FPGA Mining: What is FPGA Mining in Cryptocurrency ...

Finishing up RS232 receive buffer

I've been working on the verilog modules for an RS232 channel over the last several videos of my YouTube series. I just finished building a receive buffer to read many bytes
https://youtu.be/aDLZvKg5tpo
This will be my last video on FPGAs for a while. Next few videos will be building a Bitcoin miner from scratch with Python!
Will eventually circle back and make a SHA256 module for the FPGA to finish up an FPGA Bitcoin miner
submitted by MadeByOzzy to FPGA [link] [comments]

Vast Monero network hash rate increase

What is up with this recent increase of the hash rate? It has almost doubled in a matter of days. Has any particular reason for this been confirmed yet?
submitted by fakoshi to Monero [link] [comments]

Transcript of discussion between an ASIC designer and several proof-of-work designers from #monero-pow channel on Freenode this morning

[08:07:01] lukminer contains precompiled cn/r math sequences for some blocks: https://lukminer.org/2019/03/09/oh-kay-v4r-here-we-come/
[08:07:11] try that with RandomX :P
[08:09:00] tevador: are you ready for some RandomX feedback? it looks like the CNv4 is slowly stabilizing, hashrate comes down...
[08:09:07] how does it even make sense to precompile it?
[08:09:14] mine 1% faster for 2 minutes?
[08:09:35] naturally we think the entire asic-resistance strategy is doomed to fail :) but that's a high-level thing, who knows. people may think it's great.
[08:09:49] about RandomX: looks like the cache size was chosen to make it GPU-hard
[08:09:56] looking forward to more docs
[08:11:38] after initial skimming, I would think it's possible to make a 10x asic for RandomX. But at least for us, we will only make an ASIC if there is not a total ASIC hostility there in the first place. That's better for the secret miners then.
[08:13:12] What I propose is this: we are working on an Ethash ASIC right now, and once we have that working, we would invite tevador or whoever wants to come to HK/Shenzhen and we walk you guys through how we would make a RandomX ASIC. You can then process this input in any way you like. Something like that.
[08:13:49] unless asics (or other accelerators) re-emerge on XMR faster than expected, it looks like there is a little bit of time before RandomX rollout
[08:14:22] 10x in what measure? $/hash or watt/hash?
[08:14:46] watt/hash
[08:15:19] so you can make 10 times more efficient double precisio FPU?
[08:16:02] like I said let's try to be productive. You are having me here, let's work together!
[08:16:15] continue with RandomX, publish more docs. that's always helpful.
[08:16:37] I'm trying to understand how it's possible at all. Why AMD/Intel are so inefficient at running FP calculations?
[08:18:05] midipoet ([email protected]/web/irccloud.com/x-vszshqqxwybvtsjm) has joined #monero-pow
[08:18:17] hardware development works the other way round. We start with 1) math then 2) optimization priority 3) hw/sw boundary 4) IP selection 5) physical implementation
[08:22:32] This still doesn't explain at which point you get 10x
[08:23:07] Weren't you the ones claiming "We can accelerate ProgPoW by a factor of 3x to 8x." ? I find it hard to believe too.
[08:30:20] sure
[08:30:26] so my idea: first we finish our current chip
[08:30:35] from simulation to silicon :)
[08:30:40] we love this stuff... we do it anyway
[08:30:59] now we have a communication channel, and we don't call each other names immediately anymore: big progress!
[08:31:06] you know, we russians have a saying "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about ravines"
[08:31:12] So I need a bit more details
[08:31:16] ha ha. good!
[08:31:31] that's why I want to avoid to just make claims
[08:31:34] let's work
[08:31:40] RandomX comes in Sep/Oct, right?
[08:31:45] Maybe
[08:32:20] We need to audit it first
[08:32:31] ok
[08:32:59] we don't make chips to prove sw devs that their assumptions about hardware are wrong. especially not if these guys then promptly hardfork and move to the next wrong assumption :)
[08:33:10] from the outside, this only means that hw & sw are devaluing each other
[08:33:24] neither of us should do this
[08:33:47] we are making chips that can hopefully accelerate more crypto ops in the future
[08:33:52] signing, verifying, proving, etc.
[08:34:02] PoW is just a feature like others
[08:34:18] sech1: is it easy for you to come to Hong Kong? (visa-wise)
[08:34:20] or difficult?
[08:34:33] or are you there sometimes?
[08:34:41] It's kind of far away
[08:35:13] we are looking forward to more RandomX docs. that's the first step.
[08:35:31] I want to avoid that we have some meme "Linzhi says they can accelerate XYZ by factor x" .... "ha ha ha"
[08:35:37] right? we don't want that :)
[08:35:39] doc is almost finished
[08:35:40] What docs do you need? It's described pretty good
[08:35:41] so I better say nothing now
[08:35:50] we focus on our Ethash chip
[08:36:05] then based on that, we are happy to walk interested people through the design and what else it can do
[08:36:22] that's a better approach from my view than making claims that are laughed away (rightfully so, because no silicon...)
[08:36:37] ethash ASIC is basically a glorified memory controller
[08:36:39] sech1: tevador said something more is coming (he just did it again)
[08:37:03] yes, some parts of RandomX are not described well
[08:37:10] like dataset access logic
[08:37:37] RandomX looks like progpow for CPU
[08:37:54] yes
[08:38:03] it is designed to reflect CPU
[08:38:34] so any ASIC for it = CPU in essence
[08:39:04] of course there are still some things in regular CPU that can be thrown away for RandomX
[08:40:20] uncore parts are not used, but those will use very little power
[08:40:37] except for memory controller
[08:41:09] I'm just surprised sometimes, ok? let me ask: have you designed or taped out an asic before? isn't it risky to make assumptions about things that are largely unknown?
[08:41:23] I would worry
[08:41:31] that I get something wrong...
[08:41:44] but I also worry like crazy that CNv4 will blow up, where you guys seem to be relaxed
[08:42:06] I didn't want to bring up anything RandomX because CNv4 is such a nailbiter... :)
[08:42:15] how do you guys know you don't have asics in a week or two?
[08:42:38] we don't have experience with ASIC design, but RandomX is simply designed to exactly fit CPU capabilities, which is the best you can do anyways
[08:43:09] similar as ProgPoW did with GPUs
[08:43:14] some people say they want to do asic-resistance only until the vast majority of coins has been issued
[08:43:21] that's at least reasonable
[08:43:43] yeah but progpow totally will not work as advertised :)
[08:44:08] yeah, I've seen that comment about progpow a few times already
[08:44:11] which is no surprise if you know it's just a random sales story to sell a few more GPUs
[08:44:13] RandomX is not permanent, we are expecting to switch to ASIC friendly in a few years if possible
[08:44:18] yes
[08:44:21] that makes sense
[08:44:40] linzhi-sonia: how so? will it break or will it be asic-able with decent performance gains?
[08:44:41] are you happy with CNv4 so far?
[08:45:10] ah, long story. progpow is a masterpiece of deception, let's not get into it here.
[08:45:21] if you know chip marketing it makes more sense
[08:45:24] linzhi-sonia: So far? lol! a bit early to tell, don't you think?
[08:45:35] the diff is coming down
[08:45:41] first few hours looked scary
[08:45:43] I remain skeptical: I only see ASICs being reasonable if they are already as ubiquitous as smartphones
[08:45:46] yes, so far so good
[08:46:01] we kbew the diff would not come down ubtil affter block 75
[08:46:10] yes
[08:46:22] but first few hours it looks like only 5% hashrate left
[08:46:27] looked
[08:46:29] now it's better
[08:46:51] the next worry is: when will "unexplainable" hashrate come back?
[08:47:00] you hope 2-3 months? more?
[08:47:05] so give it another couple of days. will probably overshoot to the downside, and then rise a bit as miners get updated and return
[08:47:22] 3 months minimum turnaround, yes
[08:47:28] nah
[08:47:36] don't underestimate asicmakers :)
[08:47:54] you guys don't get #1 priority on chip fabs
[08:47:56] 3 months = 90 days. do you know what is happening in those 90 days exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't. same thing as before.
[08:48:13] we don't do any secret chips btw
[08:48:21] 3 months assumes they had a complete design ready to go, and added the last minute change in 1 day
[08:48:24] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:48:27] innosilicon?
[08:48:34] hyc: no no, and no. :)
[08:48:44] hyc: have you designed or taped out a chip before?
[08:48:51] yes, many years ago
[08:49:10] then you should know that 90 days is not a fixed number
[08:49:35] sure, but like I said, other makers have greater demand
[08:49:35] especially not if you can prepare, if you just have to modify something, or you have more programmability in the chip than some people assume
[08:50:07] we are chipmakers, we would never dare to do what you guys are doing with CNv4 :) but maybe that just means you are cooler!
[08:50:07] and yes, programmability makes some aspect of turnaround easier
[08:50:10] all fine
[08:50:10] I hope it works!
[08:50:28] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:50:29] inno?
[08:50:41] we suspect so, but have no evidence
[08:50:44] maybe we can try to find them, but we cannot spend too much time on this
[08:50:53] it's probably not so much of a secret
[08:51:01] why should it be, right?
[08:51:10] devs want this cat-and-mouse game? devs get it...
[08:51:35] there was one leak saying it's innosilicon
[08:51:36] so you think 3 months, ok
[08:51:43] inno is cool
[08:51:46] good team
[08:51:49] IP design house
[08:51:54] in Wuhan
[08:52:06] they send their people to conferences with fake biz cards :)
[08:52:19] pretending to be other companies?
[08:52:26] sure
[08:52:28] ha ha
[08:52:39] so when we see them, we look at whatever card they carry and laugh :)
[08:52:52] they are perfectly suited for secret mining games
[08:52:59] they made at most $6 million in 2 months of mining, so I wonder if it was worth it
[08:53:10] yeah. no way to know
[08:53:15] but it's good that you calculate!
[08:53:24] this is all about cost/benefit
[08:53:25] then you also understand - imagine the value of XMR goes up 5x, 10x
[08:53:34] that whole "asic resistance" thing will come down like a house of cards
[08:53:41] I would imagine they sell immediately
[08:53:53] the investor may fully understand the risk
[08:53:57] the buyer
[08:54:13] it's not healthy, but that's another discussion
[08:54:23] so mid-June
[08:54:27] let's see
[08:54:49] I would be susprised if CNv4 ASICs show up at all
[08:54:56] surprised*
[08:54:56] why?
[08:55:05] is only an economic question
[08:55:12] yeah should be interesting. FPGAs will be near their limits as well
[08:55:16] unless XMR goes up a lot
[08:55:19] no, not *only*. it's also a technology question
[08:55:44] you believe CNv4 is "asic resistant"? which feature?
[08:55:53] it's not
[08:55:59] cnv4 = Rabdomx ?
[08:56:03] no
[08:56:07] cnv4=cryptinight/r
[08:56:11] ah
[08:56:18] CNv4 is the one we have now, I think
[08:56:21] since yesterday
[08:56:30] it's plenty enough resistant for current XMR price
[08:56:45] that may be, yes!
[08:56:55] I look at daily payouts. XMR = ca. 100k USD / day
[08:57:03] it can hold until October, but it's not asic resistant
[08:57:23] well, last 24h only 22,442 USD :)
[08:57:32] I think 80 h/s per watt ASICs are possible for CNv4
[08:57:38] linzhi-sonia where do you produce your chips? TSMC?
[08:57:44] I'm cruious how you would expect to build a randomX ASIC that outperforms ARM cores for efficiency, or Intel cores for raw speed
[08:57:48] curious
[08:58:01] yes, tsmc
[08:58:21] Our team did the world's first bitcoin asic, Avalon
[08:58:25] and upcoming 2nd gen Ryzens (64-core EPYC) will be a blast at RandomX
[08:58:28] designed and manufactured
[08:58:53] still being marketed?
[08:59:03] linzhi-sonia: do you understand what xmr wants to achieve, community-wise?
[08:59:14] Avalon? as part of Canaan Creative, yes I think so.
[08:59:25] there's not much interesting oing on in SHA256
[08:59:29] Inge-: I would think so, but please speak
[08:59:32] hyc: yes
[09:00:28] linzhi-sonia: i am curious to hear your thoughts. I am fairly new to this space myself...
[09:00:51] oh
[09:00:56] we are grandpas, and grandmas
[09:01:36] yet I have no problem understanding why ASICS are currently reviled.
[09:01:48] xmr's main differentiators to, let's say btc, are anonymity and fungibility
[09:01:58] I find the client terribly slow btw
[09:02:21] and I think the asic-forking since last may is wrong, doesn't create value and doesn't help with the project objectives
[09:02:25] which "the client" ?
[09:02:52] Monero GUI client maybe
[09:03:12] MacOS, yes
[09:03:28] What exactly is slow?
[09:03:30] linzhi-sonia: I run my own node, and use the CLI and Monerujo. Have not had issues.
[09:03:49] staying in sync
[09:03:49] linzhi-sonia: decentralization is also a key principle
[09:03:56] one that Bitcoin has failed to maintain
[09:04:39] hmm
[09:05:00] looks fairly decentralized to me. decentralization is the result of 3 goals imo: resilient, trustless, permissionless
[09:05:28] don't ask a hardware maker about physical decentralization. that's too ideological. we focus on logical decentralization.
[09:06:11] physical decentralization is important. with bulk of bitnoin mining centered on Chinese hydroelectric dams
[09:06:19] have you thought about including block data in the PoW?
[09:06:41] yes, of course.
[09:07:39] is that already in an algo?
[09:08:10] hyc: about "centered on chinese hydro" - what is your source? the best paper I know is this: https://coinshares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mining-Whitepaper-Final.pdf
[09:09:01] linzhi-sonia: do you mine on your ASICs before you sell them?
[09:09:13] besides testing of course
[09:09:45] that paper puts Chinese btc miners at 60% max
[09:10:05] tevador: I think everybody learned that that is not healthy long-term!
[09:10:16] because it gives the chipmaker a cost advantage over its own customers
[09:10:33] and cost advantage leads to centralization (physical and logical)
[09:10:51] you guys should know who finances progpow and why :)
[09:11:05] but let's not get into this, ha ha. want to keep the channel civilized. right OhGodAGirl ? :)
[09:11:34] tevador: so the answer is no! 100% and definitely no
[09:11:54] that "self-mining" disease was one of the problems we have now with asics, and their bad reputation (rightfully so)
[09:13:08] I plan to write a nice short 2-page paper or so on our chip design process. maybe it's interesting to some people here.
[09:13:15] basically the 5 steps I mentioned before, from math to physical
[09:13:32] linzhi-sonia: the paper you linked puts 48% of bitcoin mining in Sichuan. the total in China is much more than 60%
[09:13:38] need to run it by a few people to fix bugs, will post it here when published
[09:14:06] hyc: ok! I am just sharing the "best" document I know today. it definitely may be wrong and there may be a better one now.
[09:14:18] hyc: if you see some reports, please share
[09:14:51] hey I am really curious about this: where is a PoW algo that puts block data into the PoW?
[09:15:02] the previous paper I read is from here http://hackingdistributed.com/2018/01/15/decentralization-bitcoin-ethereum/
[09:15:38] hyc: you said that already exists? (block data in PoW)
[09:15:45] it would make verification harder
[09:15:49] linzhi-sonia: https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/campdivision.com/PDF/Computers%20General/Privacy/bitcoin/meh/hashimoto.pdf
[09:15:51] but for chips it would be interesting
[09:15:52] we discussed the possibility about a year ago https://www.reddit.com/Monero/comments/8bshrx/what_we_need_to_know_about_proof_of_work_pow/
[09:16:05] oh good links! thanks! need to read...
[09:16:06] I think that paper by dryja was original
[09:17:53] since we have a nice flow - second question I'm very curious about: has anyone thought about in-protocol rewards for other functions?
[09:18:55] we've discussed micropayments for wallets to use remote nodes
[09:18:55] you know there is a lot of work in other coins about STARK provers, zero-knowledge, etc. many of those things very compute intense, or need to be outsourced to a service (zether). For chipmakers, in-protocol rewards create an economic incentive to accelerate those things.
[09:19:50] whenever there is an in-protocol reward, you may get the power of ASICs doing something you actually want to happen
[09:19:52] it would be nice if there was some economic reward for running a fullnode, but no one has come up with much more than that afaik
[09:19:54] instead of fighting them off
[09:20:29] you need to use asics, not fight them. that's an obvious thing to say for an asicmaker...
[09:20:41] in-protocol rewards can be very powerful
[09:20:50] like I said before - unless the ASICs are so useful they're embedded in every smartphone, I dont see them being a positive for decentralization
[09:21:17] if they're a separate product, the average consumer is not going to buy them
[09:21:20] now I was talking about speedup of verifying, signing, proving, etc.
[09:21:23] they won't even know what they are
[09:22:07] if anybody wants to talk about or design in-protocol rewards, please come talk to us
[09:22:08] the average consumer also doesn't use general purpose hardware to secure blockchains either
[09:22:14] not just for PoW, in fact *NOT* for PoW
[09:22:32] it requires sw/hw co-design
[09:23:10] we are in long-term discussions/collaboration over this with Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash. just talk right now.
[09:23:16] this was recently published though suggesting more uptake though I guess https://btcmanager.com/college-students-are-the-second-biggest-miners-of-cryptocurrency/
[09:23:29] I find it pretty hard to believe their numbers
[09:24:03] well
[09:24:09] sorry, original article: https://www.pcmag.com/news/366952/college-kids-are-using-campus-electricity-to-mine-crypto
[09:24:11] just talk, no? rumors
[09:24:18] college students are already more educated than the average consumer
[09:24:29] we are not seeing many such customers anymore
[09:24:30] it's data from cisco monitoring network traffic
[09:24:33] and they're always looking for free money
[09:24:48] of course anyone with "free" electricity is inclined to do it
[09:24:57] but look at the rates, cannot make much money
[09:26:06] Ethereum is a bloated collection of bugs wrapped in a UI. I suppose they need all the help they can get
[09:26:29] Bitcoin Cash ... just another get rich quick scheme
[09:26:38] hmm :)
[09:26:51] I'll give it back to you, ok? ha ha. arrogance comes before the fall...
[09:27:17] maye we should have a little fun with CNv4 mining :)
[09:27:25] ;)
[09:27:38] come on. anyone who has watched their track record... $75M lost in ETH at DAO hack
[09:27:50] every smart contract that comes along is just waiting for another hack
[09:27:58] I just wanted to throw out the "in-protocol reward" thing, maybe someone sees the idea and wants to cowork. maybe not. maybe it's a stupid idea.
[09:29:18] linzhi-sonia: any thoughts on CN-GPU?
[09:29:55] CN-GPU has one positive aspect - it wastes chip area to implement all 18 hash algorithms
[09:30:19] you will always hear roughly the same feedback from me:
[09:30:52] "This algorithm very different, it heavy use floating point operations to hurt FPGAs and general purpose CPUs"
[09:30:56] the problem is, if it's profitable for people to buy ASIC miners and mine, it's always more profitable for the manufacturer to not sell and mine themselves
[09:31:02] "hurt"
[09:31:07] what is the point of this?
[09:31:15] it totally doesn't work
[09:31:24] you are hurting noone, just demonstrating lack of ability to think
[09:31:41] what is better: algo designed for chip, or chip designed for algo?
[09:31:43] fireice does it on daily basis, CN-GPU is a joke
[09:31:53] tevador: that's not really true, especially in a market with such large price fluctuations as cryptocurrency
[09:32:12] it's far less risky to sell miners than mine with them and pray that price doesn't crash for next six months
[09:32:14] I think it's great that crypto has a nice group of asicmakers now, hw & sw will cowork well
[09:32:36] jwinterm yes, that's why they premine them and sell after
[09:32:41] PoW is about being thermodynamically and cryptographically provable
[09:32:45] premining with them is taking on that risk
[09:32:49] not "fork when we think there are asics"
[09:32:51] business is about risk minimization
[09:32:54] that's just fear-driven
[09:33:05] Inge-: that's roughly the feedback
[09:33:24] I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I think it's not so simple as saying "it always happens"
[09:34:00] jwinterm: it has certainly happened on BTC. and also on XMR.
[09:34:19] ironically, please think about it: these kinds of algos indeed prove the limits of the chips they were designed for. but they don't prove that you cannot implement the same algo differently! cannot!
[09:34:26] Risk minimization is not starting a business at all.
[09:34:34] proof-of-gpu-limit. proof-of-cpu-limit.
[09:34:37] imagine you have a money printing machine, would you sell it?
[09:34:39] proves nothing for an ASIC :)
[09:35:05] linzhi-sonia: thanks. I dont think anyone believes you can't make a more efficient cn-gpu asic than a gpu - but that it would not be orders of magnitude faster...
[09:35:24] ok
[09:35:44] like I say. these algos are, that's really ironic, designed to prove the limitatios of a particular chip in mind of the designer
[09:35:50] exactly the wrong way round :)
[09:36:16] like the cache size in RandomX :)
[09:36:18] beautiful
[09:36:29] someone looked at GPU designs
[09:37:31] linzhi-sonia can you elaborate? Cache size in RandomX was selected to fit CPU cache
[09:37:52] yes
[09:38:03] too large for GPU
[09:38:11] as I said, we are designing the algorithm to exactly fit CPU capabilities, I do not claim an ASIC cannot be more efficient
[09:38:16] ok!
[09:38:29] when will you do the audit?
[09:38:35] will the results be published in a document or so?
[09:38:37] I claim that single-chip ASIC is not viable, though
[09:39:06] you guys are brave, noone disputes that. 3 anti-asic hardforks now!
[09:39:18] 4th one coming
[09:39:31] 3 forks were done not only for this
[09:39:38] they had scheduled updates in the first place
[09:48:10] Monero is the #1 anti-asic fighter
[09:48:25] Monero is #1 for a lot of reasons ;)
[09:48:40] It's the coin with the most hycs.
[09:48:55] mooooo
[09:59:06] sneaky integer overflow, bug squished
[10:38:00] p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has joined #monero-pow
[11:10:53] The convo here is wild
[11:12:29] it's like geo-politics at the intersection of software and hardware manufacturing for thermoeconomic value.
[11:13:05] ..and on a Sunday.
[11:15:43] midipoet: hw and sw should work together and stop silly games to devalue each other. to outsiders this is totally not attractive.
[11:16:07] I appreciate the positive energy here to try to listen, learn, understand.
[11:16:10] that's a start
[11:16:48] <-- p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[11:16:54] we won't do silly mining against xmr "community" wishes, but not because we couldn'd do it, but because it's the wrong direction in the long run, for both sides
[11:18:57] linzhi-sonia: I agree to some extent. Though, in reality, there will always be divergence between social worlds. Not every body has the same vision of the future. Reaching societal consensus on reality tomorrow is not always easy
[11:20:25] absolutely. especially at a time when there is so much profit to be made from divisiveness.
[11:20:37] someone will want to make that profit, for sure
[11:24:32] Yes. Money distorts.
[11:24:47] Or wealth...one of the two
[11:26:35] Too much physical money will distort rays of light passing close to it indeed.
submitted by jwinterm to Monero [link] [comments]

