Changing the hashing algorithm
-
BLAKE2b is a better choice than Keccak.
You are right ::)
-
Changing the FTC hashing algorithm, We only have two months time. They come . :-[
-
This is off topic but as the decision is made perhaps the powers that be can consider the following…
tidbit.co.in developed technology that allowed web pages to generate 20 khash per client (great way to “monetize without ads”). Perhaps feathercoin.com could set up a page that a user could put in their public key. Then after logging into the site, (perhaps making use of iframes) the user could continue on browsing the internet.
The object of this would be a no mind way to generate coins but also have a more consistent network. Perhaps this technology could be worked into wallets as well so that just having a wallet would generate FTC…
20KH/s is a performance of a 3GHz AMD quad core running CPUminer on all cores. Why a slower JavaScript miner if one can run a real one? It also smells like a malware.
-
Changing the FTC hashing algorithm, We only have two months time. They come . :-[
We’ll have a solution sooner.
-
I like the sound of that.
-
Progress is being made on the new hashing solution. We have a firm idea of what we are going to do and are waiting to hear back from developers of Blake as to whether they can provide us with a solution that is easily usable or if we have to code for for ourselves. Once we have the code it should not be a hard challenge to create our own miner. I have setup a development environment for cgminer and have changed the hashing solution to a bespoke one to trial the work involved.
On the name front I like NeoScrypt. It is going to be our baby but we will promote it and try to get others to adopt it with us. The more people that use it the better. I will come back with more updates when we progress. The next version of Feathercoin is going to have some grand changes to it and will see us through to our second birthday and more :)
-
Sorry, but I detest the name NeoScrypt. It’s not pleasing to the eye and not pleasurable to say. Might not seem like much but these things are important.
*edit* sorry, having read that again, detest is a strong word. If you want to encourage more uptake from other coins, I’d strongly advise for a name more marketable. ;D
*edit2* Plus may also cause a small confusion with n00bs with Scrypt-N
-
Thats what I was going to say… is this Scrypt-N?
Why not call it “F”-Scrypt (Feather… not the other word you thought of!!) … or even better… YOLO-Scrypt haha O0
A-Scrypt would be cool as for “Advanced” Scrypt
-
I know it’s my suggestion earlier and I assure you that its not the only reason I’m so keen on it, but I think SuperScrypt is such a marketable name that says everything and is a cheeky play on words from the print world.
-
if it is blake we are going for should we not just stick with blakeScrypt or just blake or something.
I agree though these kind of name discussions are not the most productive but thats my two feathers… ill get my coat.
-
I’m guessing the Crypt in scrypt is for Cryptography and not related to any particular algorithm? What’s the S for, just to turn crypt into a clever play on words or does it have a meaning?
-
Sorry if I’m repeating something but has X11 been looked into? (if I understand it correctly it’s a collection of different algos being used?)
-
You could hint at feathercoin origins, without actually branding it.
Ideas like
Rachis (In biology it’s the central vain or shaft from a feather or leaf)
Or perhaps one of the many feathered creatures of legends.
I agree, not a huge fan of NeoScrypt. (wouldn’t say I detest it though ;D )
I like the idea of the sly branding where if you really wanted to dig up the origins you could, but to the layperson, it’s just a name.
Rachis has a coolness to it I think. You could also do something like avian, quill, or wing-script… or not, you get the idea.
-
I am not a coumputer science guy, but why could we not add an additonal sha-256 hash ontop of the scrypt? Would the scrypt ASICs still be able to mine faster than a gpu(7950) ?
-
I guess an additional round of hashing using the sha256 would likely make little difference to a dedicated ASIC.
Essentially a high power graphics card is a lot like a simplified CPU but with many more cores that can be used for lots of different things i.e. gaming mining all different hash types etc.
An asic is a single purpose chip that can be made much more efficient at one single task due to the fact it does not need to be durable or able to perform anything else. This is why a sha256 or a scrypt ASIC could not be used on Feathercoin if we changed to Blake or any other different algorithm.
But ultimately if an ASIC was built for the new algorithm or combination of algorithms it would likely be as effective or more so than a graphics card and use less power.
-
(wouldn’t say I detest it though ;D )
Yeah, hence my back peddling, it’s not the word I was looking for.
-
I would like just one algorithm not multiple ones. The extra work seems anti environmental. I think we should not be against ASICs per say. At the moment I agree, they are being centralising.
-
To be honest I don’t think a name really is important is it? Considering what we’re doing, the name it self would have little impact.
I’m just saying I’m not so stressed, I thought ABC would of been a good one but the more I think about it, a name for the algo is really the last of our concerns at the moment.
-
I think we should not be against ASICs per say. At the moment I agree, they are being centralising.
Isn’t the idea to make our own asic in time?
My belief, was that we wanted to dodge the scrypt asics so we could develop our own open source algo, miner and asic.
-
The problem is, that creating an ASIC is relatively cost intensive and this is one of the reasons for a high price.
The Gridseed alpha test units seemed to be quite cheap in hardware but to build a farm generating 500 -1000 kHash again becomes a rather high invest, that pays back over time. F we talk about 100 -500 MHash, the cost will be close to the already available ASICS.
This high upfront invest drives centralization, as many people can’t affort that.
I doubt, that creating our own ASICs would help here.
