ass with no regard to the target block time?
So not only does he have to code and promote the coin, now he has to divine the future? I imagine that he set it where it to wouldn't be jammed up with orphan chains initially when utilizing CPU mining and then allowed it to self regulate. There is no way to predict adoption or hashing power or optimization. You are just some tool upset about the first WEEK of mining. Entitlement is an ugly thing. Didn't get enough of those 200k coins, or what?
Fuckin' a...some people will bitch about anything.
Oh get off it you twit, I'm pointing out how Sunny King could have had a better initial release that meet HIS goals. From what I've read on the optimization threads the original client was doing really obviously un-optimized stuff like calling malloc repeatedly which any first year programmer knows is a performance killer. Optimization CAN be predicted and the factor of 100x we have seen so far would be considered quite easy and 'low hanging fruit' to most programmers.
SK was clearly trying to avoid overly fast blocks per his own pre-release thread that advertised "Reasonably high starting difficulty to limit instamining" but that effort was defeated by lack of optimization to the mining code under which the initial difficulty was chosen. Its a lesson anyone working on a new hash algorithm in the future should take to heart, it is meant as a constructive postmortem of this coins release.
Your statements are simply knee-jerk defensiveness and seem to be ignorant of SK stated intentions as well, I assure you he is capable of taking constructive criticism and learning from mistakes, I recommend you do likewise.
Your claim that optimization is predictable are dubious, to say the least, and is a pretty moot point in the grand scheme of things. Big picture, my man. Does it matter now? Anyone who wants to can still get their piece of the pie. This was much less of an instagrab clusterfuck that most altcoin launches I've observed. Still doesn't address that there is absolutely no way to predict adoption. Maybe Sunny wasn't expecting tens of thousands of people to jump on board and open dozens of VPS instances. If people stuck to their physical equipment, and even their botnets, we'd probably have seen much less downward pressure on blocktime. Hell, maybe he has never messed with miners before and focused his creative efforts on the important foundation, knowing full well that the community would continue yielding optimizations even if he spent years dialing in his miner. Bitcointalk is full of brilliant people. It never ceases to amaze me. I am sure others are as confident as I am in the skills and fortitude of the crypto community.
I just really don't get your original point. "Hey Sunny! Things would be different if you had done things differently, Let me point some mining fundamentals for you; a higher starting difficulty would have slowed down blocktimes." Pretty sure he's hip to it, just underestimated things. You somehow imply he lobbed the miner over the plate, and fucked up. I am pretty sure there was no insane moneygrab. I am still getting blocks on 5 micro DO instances and my laptop. I think you are just inventing conspiracy theories about robber barons taking your blocks. Variance, son!
July 16, 2013, 07:56:36 PM
I noticed same behaviour importing multiple keys in a row into the QT wallet. There must be a bug in the QT client.
You have to keep the timely order (according to "timereceived" in listtransactions) to get the correct coin generation timestamp shown in QT client, i.e. first import the key with the oldest coins, then the second oldest etc.
If you import a key with newer coins first and then one with older coins, the row with address of the older coins will show the timestamp of the newer coins, as it did in your screenshot.
You have to keep the timely order (according to "timereceived" in listtransactions) to get the correct coin generation timestamp shown in QT client, i.e. first import the key with the oldest coins, then the second oldest etc.
If you import a key with newer coins first and then one with older coins, the row with address of the older coins will show the timestamp of the newer coins, as it did in your screenshot.
I posted a question here https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-bug-in-bitcoin-qt-that-has-something-to-do-with-an-orphan-254226. I thought it was only related to immature coins, and since no many other coins have such a long maturity time, I guess not many people see this problem. Maybe it has nothing to do with whether the blocks being moved is mature or not?
July 16, 2013, 07:48:47 PM
Been running tests for 2 days on the test-net and it looks like primecoind is crippled in some way.
