Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin
by gus_massa on Friday February 21, 2014 @08:24PM
(#7280564)
The next complain will be that the cryptocurrencies are so memory intensive that the RAM production is a non-negligible contributor to global CO2 emissions.
What's the defense against someone with a lot of money that can buy an ASIC farm or a memory farm or a whatever farm that is needed for the computation? How much money should the chip builders charge for that? How many energy can be used in the production of the critical item?
Essentially, if 50 BCT cost ~$25000, to create them you must just burn ~$25000 of petrol, i.e. 250 barrels. If you burn only 200 barrels, someone will find a faster method burning 201 that is still profitable. (You can choice to burn them during mining, or during the chips fabrication, or during the chip design, or any combination of them.)
Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin
by hershel on Friday February 21, 2014 @11:40PM
(#7281006)
There could be an ASIC for that. There's a new memory interface that works at 10 TB/sec with 16GB memory[1].Currently there's no cpu/gpu architecture in planning that's even close to needing that memory bandwidth, and the manufacturing is expensive.
All this means this tech won't fit decentralization well.
[1]http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=13209...
Re:Harvard supercomputing cluster hijacked to mine Dogecoin
by Retric on Saturday February 22, 2014 @09:43AM
(#7282155)
Bandwidth and latency are two seperate concepts, that 10TB bandwidth is probably around 100MB/second if you need truly random access to individual bytes of 16GB of ram and need to read each byte to find out which byte you need next. It's a speed of light issue where the round trip time back and forth to the individual RAM chips adds an inherent delay so RAM designers don't really focious on reducing latency as your stuck with a farly high latency anyway so bandwidth is generally more useful.
Mining is generally considered to be inherently power hungry but it need not be. It’s a consequence of making the proof of work computationally intensive. If computation is minimized in favor of random access to gigabytes of memory (incurring long latencies), then mining will require large investments in RAM but relatively little power.
Cuckoo Cycle represents a breakthrough in three important ways:
1) it performs only one very cheap siphash computation for about 3.3 random accesses to memory,
2) its memory requirement can be set arbitrarily and doesn't allow for any time-memory trade-off.
3) verification of the proof of work is instant, requiring 1 sha256 and 42 siphash computations.
Runtime in Cuckoo Cycle is completely dominated by memory latency. It promotes the use of commodity general-purpose hardware over custom designed single-purpose hardware.
Other features:
4) proofs take the form of a length 42 cycle in the Cuckoo graph.
5) it has a natural notion of (base) difficulty, namely the number of edges in the graph; above about 60% of size, a 42-cycle is almost guaranteed, but below 50% the probability starts to fall sharply.
6) running time for the current implementation on high end x86 is under 24s/GB single-threaded, and under 3s/GB for 12 threads.
7) making cuckoo use a significant fraction of the typical memory of a botnet computer will send it into swap-hell, and likely alert its owner.