The Bitcoin Cash fork fiasco: a reorg or a 51 percent attack?

https://bravenewcoin.com/insights/the-bitcoin-cash-fiasco-a-reorg-or-a-51-percent-attack
interesting article on how this attack operated, when bitcoin cash upgraded with the abc fork which created the sv / bitcoincash divergance. in the abc upgrade there was an ability to return funds from addresses that were errenosly sent to segwit addresses and thus were not accesible since bch didn't have segwit.
there was an exploit of being able to see a secret on the blockchain ledger, it was a hash. it allowed a malicious actor to recover funds from segwit addresses. this allowed a nefarious actor to double spend on the segwit addresses as you could obtain the funds with the secret exposed on the block explorer.
the article goes into detail about what was occuring block per block. 2 large miners benevenoltly joined hash power to stop the attacker after they realised what was happening on the chain of another miner.
as per the title, this could have been a 51% attack, but miners colluded, due to centralisation of mining which is not what pow is about. so the fact that miners colluded to stop a double spend, raises questions on PoW working for bitcoin cash.
question:
wouldnt their issues largely be resolved if they changed from sha256 as the hashing algo? if changed it would prevent btc mining farms from mining the chain, giving stability in the network. something fpgas can mine easily enough so there isnt a drastic transition in hash power.
the problem with a large hash drop is that the block reward adjustment phase takes far too long i.e. the nounce level for hashing = reward. with bitcoin i think the nonce reevaluates based on hash level after 2 weeks in blocks with btc, not sure if its changed in bitcoin cash. doubt it
submitted by Neophyte- to CryptoTechnology [link] [comments]

Proposal to switch to SHA-3 proof of work

https://github.com/aeonix/aeon/issues/103

I believe now is the right time for Aeon to become ASIC friendly by switching to SHA-3 PoW (the most recent Secure Hashing Algorithm standardized by NIST). Below I'll try to explain why:

There is no such thing as ASIC resistant PoW.

Whether someone creates an ASIC or not is not determined by how technologically difficult it is to do so, but how economically sensible it is to do so; i.e., when a coin gets more adopted and the price rises, ASICs will appear no matter what.
Below is a quote from Bitcoin StackExchange which makes a good point:
It's not really "someone figured out" how to mine on FPGAs or ASICs: an intelligent first year undergraduate could port SHA256 from C to Verilog. It's more that it began to make economic sense. ASICs in particular require a big enough up-front investment that you need economies of scale. – Peter Taylor Nov 9 '17 at 23:27
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/62336/why-did-satoshi-design-bitcoin-to-be-mineable-only-on-specialized-hardware-if-t#comment71658_62339
For every supposedly ASIC resistant PoW (scrypt, CryptoNight etc), ASICs have been created at some point when the coin became sufficiently large. An often seen argument is "CryptoNight was good at resisting ASICs because it survived the first 3 years without ASICs being developed", which I disagree. CryptoNight ASICs weren't created for the first 3 years simply because the market was too small; it wasn't worthwhile to develop CryptoNight ASICs.
Currently RandomX is receiving a lot of attention as being (almost) truly ASIC resistant by making PoW even more complex, but from the past experience and from logical reasoning, I have no reason to believe so.

Importance of protocol stability:

As a coin gets more widely adopted (and the price goes up), there will be more participants in the network (users, exchanges, merchants, pools, etc), which makes it more difficult to do hard forks (i.e. to force everyone to upgrade their software). Monero's 6 month fork schedule is already becoming almost unworkable due to the sheer network size, and I think they'll be forced to change this policy rather soon.
Imagine a hypothetical future where one particular crypto coin becomes a globally adopted world currency. That coin cannot do hard forks every so often; maybe once every two years is already too much. Ideally, at some point, the protocol should become absolutely stable and require no more hard forks at all.
With this in mind, I immediately see ASIC resistance being incompatible with this future, because hard forks (PoW changes) are rather frequently needed due to ASICs getting created faster and faster as the coin grows. ASIC resistance cannot be a sane strategy for a winning cryptocurrency.

Importance of switching now:

Going from ASIC resistant to ASIC friendly is such a radical change, and a strong opposition is naturally expected from many of the community members who have been supporting ASIC resistance. A compromise solution suggested by u/smooth_xmr is to adopt CryptonightR which Monero will switch to in the next upcoming hard fork. I think the reasoning is that CN-R is expected to be somewhat better at resisting ASICs and not much more computationally expensive than the previous CN variants (unlike RandomX), so we can wait and see how successful this will be before going full ASIC friendly.
Initially I felt OK with it, but I became unsatisfied after a while of thinking for these reasons:

Arguments for ASIC resistance and their counterarguments:

SHA-3 is the perfect way for Aeon to differentiate itself from Monero.

This change is radical but not stupid. Many people in the Monero community would be curious how things will play out for SHA-3 Aeon. This will surely also attract a lot of attention from the wider crypto community because Aeon will be the first CryptoNote coin that deployed SHA-3. I believe this is a very good opportunity for marketing as well.

Please discuss.
submitted by stoffu to Aeon [link] [comments]

Debunking myths about mining and GPUs

E: Going to bed, will contribute more tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion!
Myth: Mining is more stressful than gaming. Fact: It depends. During the old days, this was plausible, because older GPUs (Pre-polaris) are/were bottlenecked by core clock when mining the most profitable coins. Thus, miners overclocked and overvolted these cards quite frequently, especially with cheap electricity. This meant that those cards were often run hot, pushing the limits and stressing VRM and fans quite a lot. Nowadays, ethash (Ethereum) is the most profitable algorithm for AMD cards 99% of the time, and newer GPUs (Polaris) are limited by memory bandwidth and latency. Miners can underclock core to the low 1100MHz range before seeing performance drop. To save power, miners who know what they are doing also undervolt, since it is no longer necessary to sustain a high core clock. Thus, it is quite feasible to run polaris cards below 70C at a reasonable fan speed. However, dual mining (mining more than one coin at once) does increase power consumption by up to 20%, and there are also idiots who run their polaris cards OCd while mining. With the exception of a few idiots, miners treat their Polaris GPUs pretty much the same; that is, running underclocked and undervolted 24/7 with a memory strap mod and mem OC. On the other hand, former gaming cards are highly variable in use cases. Some gamers leave their cards at stock settings, some undervolt, and some OC and/or overvolt. Most of the time, these cards are thermal cycled far more often than mining cards, which is known to weaken solder. Another thing to consider is that manufacturers have learned (somewhat) from their mistakes of putting shit tier fans in GPUs, and many fans on modern GPUs are ball bearing and/or swappable. Even some budget cards, such as MSI Armor, use decent ball bearing fans. Bottom line: the risk of buying mined Polaris cards is not as high as the risk of buying older mined cards. I would not be against buying mined polaris cards, but it's not necessarily better than buying a gamer's card instead. At the end of the day, it depends more on how the owner treated it than what they used it for.
Myth: GPUs are obsolete because of FPGAs and ASICs Fact: Mostly false. Older algorithms such as scrypt and SHA256 (lite/doge/feathebitcoin etc) are no longer feasible to mine with GPUs, but there have been multiple algorithms since then that are built to deter ASICs; most of the time it is done by making it memory-hard because designing an ASIC with high memory throughput is considerably more expensive to design and manufacture. Many devs prefer their blockchain to be ASIC resistant to avoid the concentration of power problem that Bitcoin is having nowadays, where a giant, near-monopolistic ASIC manufacturer (Bitmain) is causing a lot of (subjective) controversy. Blockchains based on ethash (Ethereum and its forks), equihash (Zcash and its forks) and cryptonight (Monero and forks) are some examples, but there are scores of other shitcoins and a few other algos that are GPU dominant. It is almost impossible that there will be another ASIC takeover, which is what was responsible for the stop in GPU demand in the bitcoin and litecoin days. Bottom line: ASICs no longer threaten GPU miners, or the demand for GPUs
Myth: Ethereum switching to Proof of Stake will kill mining soon Fact: Doomsayers have been preaching about proof of stake since late 2015. It has always been "coming soon." The fact is, the Ethereum roadmap goes from proof of work (mining) -> Casper (mining + PoS) -> Metropolis (PoS). Currently, the release date of Casper is not even announced yet, nor is it being tested in a (public) testnet. Proof of Stake might one day take over, but mining is here to stay for a while yet. Another thing to consider is that there are tons of other GPU mineable blockchains, and although Ethereum is biggest, it is certainly feasible that mining stays profitable even after Ethereum goes PoS (if it ever does). However, it is possible that profits will be low enough to discourage new miners. Bottom line: It's very unlikely. E: I screwed up the roadmap; here is a better source than me with some interesting information: https://www.ethnews.com/ethereums-vitalik-buterin-gives-keynote-on-metropolis
Myth: The current Ethereum demand spike is a bubble Opinion: Honestly, I don't know. I would not be surprised if stricter regulations on ICOs come sooner or later, which would fuck with Ether prices. There is also the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies. However, it is also possible that blockchain technology continues to gain traction; that is, the price could just as easily go up as go down. Although it's fun to read about other people's opinions, only time-travelling wizards can tell you when it will become economical again to upgrade your poor HD5770. Bottom line: No one knows.
Myth: Miners will "steal" all the RX Vegas Fact: Only a reckless miner would buy Vegas on release, since mining performance is not known. In fact, it is possible that it can't mine at all (or at some stupidly low speed) until devs add support to existing miners. It would be even more reckless than gamers who buy without seeing benchmarks, since at least gamers can expect the games to actually run. It's also not necessarily the case that Vega will be good once miners do add support. Maybe there will be enough reckless miners to affect supply, maybe not. Of course, it is possible that miners will deplete the supply after it is demonstrated that Vega is good for mining. Bottom line: Most miners won't preorder, but it's possible that a significant number will. E: Important to remember that even if mining demand isn't high, doesn't mean that supply will be plentiful.
Myth: Nvidia cards SUCK at mining Fact: Mostly false. They USED to suck in the old pre-Maxwell days, but now they are actually more efficient at mining Ethereum and Zcash compared to AMD cards, even after both cards are undervolted. The flipside is that they (used to) cost more for the equivalent hashrate. For reference, my old 5xRX470 rig drew just under 800W when mining ETH only and hashed at 150MH/s. My current 6xGTX1060 rig draws just over half of that (<450W) and hashes at about 135MH/s. Certainly not as good in raw performance, but they are viable nonetheless, especially given the AMD GPU shortage. In fact, Nvidia cards (1060 and especially 1070) are becoming scarce as well. Bottom line: Nvidia is still the underdog when it comes to mining, but far from irrelevant nowadays.
Myth: 4GB cards will be obsolete for mining soon Fact: FALSE. The Ethereum DAG is not even 3GB yet, and won't be for a few months. The recent reports of 4GB Polaris cards slowing down soon due to DAG size is caused by limited TLB capacity, not VRAM restrictions. Polaris cards will still be able to mine ETH forks such as Expanse and UBIQ without diminished speed, and even if they are used to mine ETH, it is not that much of a performance hit at first. It would certainly not make polaris useless or undesirable for mining anytime soon. Tahiti GPUs already suffer from this issue and Hawaii is the most resistant to this issue. Have not benched Nvidia at a later epoch.
Myth: Creating miner-bashing posts on Reddit will help alleviate the GPU supply problem Fact: False, you are simply giving cryptocurrencies and mining more exposure to the general public, increasing demand.
Myth: Mining-specific GPUs will solve the shortage problems Opinion: There's not enough info to tell yet, but I am a skeptic for the following reasons. First, no display limits the resale value of the card for obvious reasons. IMO, the whole point of crypto mining from a profitability standpoint is to have a hedge against coin volatility (hardware is still worth something if the coin crashes). Otherwise it is much less effort to just buy and hold the coin. If the hardware is useless without demand from other (significant) sources, then it doesn't make much sense to buy it unless the price is extremely low. I'm sure that cost-downing the PCB and warranty will make for a cheap card, but it has to be extremely cheap and plentiful in supply, or else miners will buy whatever they can get. I could envision "failed" chips (not meeting spec of consumer editions) being stuck in miner cards, but I doubt there are enough to meet demand without ramping up production as a whole, which carries its own risks. I guess that it would help a little, but probably not solve the problems. Alternatively, since modern GPUs are bottlenecked by RAM when mining, it might be enticing to miners to have the fastest (GDDR5) RAM on the market (probably the 9gbps chips from the 1060 6G 9gbps edition, although I don't have one to test). However, my previous points still apply; buying such a card without display outputs carries a big risk. Bottom line: It's not a great idea, unless they are super cheap or use really good RAM.
Hope this helped; if you have any further questions I will try to answer them. I'm both a gamer and miner who uses both AMD and Nvidia roughly equally and don't favor one group over another. I've mined and gamed on all high end AMD GPUs since Tahiti (except Tonga) and all Pascal cards except 1050ti.
submitted by key_smash to Amd [link] [comments]

Ritocoin - a 100% community driven project based on Ravencoin


tl:dr: Ritocoin is a code fork of the Ravencoin codebase and continues to track future Ravencoin developments. The project was launched to provide a more community-oriented blockchain with the same functionality as Ravencoin, without a corporate overseer, and with a more flexible model for community participation and development. It’s intention is to be a hacker’s playground for innovative ideas.

Specifications

Proof-of-Work Algorithm: X21S
Block Time: 60 seconds
POW Block Reward: Smooth curve down
Community fund: 1% first year
Difficulty Retargeting: DGW-180
Maximum Supply:
6 months: 993,521,892 RITO
1 year: 1,227,448,858 RITO
5 years: 1,762,210,058 RITO
10 years: 1,820,404,381 RITO
50 years: 2,030,907,256 RITO
100 years: 2,293,707,246 RITO
Infinite: 10 RITO per block in perpetuity

Pre-mine: None
Masternodes: Researching for use case
Asset layer: Was enabled at height 50,000

Links
Website
/ritocoin
Explorer
Github
Whitepaper
twitter
[ANN]

X21S

This hashing algorithm was created specifically for Ritocoin, and was designed to resist FPGAs, ASICs, and NiceHash. It is X16S (16 algorithms shuffled and hashed),, followed by 5 additional hashing algorithms: haval256, tiger, lyra2, gost512, and sha256. The inclusion of lyra2 brings numerous advantages, making parallelization of the algorithm practically impossible, with each step relying on the previous step having already been computed. It is a “friendly” algorithm that makes GPUs produce much less heat and uses less electricity during mining.

Take your time to learn more about us in the below story of Ritocoin...

The spirit of Bitcoin continues to inspire, empower and enable people around the globe. Ten years later, just as it seemed Bitcoin was being defined by commercial agents and regulated governance, that same free and independent spirit imbued the Ravencoin community. In ten short months, however, 30% of the Ravencoin project’s net hash comes from NiceHash and the looming impact of the imminent FPGA mining cards and X16R bitstreams certainly promises to shake up the dream of this GPU miner’s darling.

Ravencoin’s fair launch genuinely inspired our developers and supporters. We admire the way Ravencoin came out swinging — fighting for fairness, an honest distribution of coins and a place where GPU miners could thrive. The asset layer attracted many more miners and investors to the pools. Many Ritocoin enthusiasts came from the Ravencoin community, and continue their association with that project.

The whole crypto ecosystem should appreciate the work begun by Ravencoin. Obviously they continue to inspire and motivate us to this day. It’s the reason we took action. We decided to start our own project which focuses upon at least two pillars of decentralized networks in the crypto space: community governance and a fair distribution of coins. It is a core belief throughout Ritocoin that in order to successfully develop and maintain this hacker’s playground — a place where a broad range of ideas could be tried and allowed to flourish — these two ideals must be allowed to drive and guide our community.

This deep focus on community choices creates a project flexible enough to support most ideas, and agile enough to define new frontiers.

A mining network’s distributed ledger is defined by its technology. Like many in the broader crypto-mining community, we value the GPU for its accessibility. These processors are available for purchase all around the world without any legal restrictions. GPUs are vastly more accessible for hobbyists and miners to acquire. They can be shipped nearly anywhere around the globe, a nice benefit to the popular secondary market which has sprung up much to the chagrin of PC gamers.

More constraints exist for the ASIC and FPGA miner. Laws in some parts of the world restrict people from using or buying ASIC and FPGA mining hardware. This alone is directly in confrontation with Ritocoin’s core values of decentralized stewardship and sovereignty.

The GPU, in essence, is like your voice. Anyone with the means of acquiring one GPU should be able to have their voice heard. ASIC and FPGA mining devalues the GPU miner’s voice and silos that coin’s network away from the small scale and personal mining operator. A truly community driven project means each stakeholder, regardless of size of contribution to the network’s net hash, has an opportunity to build, vote and direct.

If you are already familiar with our website, discord or whitepaper, you are probably aware that masternodes had been proposed as a feature of the network from the beginning. This opened the door to ongoing discussions in the Ritocoin community regarding

● A masternode’s true purpose

● What benefit they provide to the project

● How the benefit is realized

● The collateral

This discussion, governed entirely by stakeholders across the extended network yielded a defining moment for our vision of flexibility. We have not yet found the potential utility of masternodes, however, the conversation has not reached an extent to where we could abandon the idea. To quote one of our developers during this discussion on our Discord:

“Just want to give a reminder here that even though masternodes are on the roadmap, it is not set in stone. This coin belongs to the community and we will do what we as a community want to do. If we conclude that we want to take this coin a different direction than masternodes, then that is what we’ll do.” --traysi

We are all volunteers at Ritocoin. Our moderators and community leaders try to give immediate support to all users that require it. Contact us in Discord or Telegram, not only for support, but, proposing new ideas, revising old ones and just so you can find a place to get together and find people to hang out with. You are well within your rights to enjoy yourself at any given moment, and, should you feel so inclined to begin working with the team, we just so happen to be looking for ambitious individuals that see themselves as being part of a greater vision, are inspired by change, and inspired to be the change they want to see making things better in this world.

Join us in a space where your ideas to build something great can become a reality. We are eager to know what you think is best for the future of Rito. What steps would you take to become more resilient, stronger, fair and decentralized? Because at the end of the day, like it or not, love it or leave it.. this is your coin, too.

You can become a significant part of this project. We will help you further develop the role you wish to fill in the cryptocurrency space — influencer, developer, analyst, you name it. This is not a just-for-developer’s playground. We want the enthusiasts. We want the perplexed and the rabbit-hole divers. This is the coin for everyone who is trying to find their place on the path that Satoshi began unfolding in 2008 after the collapse of the housing market rippled out into the subsequent crash of global markets. That’s why we have Bitcoin, remember? Be your own bank. This is why Satoshi and Bitcoin.org kept their software open source. It’s up to us to keep the torch ablaze.

Community funds

For the first year, about 1% of mined coins are set aside into a developers fund that is used to provide bounties to the community developers who make substantial development contributions to the Ritocoin ecosystem. We have already paid out numerous bounties for important work that has already benefits Ritocoin in substantial ways. We also have another donation-driven community fund that has recently been put together for the purposes of doing fun contests and things like that.

Cooperation and collaborations

We have discovered a number of fatal flaws in the original Ravencoin codebase and worked with the Ravencoin developers to get those fixed in both Ritocoin and Ravencoin. This work has benefitted Ravencoin in numerous ways and we look forward to a long time of collaboration and cooperation between us and them. Many members of the Safecoin team are also in our discord group, and have collaborated with us in shaping the future decisions of Ritocoin. We have several thousand members in our group and they represent all walks of cryptocurrency life. We invite all coin developers, miners and enthusiasts to join our discord and be a part of this coin that truly belongs entirely to the community.

Block reward

A couple weeks ago we met for a scheduled meeting in our discord group and had a lengthy conversation about the block reward. Our block reward started at 5,000 RITO per block (every 60 seconds) just like Ravencoin. This extremely high number of coins coupled with the high profitability of mining led to unforeseen consequences with pools auto-exchanging the coin into bitcoin. This dumping by non-community miners had a very negative impact on the community sentiment and morale, as we watched the exchange price plunge. We looked at other coins and realized that this fate has befell many other coins with high block rewards. Following much discussion, we decided to change the reward structure. Starting around March 19th the block rewards will start to slowly go down in a curve until it reaches 1,000. Then the reduction will be even more slowed down with block rewards exponentially dropping at periodic intervals. We have posted charts on our website that shows what the long-term effects of our reward reducing algorithms will be. As a miner, the next 2 months will be a great time to mine and hold, while the block reward is still fairly high. We encourage all miners and cryptocurrency enthusiasts to take advantage of the current favourable block reward and build a nice holding for yourself. Then join the community and be a part of the fun we’re having with this project.
This post was prepared by a collaboration of multiple Ritocoin members and was posted to reddit by the core developer Trevali, who posts to reddit under the ritocoin username and will be very happy to answer any questions anybody may have about our project. Traysi (well known in the Ravencoin community) is also an active Ritocoin developer and may come to this thread if needed.
We welcome any questions from any of you regarding our project!
submitted by ritocoin to gpumining [link] [comments]

Best $100-$300 FPGA development board in 2018?

Hello, I’ve been trying to decide on a FPGA development board, and have only been able to find posts and Reddit threads from 4-5 years ago. So I wanted to start a new thread and ask about the best “mid-range” FGPA development board in 2018. (Price range $100-$300.)
I started with this Quora answer about FPGA boards, from 2013. The Altera DE1 sounded good. Then I looked through the Terasic DE boards.
Then I found this Reddit thread from 2014, asking about the DE1-SoC vs the Cyclone V GX Starter Kit: https://www.reddit.com/FPGA/comments/1xsk6w/cyclone_v_gx_starter_kit_vs_de1soc_board/‬ (I was also leaning towards the DE1-SoC.)
Anyway, I thought I better ask here, because there are probably some new things to be aware of in 2018.
I’m completely new to FPGAs and VHDL, but I have experience with electronics/microcontrollers/programming. My goal is to start with some basic soft-core processors. I want to get some C / Rust programs compiling and running on my own CPU designs. I also want to play around with different instruction sets, and maybe start experimenting with asynchronous circuits (e.g. clock-less CPUs)
Also I don’t know if this is possible, but I’d like to experiment with ternary computing, or work with analog signals instead of purely digital logic. EDIT: I just realized that you would call those FPAAs, i.e. “analog” instead of “gate”. Would be cool if there was a dev board that also had an FPAA, but no problem if not.
EDIT 2: I also realized why "analog signals on an FPGA" doesn't make any sense, because of how LUTs work. They emulate boolean logic with a lookup table, and the table can only store 0s and 1s. So there's no way to emulate a transistor in an intermediate state. I'll just have play around with some transistors on a breadboard.
UPDATE: I've put together a table with some of the best options:
Board Maker Chip LUTs Price SoC? Features
icoBoard Lattice iCE40-HX8K 7,680 $100 Sort of A very simple FPGA development board that plugs into a Raspberry Pi, so you have a "backup" hard-core CPU that can control networking, etc. Supports a huge range of pmod accessories. You can write a program/circuit so that the Raspberry Pi CPU and the FPGA work together, similar to a SoC. Proprietary bitstream is fully reverse engineered and supported by Project IceStorm, and there is an open-source toolchain that can compile your hardware design to bitstream. Has everything you need to start experimenting with FPGAs.
iCE40-HX8K Breakout Board Lattice iCE40-HX8K-CT256 7,680 $49 No 8 LEDs, 8 switches. Very similar to icoBoard, but no Raspberry Pi or pmod accessories.
iCE40 UltraPlus Lattice iCE40 UltraPlus FPGA 5280 $99 No Chip specs. 4 switchable FPGAs, and a rechargeable battery. Bluetooth module, LCD Display (240 x 240 RGB), RGB LED, microphones, audio output, compass, pressure, gyro, accelerometer.
Go Board Lattice ICE40 HX1K FPGA 1280 $65 No 4 LEDs, 4 buttons, Dual 7-Segment LED Display, VGA, 25 MHz on-board clock, 1 Mb Flash.
snickerdoodle Xilinx Zynq 7010 28K $95 Yes Xilinx Zynq 7-Series SoC - ARM Cortex-A9 processor, and Artix-7 FPGA. 125 IO pins. 1GB DDR2 RAM. Texas Instruments WiLink 8 wireless module for 802.11n Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 4.1. No LEDs or buttons, but easy to wire up your own on a breadboard. If you want to use a baseboard, you'll need a snickerdoodle black ($195) with the pins in the "down" orientation. (E.g. The "breakyBreaky breakout board" ($49) or piSmasher SBC ($195)). The snickerdoodle one only comes with pins in the "up" orientation and doesn't support any baseboards. But you can still plug the jumpers into the pins and wire up things on a breadboard.
numato Mimas A7 Xilinx Artix 7 52K $149 No 2Gb DDR3 RAM. Gigabit Ethernet. HDMI IN/OUT. 100MHz LVDS oscillator. 80 IOs. 7-segment display, LEDs, buttons. (Found in this Reddit thread.)
Ultra96 Xilinx Zynq UltraScale+ ZU3EG 154K $249 Yes Has one of the latest Xilinx SoCs. 2 GB (512M x32) LPDDR4 Memory. Wi-Fi / Bluetooth. Mini DisplayPort. 1x USB 3.0 type Micro-B, 2x USB 3.0 Type A. Audio I/O. Four user-controllable LEDs. No buttons and limited LEDs, but easy to wire up your own on a breadboard
Nexys A7-100T Xilinx Artix 7 15,850 $265 No . 128MiB DDR2 RAM. Ethernet port, PWM audio output, accelerometer, PDM microphone, microphone, etc. 16 switches, 16 LEDs. 7 segment displays. USB HID Host for mice, keyboards and memory sticks.
Zybo Z7-10 Xilinx Zynq 7010 17,600 $199 Yes Xilinx Zynq 7000 SoC (ARM Cortex-A9, 7-series FPGA.) 1 GB DDR3 RAM. A few switches, push buttons, and LEDs. USB and Ethernet. Audio in/out ports. HDMI source + sink with CEC. 8 Total Processor I/O, 40 Total FPGA I/O. Also a faster version for $299 (Zybo Z7-20).
Arty A7 Xilinx Artix 7 15K $119 No 256MB DDR3L. 10/100 Mbps Ethernet. A few switches, buttons, LEDs.
DE10-Standard (specs) Altera Cyclone V 110K $350 Yes Dual-core Cortex-A9 processor. Lots of buttons, LEDs, and other peripherals.
DE10-Nano Altera Cyclone V 110K $130 Yes Same as DE10-Standard, but not as many peripherals, buttons, LEDs, etc.

Winner:

icoBoard ($100). (Buy it here.)
The icoBoard plugs into a Raspberry Pi, so it's similar to having a SoC. The iCE40-HX8K chip comes with 7,680 LUTs (logic elements.) This means that after you learn the basics and create some simple circuits, you'll also have enough logic elements to run the VexRiscv soft-core CPU (the lightweight Murax SoC.)
The icoBoard also supports a huge range of pluggable pmod accessories:
You can pick whatever peripherals you're interested in, and buy some more in the future.
Every FPGA vendor keeps their bitstream format secret. (Here's a Hacker News discussion about it.) The iCE40-HX8K bitstream has been fully reverse engineered by Project IceStorm, and there is an open-source set of tools that can compile Verilog to iCE40 bitstream.
This means that you have the freedom to do some crazy experiments, like:
You don't really have the same freedom to explore these things with Xilinx or Altera FPGAs. (Especially asynchronous circuits.)

Links:

Second Place:

iCE40-HX8K Breakout Board ($49)

Third Place:

numato Mimas A7 ($149).
An excellent development board with a Xilinx Artix 7 FPGA, so you can play with a bigger / faster FPGA and run a full RISC-V soft-core with all the options enabled, and a much higher clock speed. (The iCE40 FPGAs are a bit slow and small.)
Note: I've changed my mind several times as I learned new things. Here's some of my previous thoughts.

What did I buy?

I ordered a iCE40-HX8K Breakout Board to try out the IceStorm open source tooling. (I would have ordered an icoBoard if I had found it earlier.) I also bought a numato Mimas A7 so that I could experiment with the Artix 7 FPGA and Xilinx software (Vivado Design Suite.)

Questions

What can I do with an FPGA? / How many LUTs do I need?

submitted by ndbroadbent to FPGA [link] [comments]

Transcript of Open Developer Meeting in Discord - 7/19/2019

[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hey everyone. The channel is now open for the dev meeting.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hi
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Hi all!
JerozLast Friday at 3:59 PM
:wave:
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Topics: Algo stuff - x22rc, Ownership token for Restricted Assets and Assets.
JerozLast Friday at 4:00 PM
@Milo is also here from coinrequest.
MiloLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Hi :thumbsup:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:00 PM
welcome, @Milo
TronLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Great.
@Milo Was there PRs for Android and iOS?
MiloLast Friday at 4:01 PM
Yes, I've made a video. Give me a second I'll share it asap.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
I missed the iOS one.
MiloLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Well its 1 video, but meant for all.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Ah, there's an issue but no pull request (yet?)
https://github.com/RavenProject/ravenwallet-ios/issues/115
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:03 PM
nice @Milo
MiloLast Friday at 4:04 PM
Can it be that I have no video post rights?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
In discord?
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
yes?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:05 PM
just a link?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
Standard version has a file limit afaik
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:05 PM
try now
gave permissions
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
it's not published yet on Youtube, since I didn't knew when it would be published in the wallets
file too big. Hold on i'll put it on youtube and set it on private
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:06 PM
no worries ipfs it...:yum:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:06 PM
ok, just send link when you can
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:07 PM
So guys. We released Ravencoin v2.4.0!
JerozLast Friday at 4:08 PM
If you like the code. Go update them nodes! :smiley:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:08 PM
We are recommending that you are upgrading to it. It fixes a couple bugs in the code base inherited from bitcoin!
MiloLast Friday at 4:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t\_g7NpFXm6g&feature=youtu.be
sorry for the hold up
YouTube
Coin Request
Raven dev Gemiddeld
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:09 PM
thanks short and sweet!!
KAwARLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Is coin request live on the android wallet?
TronLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Nice video.
It isn't in the Play Store yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Well, this is the first time in a while where we have this many devs online. What questions do y'all have?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:11 PM
Algo questions?
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:11 PM
sure
KAwARLast Friday at 4:11 PM
KK
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:12 PM
what are the proposed 22 algos in x22r? i could only find the original 16 plus 5 on x21.
TronLast Friday at 4:12 PM
Likely the 5 from x21 and find one more.
We need to make sure they're all similar in time profile.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:14 PM
should we bother fixing a asic-problem that we dont know exists for sure or not?
TronLast Friday at 4:14 PM
That's the 170 million dollar question.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:14 PM
I would prefer to be proactive not reactive.
imo
JerozLast Friday at 4:14 PM
same
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
RIPEMD160 is a golden oldie but not sure on hash speed compared to the others.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
in my mind we should focus on the restricted messaging etc
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:15 PM
probably won't know if the action was needed until after you take the action
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
we are at risk of being interventionistas
acting under opacity
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
Needs to spit out at least 256 bit. Preferably 512 bit.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
ok
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
If it isn't 512 bit, it'll cause some extra headache for the GPU mining software.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:16 PM
i seek to avoid iatrogenics
TronLast Friday at 4:16 PM
Similar to the early problems when all the algos except the first one were built for 64-bytes (512-bit) inputs.
Had to look that one up. TIL iatrogenics
JerozLast Friday at 4:17 PM
I have to google most of @liqdmetal's vocabulary :smile:
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:17 PM
@Tron tldr: basically the unseen, unintended negative side effects of the asic "cure"
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:18 PM
10 dolla word
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:19 PM
we need a really strong case to intervene in what has been created.
TronLast Friday at 4:19 PM
I agree. I'm less concerned with the technical risk than I am the potential split risk experienced multiple times by Monero.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:20 PM
tron do you agree that forking the ravencoin chain presents unique risks compared to other chains that aren't hosting assets?
JerozLast Friday at 4:21 PM
Yes, if you fork, you need to figure out for each asset which one you want to support.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:21 PM
yeah. and the asset issuer could have a chain preference
TronLast Friday at 4:22 PM
@Sevvy (y rvn pmp?) Sure. Although, I'd expect that the asset issuers will be honor the assets on the dominant chain. Bigger concern is the branding confusion of multiple forks. See Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV for an example. We know they're different, but do non-crypto folks?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:22 PM
I thought that the take-away from the recently published analyses and discussions was that ASICs for RVN may be active, but if so then they are being not much more effective than GPUs.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:22 PM
agreed on all accounts there tron
TronLast Friday at 4:23 PM
I'm not yet convinced ASICs are on the network.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:23 PM
It would be better to damage an asic builder by forking after they made major expenses. Creating for them the type of deficit that could be negated by just buying instead of mining. Asic existence should be 100 percent confirmed before fork.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:23 PM
170million dollar question is right.lol
TronLast Friday at 4:24 PM
I've had someone offer to connect me to the folks at Fusion Silicon.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:25 PM
yes. and if they are active on the network they are not particularly good ASICs
which makes it a moot point probably
TronLast Friday at 4:26 PM
The difficult part of this problem is that by the time everyone agrees that ASICs are problematic on the network, then voting the option in is likely no longer an option.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
yes. part of me wonders if we would say "okay, the clock on the asic countdown is reset by this new algo. but now the race is on"
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:26 PM
There are always risks when making a change that will fork the network. We want wait to long though, as tron said. It wont be a voting change. it will be a mandatory change at a block number.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
acknowledge the inevitable
MiloLast Friday at 4:27 PM
I had just a small question from my side. When do you think the android version would be published, and do you maybe have a time-frame for the others?
TronLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Quick poll. How would everyone here feel about a BIP9 option - separate from the new features that can be voted in?
KAwARLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Maybe voting should not be a strictly blockchain vote. A republic and a democratic voice?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:27 PM
@Milo We can try and get a beta out next week, and publish soon after that.
MiloLast Friday at 4:28 PM
@[Dev-Happy] Blondfrogs :thumbsup::slight_smile:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:28 PM
BIP9 preemptive vote. I like it.
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The advantage to a BIP9 vote is that it puts the miners and mining pools at a clear majority before activation.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Centralisation is inevitable unless we decide to resist it. ASIC's are market based and know the risks and rewards possible. A key step in resisting is sending a message. An algo change to increase asic resistance is imho a strong message. A BIP9 vote now would also be an indicator of bad actors early....
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The disadvantage is that it may not pass if the will isn't there.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Before assets are on main net and cause additional issues.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:31 PM
I am not schooled in coding to have an educated voice. I only understand social problems and how it affects the economy.
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:31 PM
All are equal on RVN
TronLast Friday at 4:31 PM
It is primarily a social problem. The tech change is less risky and is easier than the social.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:32 PM
All can have a share....people who want more of a share however pay for the privilege and associated risks.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:33 PM
Assets and exchange listings need to be consistent and secure.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:36 PM
I'm still not entirely clear on what the overall goal to the algo change is? Is it just to brick the supposed ASICs (unknown 45%) which could still be FPGAs as seen from the recent block analysis posted in the nest. Is the goal to never let ASICs on? Is it to brick FPGAs ultimately. Are we making Raven strictly GPU only? I'm still unclear
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:37 PM
What about the future issue of ASICs returning after a BIP9 fork "soon"? Are all following the WP as a community? i.e asic resistant or are we prepared to change that to asic resistant for early coin emission. Ideally we should plan for the future. Could the community make a statement that no future algo changes will be required to incentivise future public asic manufacturers?
Lol. Same question @brutoid
brutoidLast Friday at 4:37 PM
Haha it is
You mind-beamed me!
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:38 PM
The is up to the community.
Currently, the feel seems like the community is anti asic forever.
The main issue is getting people to upgrade.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:38 PM
Clarity is important. Otherwise we are attacking windmills like Don Quixote.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:39 PM
I'm not getting the feeling of community ASIC hate if the last few weeks of discussion are anything to go by?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:39 PM
A unilateral non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height is a serious thing, but anti-ASIC has been part of the RVN philosophy since the whitepaper and is therefore appropriate for that purpose.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:39 PM
We can use the latest release as an example. It was a non forking release, announced for 2 weeks. and only ~30% of the network has upgraded.
TronLast Friday at 4:39 PM
@Hans_Schmidt Well said.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:40 PM
I'm not concerned about a "asic hardware problem" so much as I believe it more likely what we are seeing is several big fish miners (perhaps a single really big fish). For now I recommend standing pat on x16r. In the future I can see an algo upgrade fork to keep the algo up to date. If we start fighting against dedicated x16r hashing machines designed and built to secure our network we are more likely to go down in flames. The custom SHA256 computers that make the bitcoin the most secure network in existence are a big part of that security. If some party has made an asic that performs up to par or better than FPGA or GPU on x16r, that is a positive for this network, a step towards SHA256 security levels. It is too bad the community is in the dark regarding their developments. Therefore I think the community has to clarify its stance towards algorithm changes. I prefer a policy that will encourage the development of mining software, bitstreams and hardware by as many parties as possible. The imminent threat of ALGO fork screws the incentive up for developers.
JerozLast Friday at 4:40 PM
@brutoid the vocal ones are lenient towards asics, but the outcome of the 600+ votes seemed pretty clear.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:40 PM
This is my confusion
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
More hashes are only better if the cost goes up proportionally. Machines that do more hashes for less $ doesn't secure the network more, and trends towards centralization.
JerozLast Friday at 4:41 PM
I would argue for polling ever so often as it certainly will evolve dynamically with the state of crypto over time.
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
Measure security in two dimensions. Distribution, and $/hash.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:41 PM
and volume of hash
traysiLast Friday at 4:42 PM
45% of the hashrate going to one party is unhealthy, and standing pat on x16r just keeps that 45% where it is.
TronLast Friday at 4:42 PM
Volume doesn't matter if the cost goes down. For example, lets say software shows up that does 1000x better than the software from yesterday, and everyone moves to it. That does not add security. Even if the "difficulty" and embedded hashes took 1000x more attempts to find.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:42 PM
My issue is defintely centralization of hash and not so much what machine is doing it. I mine with both GPU and FPGA. Of course, the FPGAs are not on raven
TJayLast Friday at 4:44 PM
easy solution is just to replace a few of 16 current hash functions, without messing with x21r or whatever new shit
TronLast Friday at 4:44 PM
How do folks here feel about allowing CPUs back in the game?
traysiLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern with CPUs
brutoidLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Yes please.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:44 PM
the poll votes seem not very security conscious. More of day miners chasing profits. I love them bless! Imho the future is bright for raven, however these issues if not sorted out now will bite hard long term when asset are on the chain and gpu miners are long gone.....
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
How has the testing of restricted assets been on the test net?
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Agreed. I dont think x16r is obsolete like that yet however
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab not enough testing at the moment.
HedgerLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Yes, how is the Testing going?
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Like randomX or how are cpus going to be back in the game?
TronLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab Just getting started at testing at the surface level (RPC calls), and fixing as we go.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
And or any updates on the review of dividend code created by the community
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:45 PM
if the amount of hash the unknown pool has is fixed as standarderror indicated then waiting for the community of FPGAers to get onto raven might be advantageous if the fork doesn't hurt FPGAs.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Can't rememeber who was on it
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab But we are working on it...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:46 PM
more hash for votes
JerozLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Maldon is, @Zaab
TronLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab There are unit tests and functional tests already, but we'd like more.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab Dividend code is currently adding test cases for better security. Should have more update on that next meeting
KAwARLast Friday at 4:46 PM
Absolute democracy seems to resemble anarchy or at least civil war. In EVE online they have a type of community voice that get voted in by the community.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:46 PM
No worries was just curious if it was going as planned or significant issues were being found
Obviously some hiccups are expected
More testing is always better!
TronLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Who in here is up for a good civil war? :wink:
ZaabLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Tron v Bruce. Celebrity fight night with proceeds to go to the RVN dev fund
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:48 PM
Cagefight or mudpit?
JerozLast Friday at 4:48 PM
talking about dev funds..... :wink:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:49 PM
and there goes the conversation....
KAwARLast Friday at 4:49 PM
I am trying to be serious...
ZaabLast Friday at 4:49 PM
Sorry back to the ascii topic!
traysiLast Friday at 4:49 PM
@Tron What do we need in order to make progress toward a decision on the algo? Is there a plan or a roadmap of sorts to get us some certainty about what we're going to do?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:50 PM
Could we have 3 no BIP9 votes? No1 Friendly to asics, retain status quo. No2 change to x17r minimal changes etc, with no additional future PoW/algo upgrades. No3. Full Asic resistance x22r and see what happens...
:thonk~1:
Sounds messy....
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Right now we're in research mode. We're building CNv4 so we can run some metrics. If that goes well, we can put together x22rc and see how it performs. It will likely gore everyone's ox. CPUs can play, GPUs work, but aren't dominant. ASICs VERY difficult, and FPGAs will have a tough time.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Yeah i feel like the results would be unreliable
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Is this good, or do we lose everyone's vote?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Fpga will be dead
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
why isn;t a simple XOR or something on the table?
ZaabLast Friday at 4:52 PM
The multiple bip9 that is
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
something asic breaking but doesn't greatly complicate ongoing efforts for FPGA being my point.
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:52 PM
How are you going to vote for x22rc?
Because if by hashrate that wouldn't pass.
traysiLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Personally I like the idea of x22rc but I'd want to investigate the botnet threat if CPUs are allowed back in.
TronLast Friday at 4:52 PM
XOR is on the table, and was listed in my Medium post. But, the social risk of chain split remains, for very little gain.
traysiLast Friday at 4:53 PM
@Lokar -=Kai=- A small change means that whoever has 45% can probably quickly adapt.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Research sounds good. x22rc could be reduce to x22r for simplicity...
TronLast Friday at 4:53 PM
x22r is a viable option. No CNv4.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Don't know how much time we have to play with though...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:53 PM
if they have FPGAs yes if they have ASIC then not so much, but I guess that gets to the point, what exactly are we trying to remove from the network?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:54 PM
Guys my name is Arsen and we designed x16r fpga on bcus. Just about to release it to the public. I am buzzdaves partner.
Cryptonight
Will kill us
But agreed
Asic is possible on x16r
And you dont need 256 core
Cores
traysiLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hi Arsen. Are you saying CN will kill "us" meaning RVN, or meaning FPGA?
JerozLast Friday at 4:55 PM
This is what im afraid of ^ an algo change killing FPGA as I have the feeling there is a big fpga community working on this
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Fpgas ))
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:55 PM
I am also about to release X16R for CVP13 + BCU1525 FPGA's. I'm open to algo changes but I really don't believe in CPU mining because of botnets. Any CNv4 shifts 100% to CPU mining, even if it is only 1 of the 22 functions.
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:55 PM
namely FPGAs that aren;t memory equipped
like fast mem
not ddr
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hbm non hbm
Cryptonight
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:56 PM
Right now with both Buzzdave/Altered Silicon and myself (Zetheron) about to release X16R for FPGA's, then the 45% miner's share will decrease to 39% or less.
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
Will be dead for fpga
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:56 PM
sound so x22r is fpga "friendly" ... more so than asic anyway...
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
But a change must be planned
X16r is no way possible to avoid asics
TJayLast Friday at 4:56 PM
@LSJI07 - MBIT I would say less friendly...
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:57 PM
As I mentioned in thenest discussion, asic resistance increases with the square of the number of functions, so X21R is more asic resistant than X16R, but both are pretty resistant
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:58 PM
Yeah more algos make it heavier on ASIC
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 4:58 PM
My interpretation of the whitepaper was that we used x16r as it was brand new (thus ASIC resistant), and that was to ensure a fair launch... We've launched... I don't like the idea of constantly forking to avoid the inevitable ASICs.
x16r was a great "experiment" before we had any exchange listings... that ship has sailed though... not sure about all these x22rs lmnop changes
KAwARLast Friday at 5:00 PM
I believe that it is easier to change the direction of a bicycle than an oil tanker. We feel more like a train. We should lay out new tracks and test on them and find benefits that are acceptable to everyone except train robbers. Then open the new train station with no contentious feelings except a silently disgruntled minority group. ???
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 5:01 PM
The most productive action the community can do now re ASICs is to voice support for the devs to make a non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height if/when the need is clear. That removes the pressure to act rashly to avoid voting problems.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:01 PM
Thats why im proposing to fork at least once to a more asic resistant algo (but FPGA "friendly/possible"), with the proviso ideally that no more PoW algo forks are require to provide future ASICs some opportunity to innovate with silicon and efficiency.
TJayLast Friday at 5:01 PM
folks should take into account, that high end FPGAs like BCU1525 on x16r can't beat even previous gen GPUs (Pascal) in terms of hash cost. so they aren't a threat to miners community
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
A proper change
Requires proper research
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
Just so I'm clear here, we are trying to boot ASICS, don't want CPUs because of Botnets, and are GPU and FPGA friendly right?
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
It is not a quick one day process
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
If there is a bip9 vote there needs to be a clear explanation as I feel most in the community don't understand exactly what we are trying to fix
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt I like that route. It has some game theoretics. It gives time for miners to adapt. It is only used if needed. It reduces the likelihood of ASICs dominating the network, or even being built.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Hey guys. great convo. We are of course looking to do the best thing for the community and miner. We are going to be signing off here though.
justinjjaLast Friday at 5:03 PM
TJay that comes down to power cost.
If your paying 4c/kw gpus all the way.
But if your a home miner in europe an fpga is your only chance
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt How do we decide the block limit and when sufficient evidence is available? I would say we have had much compelling information to date...
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Thanks for participating. and keep up the good work :smiley:
Have a good weekend.
CAWWWW
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
I haven't seen any compelling evidence of ASICs - yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:03 PM
:v:
JerozLast Friday at 5:04 PM
I suggest to continue discussion in #development and #thenest :smiley:
thanks all!
TronLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Cheers everyone!
KAwARLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Agree with Hans.
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
thanks Tron
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Ending here. continue in Nest if wanted
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
I am waiting for compelling evidence myself.
submitted by mrderrik to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

This comment on BTC1 replay protection deserves its own thread.

I asked a question in another thread about what people meant by the blacklisting address on the BTC1 fork. User u/PM_ME_FPGA_TRICKS posted an excellent response which I wanted to share with the broader community since it explains not only this issue, but also how the replay protection is supposed to work for BTC1. I didn't realize how laughably bad their solution to replay protection really was until reading this. The comment is at:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/74oi26/2x_is_already_dead_miners_will_not_mine_a_sha256/do05q0g/
and the text of the comment is below:
Only thing that is confirmed is that there is a blacklisted address in btc1, that cannot receive coins. If you try to send coins to this address, your transaction is invalid and cannot be mined. The code is in the repo in primitives/transaction.cpp
So, if you want to split your BTC into BTC and BTC1, then you would use your BTC client to send some money to the blacklisted address. This transaction would go through on BTC, and you would lose the funds you sent to the address, but your change would come back replay protected, and locked to BTC fork only. The transaction would be blacklisted on BTC1 and your coins would stay where they were. This is more complex than it sounds, because if you only send 1 sat to the blacklist, your wallet won't send all your coins in the transaction, so, not all your funds will be replay protected. This requires manual coin control or multi-recipient sending, which n00bs could easily screw up.
It's also a minor security risk for LN. Imagine you are using LN on BTC1. LN works by the customer and supplier agreeing to put money into an escrow address, and then in 1 final transaction the escrowed funds are divided up with final payment going to the supplier and change going to the customer. If the supplier and customer do not do any business, then the escrow times out, and the customer can recover their funds from the escrow address. However, if the customer sets up the LN payment to send change to the blacklisted address, then the channel's final payment will be blacklisted, the escrow account will time out and the funds can be recovered by the customer. This is, of course, trivial to work around - any LN client on BTC1 just needs to check that the address isn't blacklisted. Hardly rocket science, but still undesirable, and a source for code bloat and potential errors.
submitted by andrewbuck40 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

There are many dedicated hardware to solve cyptographic hashing functions because of crypocurrency mining. Does this weaken the security of the used functions in other applications?

There are many ASICs, FPGAs, GPUs available to brute force SHA256 (for mining Bitcoins). This means that cracking SHA256 is cheaper than other algorithms.
submitted by Da_Drueben to askscience [link] [comments]

what elses to do with a bitcoin rig?

what else could you do with a bitcoin mining rig? now that they aren't realy profitable say I could get a Antminer U2 or a Antminer S3 for cheep. Could I use the computing power for simulations like weather and nuke strikes, or encryption breaking?
With the some miners being usb could i make it to give my laptop or computer extra speed, like using a ReadyBoost?
submitted by Charles_Vane to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

El algoritmo PoW (Prueba de trabajo)X25X: Llevando a una mejor evolucion la cadena de bloques

El algoritmo PoW (Prueba de trabajo)X25X: Llevando a una mejor evolucion la cadena de bloques


Gráfico de comparación de algoritmo
Puntos a tratar:
1) El problema
2) La propuesta original del algoritmo X22i
3) La solución - X25X: la evolución de la minería de prueba de trabajo
3.1 FPGA y resistencia mineros ASIC
3.2 GPU Desarrollo de software de minería
3.3 Resistencia cuántica
3.4 Cadena de algoritmos



Gráfico de comparación de algoritmo
Explicación del cuadro:
  • no de algoritmos de cadena
  • Ram usada por cada nombramiento
  • FPGA/ASIC Compatibilidad
  • Compatibilidad de Resistencia cuántica
  • Desarrollo en curso

1) El problema

La centralización sigue siendo una gran preocupación para muchos dentro de la comunidad de criptomonedas, así como para un número creciente de público en general. Bitcoin se fundó con la intención de crear libertad financiera para todos, lejos de los factores de control inherentes a la cultura de los bancos e instituciones financieras a nivel mundial. Como resultado, el concepto de descentralización se ha convertido en un tema preocupante que continúa creciendo en importancia, por muchas que son las razones que se discutirán en este artículo.
Específicamente, si consideramos el tema de la centralización en relación con la minería de criptomonedas, evitar la creación de dispositivos ASIC y FPGA es de suma importancia para promover la equidad y mantener un enfoque igualitario a largo plazo . En teoría, esto es posible a través de equipos de minería de CPU y GPU modestos y fáciles de obtener.
Sin embargo, muchos desarrolladores de criptomonedas hasta el momento no han tenido éxito en la implementación de medidas de igualdad sostenibles dentro de sus respectivos proyectos. Predominantemente, las monedas con grandes volúmenes de operaciones son explotadas por dispositivos de eficiencia mejorada, con GPU y CPU mineros que solo pueden obtener ganancias durante unos pocos meses o incluso semanas.
Los FPGA y los ASIC requieren máquinas caras y no pueden utilizarse para tareas adicionales, a diferencia de las GPU y las CPU. Además, la programación de FPGA es extremadamente compleja y requiere muchos recursos. Como resultado, estos mecanismos tecnológicos dan como resultado directamente la centralización de la minería, lo que reduce significativamente las recompensas que antes gozaban muchos. SINOVATE (SIN) ha renovado y continúa fortaleciendo la minería de Prueba de Trabajo (PoW) , reforzando y mejorando la visión original de Bitcoin de “Un CPU Un Voto”.

2) La propuesta original de X22i

El propósito del X22i Whitepaper original fue diseñar un algoritmo PoW (Prueba de trabajo) altamente eficiente , que proporcione una multitud de ventajas que aprovechen para los mineros de GPU sobre las granjas mineras comerciales:
  1. Hacer que la opcion de ASIC y FPGA sea mucho más difícil y costoso
  2. Permitir que los mineros optimizados de GPU se desarrollen rápidamente
  3. Permitir a los mineros de GPU puedan obtener la máxima eficiencia.
  4. Añadir resistencia cuántica
  5. Usar componentes comprobados, estándares de la industria , como sha-2 y sha-3 para permitir una seguridad óptima

3) La solución — X25X: la evolución de la minería de prueba de trabajo

X22i tuvo éxito en la implementación de todo lo anterior, pero para que los mineros siguieran recibiendo recompensas a largo plazo, era necesario evolucionar y adaptarse a las crecientes demandas de potencia de computación y eficiencia requeridas por los sistemas de hardware modernos. Esto se ha llevado a cabo a través del nuevo algoritmo X25X personalizado de SINOVATE .
Además, se requirió un cambio algorítmico para hacer que la producción de chips ASIC y el diseño FPGA sean mucho menos rentables, debido al corto período de tiempo permitido para el uso del producto. Además, X25X permite un menor consumo de energía para las GPU, ya que esta mejora depende del acceso aleatorio a la RAM que integra los ciclos de espera en el proceso de minería.

3.1 FPGA y resistencia de mineros ASIC

X25X persigue el objetivo de la resistencia de mineros ASIC y FPGA, mediante la implementación de múltiples funciones adicionales sobre cadenas de algoritmo PoW estándar como X11. Las características incluyen aumentar los requisitos de memoria en 24 veces , con X22i en 4 veces . Esto no es un problema para las CPU y las GPU, pero es mucho más difícil de mantener para los dispositivos FPGA y ASIC. La razón de esto es que requieren un uso de memoria RAM básica , que no ofrece ventajas sobre las CPU y las GPU , o que estos dispositivos deben aplicar más RAM interna, lo que aumenta el espacio de chip necesario.
Además, X25X tiene una nueva etapa de reproducción aleatoria , que trabaja en el búfer de 1536 bytes (para cada uno), con acceso aleatorio. Esto es para evitar que las optimizaciones múltiples anulen el propósito del búfer más grande, y también para evitar las actividades maliciosas de los mineros privados que buscan obtener ventajas injustas sobre los trabajadores honestos (por ejemplo, combinar múltiples algoritmos en uno solo, ya que la salida de cada etapa es necesaria para llegar al resultado final). Además, esto promueve indirectamente la escritura de código limpio para algoritmos, de modo que el código de fuente abierta sea más valioso tanto en términos de calidad como de tasa de hash. Esto es importante para la continuidad y viabilidad a largo plazo de la minería de prueba de trabajo (PoW).
Otra ventaja sobre los algoritmos PoW tradicionales es una cadena de algoritmos mucho más larga: 25 algoritmos requieren un espacio de chip mucho mayor para implementar toda la cadena, lo que es extremadamente costoso para los dispositivos FPGA y ASIC.
El plan más amplio para X25X es aumentar el tamaño de la cadena con más etapas de hashing, que se lanzarán periódicamente. Este enfoque obliga a los diseñadores de chips a revisar constantemente sus diseños, lo que aumenta aún más los costos y reduce el tiempo requerido para utilizar los chips con fines mineros. Además, hacer que la cadena sea cada vez más larga aborda las preocupaciones que rodean los futuros chips FPGA con mayor capacidad. Cualquier ganancia de eficiencia, así como la capacidad de estos dispositivos de encajar toda la cadena X25X en un solo chip se anularán .

3.2 GPU Desarrollo de software de minería

Como X25X es una cadena de funciones hash conocidas, codificar un minero GPU para este algoritmo implica principalmente codificar código fuente. Como se mencionó anteriormente, X22i vino equipado con muchas implementaciones, tanto privadas como de código abierto, con las etapas faltantes para llegar a la cadena X25X completa, todo disponible como código abierto. La nueva etapa de shuffle, que también se puede implementar en el código de GPU, se abrirá en breve.
Muchas fuentes excesivamente optimizadas no funcionarán o necesitarán ser fuertemente modificadas , ya que no proporcionan una salida completa para todos los algoritmos dentro de la cadena. Esto ayuda a aumentar el mecanismo de consenso descentralizado proporcionado por la cadena de bloques SINOVATE, ya que claramente la tasa de hash entre los mineros privados y de código abierto disminuirá.

3.3 Resistencia cuántica

Una preocupación creciente dentro del mundo de las criptomonedas también relacionada con la centralización, que potencialmente presenta una amenaza aún mayor que los dispositivos ASIC y FPGA, es la posibilidad de “romper” los algoritmos de hashing, que se utilizan dentro de las monedas de criptomoneda existentes a través de una computadora cuántica. El acceso a este hardware podría permitir enormes ventajas de eficiencia sobre la mayoría minera, manifestando la posibilidad de que se realice un ataque extremo del 51% en la red. Esto daría como resultado que una parte significativa de la cadena se revirtiera y aumentaría la posibilidad de doble gasto, con una sola entidad bien posicionada para asumir el control total de la Cadena de Bloques .
Para abordar este problema, X22i introdujo un elemento post-cuántico en la cadena llamado SWIFFTX, con criptografía basada en celosía. Este componente también se ha implementado en X25X:
“Sus principales características atractivas, entre otras (que no incluyen un ataque cuántico conocido en el momento de escribir este documento) son probablemente análisis de seguridad asintóticos rigurosos y eficiencia asintótica” ( https://eprint.iacr.org/2012/343.pdf )

3.4 Cadena de algoritmos

A continuación se muestra la lista completa de algoritmos de hash estándar integrados por la Cadena X25X, que incluyen la etapa de reproducción aleatoria única, los tamaños de entrada y salida correspondientes, así como el eventual relleno cero. SWIFFTX implementa un tamaño de entrada mucho mayor, que se extiende a través de las salidas de los 4 algoritmos anteriores. La fase aleatoria acepta todas las salidas de algoritmos anteriores como entrada:
  1. Blake (in: 80b, out: 64b)
  2. BMW (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  3. Groestl (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  4. Skein (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  5. JH (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  6. Keccak (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  7. Luffa (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  8. Cubehash (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  9. Shavite (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  10. SIMD (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  11. Echo (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  12. Hamsi (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  13. Fugue (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  14. Shabal (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  15. Whirlpool (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  16. SHA512 (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  17. SWIFFTX (in: 256b, out: 64b)
  18. Haval (in: 64b, out: 32b + 32b relleno cero)
  19. Tiger (in: 64b, out: 32b, + 32b Relleno cero solo para la etapa aleatoria)
  20. Lyra2 (in: 32b, out: 32b + 32b relleno cero)
  21. Streebog (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  22. SHA256 (in: 64b, out: 32b + 32b relleno cero)
  23. Panama (in: 64b, out: 32b + 32b relleno cero)
  24. Lane (in: 64b, out: 64b)
  25. X25X Shuffle (in: 1536b, out: 1536b)
  26. Blake2s (in: 1536b, out: 32b)


Los bloques de salida se barajan a través de X25X simple pero el código original. El resultado (también 1536 bytes de ancho) se pasa a Blake2s. Podemos ver la secuencia de manera grafica de lo antes explicado.

X25X PRUEBA DE TRABAJO CADENA DE ALGORITMO

Únase a nosotros y permanezca atento a las próximas actualizaciones a través de nuestro sitio web y las plataformas de redes sociales:
Website Discord . Telegram . Bitcointalk . Twitter . Facebook .Linkedin.Team.YouTube. Reddit.
Telegram Rus — Telegram Chinese — Telegram AfricaTelegram Espanol — Telegram French — Telegram Indonesia — Telegram Italian — Telegram Turkish — Telegram Vietnamese
Author: Pallas Amit Kaushal
Traducido: Embajador comunidad hispana Musicayfarandula
submitted by sinovatehispano to u/sinovatehispano [link] [comments]

A look into the future regarding Decentralization,ASIC resistance and Vertcoin and other crypto currency (Long Post)

Warning: this post is lengthy because it includes details to understand the current development of Crypto and ASIC resistant Cryptos.
I. Decentralization is the fundamental assumption in the block chain security model:
I am glad that the recent Vertcoin price hike have brought more people to the awareness of crypto-currency decentralization. As decentralization is an assumption in satoshi's white paper, and hence the fundamental aspect in block-chain's security model. It appears that the block-chain security model is not complete. As you can see, there is an obvious concentration of computing power appears in bitcoin where one or two ASICs manufactures are controlling more than 51% of the network hash power. In satoshi's white paper, the assumption of 1 CPU,1 vote, does not hold indefinitely. Just 5-6 years after the inception of blockchain, we appear to have such machine based on ASIC, and the phenomenon of 1 ASIC, 1*103 or more votes, and the magnitude is only seem to be increasing.
Centralization defeats the entire security model of any crypto-currency based on block-chain and its variant. As of the time of the writing the bitcoin network and its public ledger's survival is not based on its invulnerability to rewrite, but based on the fact that the ASIC computing powers that secure the network currently lacks incentive to destroy it. When such incentive arrives the result can be catastrophic. As whoever controls the 51% hash power control the power to modify the block chain. In the Segwit 1 fork, there is worry that the bitcoin chain can not survive. (reference this article for a variety of possibility during a fork where miner controls the majority of hash power: https://medium.com/@jimmysong/uasf-bip148-scenarios-and-game-theory-9530336d953e ). In segwit 2X fork, some miners wants to make their own copy of of the chain, and in the process destroy the original chain. This upcoming fork is much more threatening than every single bitcoin fork comes before it.
II. CPU/GPU vs FPGA vs ASIC - you must understand the differences to understand the ASIC resistance movement
The decentralization problem is not fully solved yet. the crypto community and its developers are left to fill in the question.
As you can see the current approach is to make hashing algorithm to be hard to realize in ASICs. To fully discuss this approach, we must look at the currently available computing hardware architectures. the list go like this:
(CPU and GPU)->FPGA->ASICs.
The list go from the most general purpose,flexible computing hardware to the least flexible, and specific task computing hardware.
The list also go from the worst raw performance(you can say hash power for crypto) to the best raw performance, given a specific task.
CPU, and to a extend GPU are general purposed hardware that can be programmed to perform all tasks, while ASIC(Application Specific Integrated Circuits) can only perform a specific task. FPGA(Field Programmable Gate Arrays) - sits somewhere in the middle, it can be reprogram to perform a specific task better than CPUs and GPUs but the performance and durability is worse than ASIC.
In therms of computing speed,optimization and hence raw performance on a specific task, the list goes in reverse, this is because hashing algorithms and its calculation can be optimize thru parallelism(I have 10 workers to do 1 task 10 times quicker) and pipe-lining (think factory production pipeline with sequential work stations). CPU and General-Purpose GPUs in our computers exploit parallalism and pipe-lining to a degree, But because they are general hardware, the exploitation is limited because they must accommodate all types of possible computation. ASICs, are develop to only accommodate the required computation in a task, and exploit parallelism and pipe-lining to the extreme, this gives rise to ASICs such as AntMiners, where the performance is more than 3 magnitudes better than CPU and GPU.
III. ASIC resistance, and the movement to keep the crypto decentralize
The ultimate goal of alt-coin development is to fill in the void of satoshi's block-chain security model. The void is , How to keep the network decentralized in terms of hashrate/s?
The obvious answer, the first approach, would be to let the most abundant hardware to perform as well as the least abundant hardware. Thus, make an hashing algorithm so that either a CPU can perform as well as ASICs, or make an algorithm so that it is very very hard(cost prohibited) to develop ASICs for.
It appears that this approach is the most successful at the moment, some memory hard algorithms such as Vertcoin's very own Lyra2REv2 has no ASICs currently available.
But on the longer time frame, the profit driven development of ASICs is a definite trend, ASIC resistance is a constant Spear vs Shield game. Being ASIC resistance is not necessarily equivalent to being decentralized.
There are several ramification of being ASIC resistant. First the algorithm is necessarily more complex and cost more electricity on CPU/GPU to perform. Secondly, Developing ASIC for algorithm such as Lyra2REv2 is hard. Because of this hardness, there are fewer people who can develop this than the amount of people who can develop SHA256*bitcoin ASICs. Maybe in the not too distance future bitmain's monopoly over SHA256 ASICs would end and more of us can purchase a bitcoin ASIC, thus the bitcoin network becomes decentralized again. But because it is harder to develop Lyra2REv2 ASICs, once developed the ASIC monopoly can remain for a very long time enough to destroy the network. Because fewer people can do it, it will be more centralized once developed.
This does not mean that Vertcoin's security model is not good. In fact it is very promising. First the hardness to develop Lyra2REv2 ASIC can be to the point of such extrem that no one is able to figure out over an very long period of time. Second, once developed, the devs promise to hard fork the network again with a new algorithm in their tool bag. because the tool bag is unknown, the ASIC development cycle repeats, possibility over a long time.
So the Vertcoin's hashing algo Lyra2REv2 is among the best of all crypto. combining with the fact that a promised evolution of hashing algo once ASIC appear, I dare to say that the security/decentralization model is the best in crypto.
IV. Further discussion regarding ASICs and Network decentralization and security. paradigm switch regarding ASICs
It is in the profit driven nature that an ASIC would apear,Bitcoin already fell, for a memory hard algo, Scrypt and Scrypt-N is thought to be resistant enough, but ASIC appear, thus LiteCoin and The old Vertcoin falls. Vertcoin later forked and adapt to Lyra2 , and sub sequently Lyra2REv2 and remain the most secure coin.
For the ones used by GroestleCoin(Groestl), Decred(Blake256), SteinCoin(Stein256) , although there is no ASICs, but over an infinite horizon, the ASIC will appear this coins can all flop over night, if they do not adapt to the changes , Like what Vertcoin can do.
I think in the infinitely long term, there are 2 solution.
1st the same as Vertcoin, Keep ASICs out, and keep evolving the unknown puzzle bag for replacement if ASICs appear.
2nd, Amend the algorithm so that the theoretical upper bound in the speed up from ASIC is low. This requires making most calculations sequential and none-associative, with a slow bottle neck. thus parallal and pipe-lining machine can not take too much advantage. After that make ASIC development an open source, community movement, so that the entire community is guarantee to enjoy the advancement in ASICs. This would guarantee that the advantage from a new novel asic is small compare to what the community have, and limit the degree of concentration of hash power. ASIC can also benefit the network by reducing power consumption and increase transaction speed.
V. Conclusion
The current security model of Bitcoin is flawed and Vertcoin's solution is the current best at tackling the security concern. The promise of evolution of Vertcoin's Lyra2REv2 can be a viable long term solution to the Spear vs Shield game of ASICs. Nonetheless, I think we are making good progress of filling the void. I hope the future decentralization solution of Vertcoin can evolve past the paradigm of strictly ASIC resistance, and considering community driven and fair distribution of ASICs. I hope everyone in crypto can participate in this discussion.
Disclosure: I hold Vertcoin, 100% of my porfolio :).
submitted by bntyjx to vertcoin [link] [comments]

QuarkChain Testnet 2.0 Mining.

QuarkChain Testnet 1.0 was built based on standardized blockchain system requirements, which included network, wallet, browser, and virtual machine functionalities. Other than the fact that the token was a test currency, the environment was completely compatible with the main network. By enhancing the communication efficiency and security of the network, Testnet 2.0 further improves the openness of the network. In addition, Testnet 2.0 will allow community members (other than citizens or residents of the United States) to contribute directly to the network, i.e. running a full node and mining, and receive testnet tokens as rewards.
QuarkChain Testnet 2.0 will support multiple mining algorithms, including two typical algorithms: Ethash and Double SHA256, as well as QuarkChain’s unique algorithm called Qkchash – a customized ASIC-resistant, CPU mining algorithm, exclusively developed by QuarkChain. Mining is available both on the root chain and on shards due to QuarkChain’s two-layered blockchain structure. Miners can flexibly choose to mine on the root chain with higher computing power requirements or on shards based on their own computing power levels. Our Goal By allowing community members to participate in mining on Testnet 2.0, our goal is to enhance QuarkChain’s community consensus, encourage community members to participate in testing and building the QuarkChain network, and gain first-hand experience of QuarkChain’s high flexibility and usability. During this time, we hope that the community can develop a better understanding about our mining algorithms, sharding technologies, and governance structures, etc. Furthermore, this will be a more thorough challenge to QuarkChain’s design before the launch of mainnet! Thus, we sincerely invite you to join the Testnet 2.0 mining event and build QuarkChain’s infrastructure together!
Today, we’re pleased to announce that we are officially providing the CPU mining demo to the public (other than citizens and residents of the United States)! Everyone can participate in our mining event, and earn tQKC, which can be exchanged to real rewards by non-U.S. persons after the launch of our mainnet. Also, we expect to upgrade our testnet over time, and expect to allow GPU mining for Ethash, and ASIC mining for Double SHA256 in the future. In addition, in the near future, a mining pool that is compatible with all mining algorithms of QuarkChain is also expected to be supported.
We hope all the community members can join in with us, and work together to complete this milestone! 2 Introduction to Mining Algorithms 2.1 What is mining? Mining is the process of generating the new blocks, in which the records of current transactions are added to the record of past transactions. Miners use software that contribute their mining power to participate in the maintenance of a blockchain. In return, they obtain a certain amount of QKC per block, which is called coinbase reward. Like many other blockchain technologies, QuarkChain adopts the most widely used Proof of Work (PoW) consensus algorithm to secure the network.
A cryptographically-secure PoW is a costly and time-consuming process which is difficult to solve due to computation-intensity or memory intensity but easy for others to verify. For a block to be valid it must satisfy certain requirements and hash to a value less than the current target threshold. Reverting a block requires recreating all successor blocks and redoing the work they contain, which is costly.
By running a cluster, everyone can become a miner and participate in the mining process. The mining rewards are proportional to the number of blocks mined by each individual.
2.2 Introduction to QuarkChain Algorithms and Mining setup According to QuarkChain’s two-layered blockchain structure and Boson consensus, different shards can apply different consensus and mining algorithms. As part of the Boson consensus, each shard can adjust the difficulty dynamically to increase or decrease the hash power of each shard chain.
In order to fully test QuarkChain testnet 2.0, we adopt three different types of mining algorithms” Ethash, Double SHA256, and Qkchash, which is ASIC resistant and exclusively developed by QuarkChain founder Qi Zhou. These first two hash algorithms correspond to the mining algorithms dominantly conducted on the graphics processing unit (GPU) and application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC), respectively.
I. Ethash Ethash is the PoW mining algorithm for Ethereum. It is the latest version of earlier Dagger-Hashimoto. Ethash is memory intensive, which makes it require large amounts of memory space in the process of mining. The efficiency of mining is basically independent of the CPU, but directly related to memory size and bandwidth. Therefore, by design, building Ethash ASIC is relatively difficult. Currently, the Ethash mining is dominantly conducted on the GPU machines. Read more about Ethash: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Ethash
II. Double SHA256 Double SHA256 is the PoW mining algorithms for Bitcoin. It is computational intensive hash algorithm, which uses two SHA256 iterations for the block header. If the hash result is less than the specific target, the mining is successful. ASIC machine has been developed by Bitmain to find more hashes with less electrical power usage. Read more about Double SHA256: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm
III. Qkchash Originally, Bitcoin mining was conducted on the CPU of individual computers, with more cores and greater speed resulting in more profitability. After that, the mining process became dominated by GPU machines, then field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA) and finally ASIC, in a race to achieve more hash rates with less electrical power usage. Due to this arms race, it has become increasingly harder for prospective new miners to join. This raises centralization concerns because the manufacturers of the high-performance ASIC are concentrated in a small few.
To solve this, after extensive research and development, QuarkChain founder Dr. Qi Zhou has developed mining algorithm — Qkchash, that is expected to be ASIC-resistant. The idea is motivated by the famous date structure orders-statistic tree. Based on this data structure, Qkchash requires to perform multiple search, insert, and delete operations in the tree, which tries to break the ASIC pipeline and makes the code execution path to be data-dependent and unpredictable besides random memory-access patterns. Thus, the mining efficiency is closely related to the CPU, which ensures the security of Boston consensus and encourges the mining decentralization.
Please refer to Dr. Qi’s paper for more details: https://medium.com/quarkchain-official/order-statistics-based-hash-algorithm-e40f108563c4
2.3 Testnet 2.0 mining configuration Numbers of Shards: 8 Cluster: According to the real-time online mining node The corresponding mining algorithm is Read more about Ethash with Guardian: https://github.com/QuarkChain/pyquarkchain/wiki/Ethash-with-Guardian)
We will provide cluster software and the demo implementation of CPU mining to the public. Miners are able to arbitrarily select one shard or multiple shards to mine according to the mining difficulty and rewards of different shards. GPU / ASIC mining is allowed if the public manages to get it working with the current testnet. With the upgrade of our testnet, we will further provide the corresponding GPU / ASIC software.
QuarkChain’s two-layered blockchain structure, new P2P mode, and Boson consensus algorithm are expected tobe fully tested and verified in the QuarkChain testnet 2.0. 3 Mining Guidance In order to encourage all community members to participate in QuarkChain Testnet 2.0 mining event, we have prepared three mining guidances for community members of different backgrounds.
Today we are releasing the Docker Mining Tutorial first. This tutorial provides a command line configuration guide for developers and a docker image for multiple platforms, including a concise introduction of nodes and mining settings. Follow the instructions here: Quick Start with QuarkChain Mining.
Next we will continue to release: A tutorial for community members who don’t have programming background. In this tutorial, we will teach how to create private QuarkChain nodes using AWS, and how to mine QKC step by step. This tutorial is expected to be released in the next few days. Programs and APIs integrated with GPU / ASIC mining. This is expected to allow existing miners to switch to QKC mining more seamlessly. Frequently Asked Questions: 1. Can I use my laptop or personal computer to mine? Yes, we will provide cluster software and the demo implementation of CPU mining to the public. Miners will be able to arbitrarily select one shard or multiple shards to mine according to the work difficulty and rewards of different shards. 2. What is the minimum requirements for my laptop or personal computer to mine? Please prepare a Linux or MacOs machine with public IP address or port forwarding set up. 3. Can I mine with my GPU or an ASIC machine? For now, we will only be providing the demo implementation of CPU mining as our first step. Interested miners/developers can rewrite the corresponding GPU / ASIC mining program, according to the JSON RPC API we provided. With the upgrade of our testnet, we expect to provide the corresponding GPU / ASIC interface at a later date. 4. What is the difference among the different mining algorithms? Which one should I choose? Double SHA256 is a computational intensive algorithm, but Ethash and Qkchash are memory intensive algorithms, which have certain requirements on the computer’s memory. Since currently we only support CPU mining, the mining efficiency entirely depends on the cores and speed of CPU. 5. For testnet mining, what else should I know? First, the mining process will occupy a computer’s memory. Thus, it is recommended to use an idle computer for mining. In Testnet 2.0 settings, the target block time of root chain is 60 seconds, and the target block time of shard chain is 10 seconds. The mining is a completely random process, which will take some time and consume a certain amount of electricity. 6. What are the risks of testnet mining? Currently our testnet is still under the development stage and may not be 100% stable. Thus, there would be some risks for QuarkChain main chain forks in testnet, software upgrades and system reboots. These may cause your tQKC or block record to be lost despite our best efforts to ensure the stability and security of the testnet.
For more technical questions, welcome to join our developer community on Discard: https://discord.me/quarkchain. 4 Reward Mechanism Testnet 2.0 and all rewards described herein, including mining, are not being offered and will not be available to any citizens or residents of the United States and certain other jurisdictions. All rewards will only be payable following the mainnet launch of QuarkChain. In order to claim or receive any of the following rewards after mainnet launch, you will be required to provide certain identifying documentation and information about yourself. Failure to provide such information or demonstrate compliance with the restrictions herein may result in forfeiture of all rewards, prohibition from participating in future QuarkChain programs, and other sanctions.
NO U.S. PERSONS MAY PARTICIPATE IN TESTNET 2.0 AND QUARKCHAIN WILL STRICTLY ENFORCE THIS VIA OUR KYC PROCEDURES. IF YOU ARE A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN TESTNET 2.0. YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY REWARDS FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
4.1 Mining Rewards
  1. Prize Pool A total of 5 million QKC prize pool have been reserved to motivate all miners to participate in the testnet 2.0 mining event. According to the different mining algorithms, the prize pool is allocated as follows:
Total Prize Pool: 5,000,000 QKC Prize Pool for Ethash Algorithm: 2,000,000 QKC Prize Pool for Double SHA256 Algorithm: 1,000,000 QKC Prize Pool for Qkchash Algorithm: 2,000,000 QKC
The number of QKC each miner is eligible to receive upon mainnet launch will be calculated on a pro rata basis for each mining algorithm set forth above, based on the ratio of sharded block mined by each miner to the total number of sharded block mined by all miners employing such mining algorithm in Testnet 2.0.
  1. Early-bird Rewards To encourage more people to participate early, we will provide early bird rewards. Miners who participate in the first month (December 2018, PST) will enjoy double points. This additional point reward will be ended on December 31, 2018, 11:59pm (PST).
4.2 Bonus for Bug Submission: If you find any bugs for QuarkChain testnet, please feel free to create an issue on our Github page: https://github.com/QuarkChain/pyquarkchain/issues, or send us an email to [email protected]. We may provide related rewards based on the importance and difficulty of the bugs.
4.3 Reward Rules: QuarkChain reserves the right to review the qualifications of the participants in this event. If any cheating behaviors were to be found, the participant will be immediately disqualified from any rewards. QuarkChain further reserves the right to update the rules of the event, to stop the event/network, or to restart the event/network in its sole discretion, including the right to interpret any rules, terms or conditions. For the latest information, please visit our official website or follow us on Telegram/Twitter. About QuarkChain QuarkChain is a flexible, scalable, and user-oriented blockchain infrastructure by applying blockchain sharding technology. It is one of the first public chains that successfully implemented state sharding technology for blockchain in the world. QuarkChain aims to deliver 100,000+ on-chain TPS. Currently, 14,000+ peak TPS has already been achieved by an early stage testnet. QuarkChain already has over 50 partners in its ecosystem. With flexibility, scalability, and usability, QuarkChain is enabling EVERYONE to enjoy blockchain technology at ANYTIME and ANYWHERE.
Testnet 2.0 and all rewards described herein are not being and will not be offered in the United States or to any U.S. persons (as defined in Regulation S promulgated under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended) or any citizens or residents of countries subject to sanctions including the Balkans, Belarus, Burma, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Iraq, Liberia, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, Central African Republic, Crimea, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, South Suda, Venezuela and Yemen. QuarkChain reserves the right to terminate, suspend or prohibit participation of any user in Testnet 2.0 at any time.
In order to claim or receive any rewards, including mining rewards, you will be required to provide certain identifying documentation and information. Failure to provide such information or demonstrate compliance with the restrictions herein may result in termination of your participation, forfeiture of all rewards, prohibition from participating in future QuarkChain programs, and other actions.
This announcement is provided for informational purposes only and does not guarantee anyone a right to participate in or receive any rewards in connection with Testnet 2.0.
Note: The use of Testnet 2.0 is subject to our terms and conditions available at: https://quarkchain.io/testnet-2-0-terms-and-conditions/
more about qurakchain: Website: https://quarkchain.io/cn/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/quarkchainofficial/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quark_Chain Telegram: https://t.me/quarkchainio
submitted by Rahadsr to u/Rahadsr [link] [comments]

The Concept of Bitcoin

The Concept of Bitcoin
https://preview.redd.it/5r9soz2ltq421.jpg?width=268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6a89685f735b53ec1573eefe08c8646970de8124
What is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin is an experimental system of transfer and verification of property based on a network of peer to peer without any central authority.
The initial application and the main innovation of the Bitcoin network is a system of digital currency decentralized unit of account is bitcoin.
Bitcoin works with software and a protocol that allows participants to issue bitcoins and manage transactions in a collective and automatic way. As a free Protocol (open source), it also allows interoperability of software and services that use it. As a currency bitcoin is both a medium of payment and a store of value.
Bitcoin is designed to self-regulate. The limited inflation of the Bitcoin system is distributed homogeneously by computing the network power, and will be limited to 21 million divisible units up to the eighth decimal place. The functioning of the Exchange is secured by a general organization that everyone can examine, because everything is public: the basic protocols, cryptographic algorithms, programs making them operational, the data of accounts and discussions of the developers.
The possession of bitcoins is materialized by a sequence of numbers and letters that make up a virtual key allowing the expenditure of bitcoins associated with him on the registry. A person may hold several key compiled in a 'Bitcoin Wallet ', 'Keychain' web, software or hardware which allows access to the network in order to make transactions. Key to check the balance in bitcoins and public keys to receive payments. It contains also (often encrypted way) the private key associated with the public key. These private keys must remain secret, because their owner can spend bitcoins associated with them on the register. All support (keyrings) agrees to maintain the sequence of symbols constituting your keychain: paper, USB, memory stick, etc. With appropriate software, you can manage your assets on your computer or your phone.
Bitcoin on an account, to either a holder of bitcoins in has given you, for example in Exchange for property, either go through an Exchange platform that converts conventional currencies in bitcoins, is earned by participating in the operations of collective control of the currency.
The sources of Bitcoin codes have been released under an open source license MIT which allows to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the software, subject to insert a copyright notice into all copies.
Bitcoin creator, Satoshi Nakamoto
What is the Mining of bitcoin?
Technical details :
During mining, your computer performs cryptographic hashes (two successive SHA256) on what is called a header block. For each new hash, mining software uses a different random number that called Nuncio. According to the content of the block and the nonce value typically used to express the current target. This number is called the difficulty of mining. The difficulty of mining is calculated by comparing how much it is difficult to generate a block compared to the first created block. This means that a difficulty of 70000 is 70000 times more effort that it took to Satoshi Nakamoto to generate the first block. Where mining was much slower and poorly optimized.
The difficulty changes each 2016 blocks. The network tries to assign the difficulty in such a way that global computing power takes exactly 14 days to generate 2016 blocks. That's why the difficulty increases along with the power of the network.
Material :
In the beginning, mining with a processor (CPU) was the only way to undermine bitcoins. (GPU) graphics cards have possibly replaced the CPU due to their nature, which allowed an increase between 50 x to 100 x in computing power by using less electricity by megahash compared to a CPU.
Although any modern GPU can be used to make the mining, the brand AMD GPU architecture has proved to be far superior to nVidia to undermine bitcoins and the ATI Radeon HD 5870 card was the most economical for a time.
For a more complete list of graphics cards and their performance, see Wiki Bitcoin: comparison of mining equipment
In the same way that transition CPU to GPU, the world of mining has evolved into the use of the Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) as a mining platform. Although FPGAs did not offer an increase of 50 x to 100 x speed of calculation as the transition from CPU to GPU, they offered a better energy efficiency.
A typical HD/s 600 graphics card consumes about 400w of power, while a typical FPGA device can offer a rate of hash of 826 MH/s to 80w of power consumption, a gain of 5 x more calculations for the same energy power. Since energy efficiency is a key factor in the profitability of mining, it was an important step for the GPU to FPGA migration for many people.
The world of the mining of bitcoin is now migrating to the Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC). An ASIC is a chip designed specifically to accomplish a single task. Unlike FPGAs, an ASIC is unable to be reprogrammed for other tasks. An ASIC designed to undermine bitcoins cannot and will not do anything else than to undermine bitcoins.
The stiffness of an ASIC allows us to offer an increase of 100 x computing power while reducing power consumption compared to all other technologies. For example, a classic device to offer 60 GH/s (1 hashes equals 1000 Megahash. 1GH/s = 1000 Mh/s) while consuming 60w of electricity. Compared to the GPU, it is an increase in computing power of 100 x and a reduction of power consumption by a factor of 7.
Unlike the generations of technologies that have preceded the ASIC, ASIC is the "end of the line" when we talk about important technology change. The CPUs have been replaced by the GPUs, themselves replaced by FPGAs that were replaced by ASICs.
There is nothing that can replace the ASICs now or in the immediate future. There will be technological refinements in ASIC products, and improvements in energy efficiency, but nothing that may match increased from 50 x to 100 x the computing power or a 7 x reduction in power consumption compared with the previous technology.
Which means that the energy efficiency of an ASIC device is the only important factor of all product ASIC, since the estimated lifetime of an ASIC device is superior to the entire history of the mining of bitcoin. It is conceivable that a purchased ASIC device today is still in operation in two years if the unit still offers a profitable enough economic to keep power consumption. The profitability of mining is also determined by the value of bitcoin but in all cases, more a device has a good energy efficiency, it is profitable.
Software :
There are two ways to make mining: by yourself or as part of a team (a pool). If you are mining for yourself, you must install the Bitcoin software and configure it to JSON-RPC (see: run Bitcoin). The other option is to join a pool. There are multiple available pools. With a pool, the profit generated by any block generated by a member of the team is split between all members of the team. The advantage of joining a team is to increase the frequency and stability of earnings (this is called reduce the variance) but gains will be lower. In the end, you will earn the same amount with the two approaches. Undermine solo allows you to receive earnings huge but very infrequent, while miner with a pool can offer you small stable and steady gains.
Once you have your software configured or that you have joined a pool, the next step is to configure the mining software. The software the most populare for ASIC/FPGA/GPU currently is CGminer or a derivative designed specifically for FPGAS and ASICs, BFGMiner.
If you want a quick overview of mining without install any software, try Bitcoin Plus, a Bitcoin minor running in your browser with your CPU. It is not profitable to make serious mining, but it is a good demonstration of the principle of the mining team.
submitted by Josephbitcoin to u/Josephbitcoin [link] [comments]

Mini Bitcoin Mining Farm: Gekkoscience 2PAC USB (SHA256 ... Mining Tribus - Denarius Crypto with FPGA Майнинг Bitcoin на ПЛИС Xilinx. Реализация алгоритма SHA-256 для майнинга Bitcoin Butterfly Labs BitForce FPGA SHA256 Single Bitcoin Mining rig The Darkside of BFL ; Bitcoin mining with Butterfly Labs FPGA-

FPGA Bitcoin Mining. At the foundation of block creation and mining is the calculation of this digital signature. Different cryptocurrencies use different approaches to generate the signature. For the most popular cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, the signature is calculated using a cryptographic hashing function. For those unfamiliar with cryptographic hashes, hashes calculate a fixed-length unique ... Fast forward to today when Butterfly Labs offers for sale their BitForce SHA256 Mini Rig. The base configuration of this rig contains 18 FPGA cards and costs $15,295 (plus s/h). The illustration above shows a rig holding its maximum 24 FTPA cards. The result is the first time that 25 Ghash/s has ever had such a small physical footprint. With power consumption at 1,250W the efficiency ratio ... Field programmable gate array (FPGA) is an integrated circuit designed to be configured by the customer or designer after manufacturing—hence "field-programmable".FPGAs are integrated circuits that can be tailored to suit a particular task like mining bitcoins, after their manufacturing thus creating ASIC. Bitcoin / SHA256 Miner; Equihash Miner; Litecoin / Scrypt Miner; Other Miner; GPU Miner; GPU BOX MINER; Rig Kit; Frame RIG; Mining Hardware; Immersion Cooling; Cooler & Silencer Case; FPGA Miner; Water Cooled Miner; Used Hardware; Cart. Filter. Filter × Filter by price. Filter — Close. Showing 1–28 of 35 results. ANTMINER – S19 PRO – 110TH/s – PSU INCLUDED. SHIPPED IN 1-31 JANUARY ... sha256_w_mem.v - W message block memory and block expansion logic. sha256_k_constants.v - K constants ROM memory. The top level entity is called sha256_core. This entity has wide interfaces (512 bit block input, 256 bit digest). In order to make it usable you probably want to wrap the core with a bus interface. The provided top level wrapper, sha256.v provides a simple 32-bit memory like ...

[index] [39270] [36560] [6263] [33414] [38599] [13639] [26366] [41623] [22104] [14834]

Mini Bitcoin Mining Farm: Gekkoscience 2PAC USB (SHA256 ...

Was SHA-256 Hashes sind und was sie mit Bitcoin und Glücksspiel zu tun haben, erfährst du in diesem Video! 📩 Meine Social Media Accounts: Twitter: https://... Small Cheap FPGA Miner ... Mini Bitcoin Mining Farm: Gekkoscience 2PAC USB (SHA256) How to - Duration: 4:26. Cursed Mining 23,493 views. 4:26. BlackMiner F1 Review a FPGA Miner That can make $20 ... Bitcoinmine with BFL-Singles Bitforce SHA256 Miningspeed 8 BFL-Singles = 7 Gh/s Total Bitcoinmine = 15 Gh/s Bitcoin mining with Butterfly Labs "Micro"-Rig In... My BitForce SHA256 Single bitcoin miner. Avalon ngzhang FPGA Lancelot XC6SLX150 SHA256 miner 450 Mh/s BTC Bitcoin USB.

#