Ran primecoind 1 hour and I end up with 10 blocks (had the same result 3 times) with sieve @ 1 million. If I run primecoin-qt for an hour I usually get about 30-60 blocks @ 1 million sieve. Did this test about 3-4 times.
This is with the hp4 client and only using one core on windows 7.
Ran primecoind 1 hour and I end up with 10 blocks (had the same result 3 times) with sieve @ 1 million. If I run primecoin-qt for an hour I usually get about 30-60 blocks @ 1 million sieve. Did this test about 3-4 times.
This is with the hp4 client and only using one core on windows 7.
July 16, 2013, 07:17:19 PM
My VPM miners are going down 
. You are welcome as well.
No blocks = No fun
. You are welcome as well. No blocks = No fun
Anybody know what god to pray to in order to mine a block? I'm thinking I've got the wrong one
Time to start doing pooled mining. yPool had a bit of a drought when I first started yesterday, but is now finding lots of blocks.
Hey Salfter. Could you post a screenshot from the v.0.2.1 miner?
Screenshot? What about the src
Anyone tried ypool? It seems to function. Just wondering if anyone has withdrew from it yet?
July 16, 2013, 07:10:55 PM
Now that CPU mining for the average miner is dwindling, hopefully the community can start focusing some energy on getting more services! Would love to see an XPM marketplace soon.
This!. Outside of market trade there really isn't anything todo with the coin, Is there even gambling yet?
July 16, 2013, 07:08:59 PM
July 16, 2013, 06:59:34 PM
Now that CPU mining for the average miner is dwindling, hopefully the community can start focusing some energy on getting more services! Would love to see an XPM marketplace soon.
This!. Outside of market trade there really isn't anything todo with the coin, Is there even gambling yet?lol gambling makes everything better
July 16, 2013, 06:56:43 PM
Now that CPU mining for the average miner is dwindling, hopefully the community can start focusing some energy on getting more services! Would love to see an XPM marketplace soon.
This!. Outside of market trade there really isn't anything todo with the coin, Is there even gambling yet? 
July 16, 2013, 06:54:12 PM
Primecoin on Let's Talk Bitcoin ... http://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/55609870810/e24-primecoin-privacy-and-forks-all-day
That show was difficult to listen to. Every other phrase is how they don't understand how primecoin works! Why create a show with that topic if you know NOTHING about it?
July 16, 2013, 06:48:33 PM
Now that CPU mining for the average miner is dwindling, hopefully the community can start focusing some energy on getting more services! Would love to see an XPM marketplace soon.
July 16, 2013, 06:41:54 PM
Primecoin on Let's Talk Bitcoin ... http://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/55609870810/e24-primecoin-privacy-and-forks-all-day
July 16, 2013, 06:41:23 PM
I feel skeptical about that ypool miner. I do not know why. Anyone else tried it or can look deep enough in its source code to figure out anything fishy?
https://github.com/jh000/jhPrimeminer/tree/master/src I am looking it over as we speak, and I don't see any signs, but who knows.
Could help if others got involved.
Just ran a virus total ~ Results: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/9ec3c3db8de09a84160438671428572706c1e63bac64e768c565cab4508fbc5e/analysis/
https://github.com/jh000/jhPrimeminer/tree/master/src I am looking it over as we speak, and I don't see any signs, but who knows.
Could help if others got involved.
Just ran a virus total ~ Results: https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/9ec3c3db8de09a84160438671428572706c1e63bac64e768c565cab4508fbc5e/analysis/
July 16, 2013, 06:39:36 PM
In what sense: that it produces valid output, or that it doesn't do something weird with your computer? As for the first, it's mined about 1.25 XPM so far. That's more than I had previously gotten in a few days of solo mining (except for one block of 15.something XPM early on). As for the second, you can do what I do: run it under Linux with Wine. You could also browse through the source to see if there's anything fishy in it. If I had the time, I'd try porting it to Linux myself; it should run a little better natively.
i run it in linux using wine. run fine but if you are still going to compile it try compiling with x64 flag. it's much faster
July 16, 2013, 06:35:57 PM
Added 1 addresses from 54.216.76.137: 113 tried, 10380 new
received block a980f148bc1da2a874725cc06d83ac70b15f5d4ec1ba2dc4f1c2740782e12ddd
Committing 1 changed transactions to coin database...
