Changing the hashing algorithm
-
Just thought I would post this. It’s an interesting watch.
-
Hi wrapper, I think FTC need to use two kinds of algorithms, one is Blake, another is a custom algorithms from Scrypt. This is a Low-power scheme.
-
Feathercoin could switch to block retargeting to ever 2 blocks to prevent an attack when it occurs. Yes I agree the hashing algo should be changed but, for now a temp fix would be to retarget difficulty every two blocks. This would help so that when an evil miner hits the network with a 51 percent attack he/she cannot take full control of the block chain.
Not sure if Apriori could be used but, its a thought/suggestion.
Data Mining Algorithms on the Cell Broadband Engine
Rubing Duan and Alfred Strey
Institute of Computer Science, University of Innsbruck,
Technikerstrasse 21a, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
{rubing.duan,alfred.strey}@uibk.ac.atAbstract. The Cell Broadband Engine (CBE) is a new heterogeneous multi-core processor from IBM, Sony and Toshiba, and provides the potential to achieve an impressive level of performance for data mining algorithms. In this paper, we describe our implementation of three important classes of data mining algorithms: clustering (k-Means), classification (RBF network), and association rule mining (Apriori) on the CBE. We explain our parallelization methodology and describe the exploitation of thread- and data-level parallelism in each of the three algorithms. Finally we present experimental results on the Cell hardware, where we could achieve a high performance of up to 10 GFLOP/s and a speedup of up to 40.
Keywords: Cell Broadband Engine, multi-core, k-Means, RBF, Apriori.
3.3 Apriori for Association Mining
Apriori is a classic data mining algorithm for learning association rules. Given a set of itemsets, the algorithm attempts to find subsets of k elements which are common to at least a minimum part minsup of the itemsets. The algorithm uses a bottom-up approach: in each iteration frequent subsets of k elements are extended to subsets of k + 1 elements (candidate generation, see Alg. 3), and groups of candidates are tested against the data. The algorithm terminates when no further successful extensions are found. The complete Apriori algorithm is presented in Alg. 3.Source: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160968.0
FTC:
6u7Kz4h1rMzTCyGMAKW9ePeHGGsxZL67yh
tytytytytyvm for any FTC’s O0
-
Feathercoin could switch to block retargeting to ever 2 blocks to prevent an attack when it occurs.
The fork in the new release 0.8.6.2 has a re-target of every block and reduced block times to 60 seconds so I think we can concentrate on the algorithm change now
-
On April 08, 2014, AMD lauched R9 295X2, a dual R9 290X in a single PCB, with 11,6 TFlops.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/08/amd-radeon-r9-295x2-graphics-card-launching-april-21
You can pick up the R9 295X2 from retailers, starting April 21, for $1,500 USD
-
3. Changing the scrypt element will be easily reprogrammed on future more flexible ASICs
so
4. Changing to SHA-3 or similar for a 18 month wait for ASICs
For: mining codeing is done, investigation implementation possible,
Against: being used before, so similar problem with future ASICs to now with Litecoin.
or BLAKE etc .will give about 9 months delay
For: Will use standard Bitcoin Hash algorythm so current ASIC will work with some modification.
Against: Same
- the new algorithm is not necessarily resists ASICs.
Because there are several problems ,we abandon Scrypt, ASICs just one problem. Through innovation we need to get rid of the shadow of LTC and Scrypt.
I hope the new algorithm is low power consumption. It is very important. We were able to save some electricity charges. We need a green algorithm, eg: vertcoin(https://github.com/vertcoin/vertcoin/blob/master-0.8/src/scrypt.cpp), an improved algorithm is simple and unique.
I can say with certainty that if Feathercoin is an independent algorithm, would not exist ASICs problem. Because it does not meet the economic laws.
-
Just thought I would post this. It’s an interesting watch.
Hi Calem, interesting watch with regard to 51% attacks…
The trouble is 51% attack is now pretty visible. Also the perps don’t want to kill Bitcoin or the Litecoins otherwise they end up with 51% of nothing.
This means the 51% attack is not relevant as the most danger to the Bitcoin protocol. It is much easier and economical to raise a 20% attack and just exploit the difficulty calculation, even with Bitcoins raising hash rate this would still be much more viable, profitable and invisible use of your dirty money.
We, in the alt-coin community, also know there is real danger from evil pools, it is much easier and cheaper for psycho criminal who only cares about the thrill of the caper and enjoys robbing other human beings to manipulate a multipool of other miners to their end. They don’t even have to pay the electricity bill.
It is therefore obvious that at least efforts should be made within the normal protocol adjustments to reduce those manipulation windows and make those attacks more expensive, which is what Kimoto’s Gravity well and eHRC are designed to do.
As for changing the Hashing algorithm, I think that is much more risky and a lot more work. It does not prevent any of the consequences of ASICs, at best delays them. It also could go completely wrong and destroy the coin.
Just to get some idea, even part time, we have spent at least 6 man months on designing, developing and testing the new difficulty algorithm. I calculate double that at least for changing to an original hashing algorithm. i.e. 12 people working full time for a month.
We have probably done about 1 man month on that so far, 3 further man months of that are changing associated mining software etc… I have not calculated the associated work of Exchanges, block explorers miners and pools of updating the daemon software on their current systems.
-
What we need most right now I suppose is more programmers?
-
What we need most right now I suppose is more programmers?
We’ll need more programmers when the reference code is ready and runs on testnet. No matter what hashing internals there are, it’s going to be pure C and not very fast. CPUminer needs SSE2 and probably AVX assembly code, BFGminer/SGminer need new OpenCL kernels, P2Pool needs a Python module, and mobile clients need a Java implementation. For now, I can only tell that I’ve made a deep research of what to do and what not to, so my concept is ready. Need a few completely free days to get it coded/tested as I haven’t got much free time recently.
-
Hook me up whenever you guys need programmers :)
I’m on Java/node.js (server), C#/WPF/XAML (client) & MySQL/MSSQL.
-
One more thing on PoS. It’s slow and doesn’t work very well with fast blocks. If you look at those coins which support it and have block targets below 1 minute, you see that every time a PoS block hits the network, it orphans a PoW block or even a few. They also orphan each other often. That’s because of the way the PoS kernels are computed. Time lag is also important as PoS blocks are solo mined basically and propagate rather slowly. Mining pools are located in DCs connected to major backbones. They can also maintain hundreds of connections.
-
Are we considering using a current non scrypt algorithm. This may man we can reuse the current mining software and not have to develop our own. I’m thinking that may be the best option. Less work for us and a proven algo.
-
Are we considering using a current non scrypt algorithm. This may man we can reuse the current mining software and not have to develop our own. I’m thinking that may be the best option. Less work for us and a proven algo.
The trouble with doing that is it is a bit like if Bitcoin decided to change over to Scrypt at the last minute as SHA256 ASICs were released.
It’s a larger coin taking over a smaller coins algorithm.
-
That’s true and I guess we don’t want to cause trouble for other coins but are we sure that this would be a problem?
If bitcoin did change to scrypt it would be in direct competition for hashes with litecoin, Feathercoin etc etc and has essentially cut out its ASIC miners.
ASIC miners would have to find a new sha256 friendly home. And the GPU scrypt guys would have to make the choice of staying with their coin or jumping ship to bitcoin.
I suppose because of the higher value of bitcoin and the very quick decrease in hashes it would be very lucrative to mine initially at least which would likely be the deciding factor.
If we consider sha3 we would be moving into maxcoin territory. As we don’t really have an ASIC problem yet the scenario is different. So we are not alienating any/many of our loyal miners which means our hash decrease would be lower. We would have to work out at the difficulty we move over to sha3 territory how would we compare financially to maxcoin to figure out the consequences to both Feathercoin and maxcoin.
-
That’s true and I guess we don’t want to cause trouble for other coins but are we sure that this would be a problem?
If bitcoin did change to scrypt it would be in direct competition for hashes with litecoin, Feathercoin etc etc and has essentially cut out its ASIC miners.
ASIC miners would have to find a new sha256 friendly home. And the GPU scrypt guys would have to make the choice of staying with their coin or jumping ship to bitcoin.
I suppose because of the higher value of bitcoin and the very quick decrease in hashes it would be very lucrative to mine initially at least which would likely be the deciding factor.
If we consider sha3 we would be moving into maxcoin territory. As we don’t really have an ASIC problem yet the scenario is different. So we are not alienating any/many of our loyal miners which means our hash decrease would be lower. We would have to work out at the difficulty we move over to sha3 territory how would we compare financially to maxcoin to figure out the consequences to both Feathercoin and maxcoin.
I believe what wrapper meant is that we’d be the larger coin taking over the smaller coins algo.
-
no I understand that and Feathercoin has been around a lot longer than maxcoin in the above scenario.
But what im saying is that the reason for people to change which coin they mine is not based solely on the size of the coin.
Profitability and Loyalty seem to be the main two factors. in different orders depending on the individual.
If it was only size then why is anyone mining anything other than Litecoin in the Scrypt arena.
Im just trying to raise the question really. Are we sure that we will have any negative effects on the current occupants of the new algo?
-
Yes, I’m just trying to grasp the pro’s and cons.
From a technical perspective, I’m for SHA3. It’s simple, longer term ASIC resistant, mining software is already available. But the philosophy for the Feathercoin change of hash algorithm is that Litecoin owns the space, so that would apply to us taking over a smaller coin’s algorithm.
Whilst we’re battling Litecoin as the underdog, there is not the temptation to misuse our networking power. At least Litecoin have the justification of getting Scrypt off the ground (for being dismissive of smaller coins). We do benefit hugely from the common software platform and that would start to be diluted by altering the hashing algorithm.
I will support the way forward, but I see this as a fundamental decision that has got to be as right as we can get it.
-
If it was only size then why is anyone mining anything other than Litecoin in the Scrypt arena.
Im just trying to raise the question really. Are we sure that we will have any negative effects on the current occupants of the new algo?
At the current time Scrypt based coins are being attacked in various ways all the time. Whilst that is spread out over a larger number of smaller GPU miners,it is just about survivable by the larger coins networks.
But with the introduction of ASICs the power of the network is more easily concentrated in smaller numbers of hands, which give considerably more power and incentive to destroy smaller coins. Re: Terracoin and the fate of other SHA256 alternatives. At the best they needed multiple hard forks which destroys reputations.
This is what some see as the problem. I think that it is not as high a danger for second generation coins, particularly as we have developed improved settings to counter those dangers, but it is significant and needs deep consideration.
-
bitcoin-side-chains â€"â€"A huge threat
PoW Alt-Coin will encounter major challenges. LiteCoin and DogeCoin may crash. I want to be a choice PoS. Of course, this will not necessarily be the best choice. We want to make early preparations.
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-core-developers-bitcoin-side-chains/
-
Hi Lizhi, I hate PoS, it is even more centralising to those with a stake, as a small miner it will make me pointless.
I don’t see how it cures the problem either, big ASICs will soon have a Big Stake.