SetBestChain: new best=a980f148bc1da2a874725cc06d83ac70b15f5d4ec1ba2dc4f1c2740782e12ddd height=54362 difficulty=8.9326816 log2Work=21.373855 log2ChainWork=34.463719 tx=66999 date=2013-07-16 20:03:57 progress=0.001280
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
What does this mean in the debug.log?
Accepted what?
received block a980f148bc1da2a874725cc06d83ac70b15f5d4ec1ba2dc4f1c2740782e12ddd
Committing 1 changed transactions to coin database...
SetBestChain: new best=a980f148bc1da2a874725cc06d83ac70b15f5d4ec1ba2dc4f1c2740782e12ddd height=54362 difficulty=8.9326816 log2Work=21.373855 log2ChainWork=34.463719 tx=66999 date=2013-07-16 20:03:57 progress=0.001280
ProcessBlock: ACCEPTED
What does this mean in the debug.log?
Accepted what?
It means, that someone in the network solved a block and your client verified and accepted the solution, your local block chain was extended with received block and you can start to work on new block; debug.log should be full of messages like this. You can find more details about received block:
Code:
$ ./primecoind getblock a980f148bc1da2a874725cc06d83ac70b15f5d4ec1ba2dc4f1c2740782e12ddd
{
"hash" : "a980f148bc1da2a874725cc06d83ac70b15f5d4ec1ba2dc4f1c2740782e12ddd",
"confirmations" : 682,
"size" : 199,
"height" : 54362,
"version" : 2,
"merkleroot" : "a95eb08d96e999155c8503e9911be60c30fe92b73b769b0cec3a6842555a1e81",
"tx" : [
"a95eb08d96e999155c8503e9911be60c30fe92b73b769b0cec3a6842555a1e81"
],
"time" : 1374005037,
"nonce" : 1175,
"bits" : "08eec439",
"difficulty" : 8.93268162,
"transition" : 8.96690136,
"primechain" : "TWN08.f21ea1",
"primeorigin" : "37529335260294959670521627361912412134595233408453530955672585394628966480969339574601582708260",
"previousblockhash" : "547df48e3b098bb25549b52d8afa12a60796dbc7e79847d5e9e0550375c67fa5",
"nextblockhash" : "523cbb766d816e20e82edc48ac78b5505c266ce125512ea445a09e57841fc7c6"
}
July 16, 2013, 06:34:59 PM
No blocks for me today ... which means 3 found within a few hours early tomorrow.
July 16, 2013, 05:51:47 PM
From here:
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php
Nvidea and AMD cards perform similarly in prime verification?
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php
Nvidea and AMD cards perform similarly in prime verification?
Does this have any relevant?
I have this:
GeForce GTX 550 Ti GF116-400 900 2.1 691 116 1.113 143.810 129.2 $119.48 0.400 51.7
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php?sort=ghdpd&noA=1
GIMPS GPU computing methods:
http://www.mersenneforum.org/gccs/GIMPS_GPU_Computing_Cheat_Sheet.pdf
July 16, 2013, 05:50:17 PM
From here:
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php
Nvidea and AMD cards perform similarly in prime verification?
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php
Nvidea and AMD cards perform similarly in prime verification?
Does this have any relevant? if so, which part is related to prime verification?
I have this:
GeForce GTX 550 Ti GF116-400 900 2.1 691 116 1.113 143.810 129.2 $119.48 0.400 51.7
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php?sort=ghdpd&noA=1
July 16, 2013, 05:44:33 PM
From here:
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php
Nvidea and AMD cards perform similarly in prime verification?
http://www.mersenne.ca/mfaktc.php
Nvidea and AMD cards perform similarly in prime verification?
Jump to: