Jump to content

new hash rate record


podizzle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah man it's getting hot in here with 7500 gpus mining away! 

HAHA!   I mean seriously?!  How small of a sq footage could you get away with trying to run 7500.  You'd obviously need to buy an extra transformer for where they're at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAHA!   I mean seriously?!  How small of a sq footage could you get away with trying to run 7500.  You'd obviously need to buy an extra transformer for where they're at.

 

 

Maybe he was just referring to the model..  AMD 7500 GPU..  kind of a low end model...  like saying the high ends are 7900 or 79xx. ;p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe he was just referring to the model..  AMD 7500 GPU..  kind of a low end model...  like saying the high ends are 7900 or 79xx. ;p

I was only joking.   Although I would like to see 7500 gpus setup for mining,  a guy can dream can't he?.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noticed the mincoin difficulty is under 1 - does that mean mincoin isn't being mined heavily at the moment? Sorry for newby question :) - Just starting out with mining

When you see really low difficulties, it means that during the previous time period, there was very little mining activity.  If the diff was up over 7 the previous round, for instance, the hashing power will often start getting moved off the coin, lowering the network hash power. After a period of low hashrate, the algorithm of the coin adjust the difficulty lower to help the network find closer to the daily target of 2,880 blocks per day.

 

What happens next, is when MinCoin diff finds its way under about 1-1.5 these days, that puts it squarely into the "holy poo, that's ridiculously profitable!!" category.  It only takes a few minutes for all the big auto-switching pools to get moved over and then we're seeing the crazy 2GH/s bursts of power that push it back up to over 5-7 difficulty or so. 

 

These days, MNC is a "pool only" mining opportunity, and there are a lot fewer coins to be had for each miner unless you've got a LOT of power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say if it is under 1, mine away.  But as a definition, can the difficulty actually be under one?  I thought I understood difficulty and now I realize I do not.   :(

Difficulty can certainly be under 1.  There are a lot of times when it's down around .5 or lower, but with a valuable coin like MNC, that low of a number doesn't go unnoticed for long. (Say, a few minutes!)

 

There are a lot of coins that will go way down below 1, but because they also sell for minuscule amounts, then won't get mined all that much and will still not adjust much higher.  I've seen coins stay well under 1 (0.01-0.25 or whatever) for weeks.  There are so many "crap-coins" that seem designed to just be dumped, that they can't all get much hashing power.

 

It's just that now the price of MNC is much higher, so it's easier to see that there's a good profit to be had for mining it, even with the small 2 coin block reward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha! We were actually talking/discussing changing the hashing algo because of this very thing.

 

Omg no don't change the algo, scrypt is beautiful and I promise I won't 51% the coin.

 

Trust me if you want to talk to me about it then email me, FPGAs are the future of mining scrypt and it is not incredibly difficult to get it done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just like to ask a question, what is the minimum hash rate that mincoin requires to perform its normal day to day transactions(coins confirmation, transfer, etc...)

 

If the difficulties is low enough to perform all the coins basic requirement. is it true that any increase in difficulties is just simply adding extra computationally and electricity wasteful difficulties to control the flow of coin distribution. So as the coin gets more popular, the more people mine it, the more wasteful is to the earth natural resources.

 

Isn't it better to turn that extra computation power for a better use, like protein folding or something. thus if at bare minimum, all computation is 100% to coin support, if increasing computation, flow controls kicks in (difficulties), but by dividing the work more towards say protein folding 80%, and mincoin transaction 20%..  and so on and on.. 

 

This would make going from a CPU mining to GPU to FPGA to ASCII mining, worth it. since its for a better cause and not just converting electricity to heat for nothing. If it can't be done, then, might as well just let it be a CPU only.

 

 

Or did I got it all wrong, that the increase in difficulties actually is required to support the coin's operations.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so every day exactly yhe same amount is mined ?

The difficulty adjustments are a mechanism to help control the mined coins per day. It won't always be exactly 2,880 per day, but over time, the adjustments try to even things out so that on average, that's how many are mined.  If it's low difficulty and say 3,000 are mined, then the difficulty adjusts up enough so that same amount of network hash power can not get over 2,880 again the next day.

 

...roughly like that, anyway.  I'll avoid further explanation attempts until I can get some more coffee. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like to ask a question, what is the minimum hash rate that mincoin requires to perform its normal day to day transactions(coins confirmation, transfer, etc...)

 

If the difficulties is low enough to perform all the coins basic requirement. is it true that any increase in difficulties is just simply adding extra computationally and electricity wasteful difficulties to control the flow of coin distribution. So as the coin gets more popular, the more people mine it, the more wasteful is to the earth natural resources.

 

Isn't it better to turn that extra computation power for a better use, like protein folding or something. thus if at bare minimum, all computation is 100% to coin support, if increasing computation, flow controls kicks in (difficulties), but by dividing the work more towards say protein folding 80%, and mincoin transaction 20%..  and so on and on.. 

 

This would make going from a CPU mining to GPU to FPGA to ASCII mining, worth it. since its for a better cause and not just converting electricity to heat for nothing. If it can't be done, then, might as well just let it be a CPU only.

 

 

Or did I got it all wrong, that the increase in difficulties actually is required to support the coin's operations.

 

Thanks

Hmm... not really sure what the pure needs of the coin are, with regards to network hash rate. I'm sure the maths are simple for someone less tired and distracted with other work than I am at the moment.  The network hash rate has to do with moving coins around in transactions, as well as ultimately releasing the normal inflation rate into the wild.

 

The thing is, if only one CPU was mining the coin, the difficulty would go extremely low so that this one miner got blocks roughly every minute. It would be something like a diff of 0.00001 or whatever.  So technically, if I'm thinking of this correctly, you only really "need" a single miner running constantly to get all the coins for the network and to move the transactions through.

 

The diff increases/decreases in a manner as to constrain the flow of new coins every day.  The higher the hash rate before the next adjustment period (every 60 blocks, there's an adjustment), the faster transactions flow during that time. However, after the diff goes up, things slow back down to closer to the 1-minute mark again anyway.  (Then, typically, a bunch of miners fall off as they think it's too hard to mine at the new higher difficulty, which then slows the network down a bunch with transactions slowing to a potential crawl until the difficulty drops considerably to match the lower network hash rate.)

 

...I feel like I'm talking in circles.  I don't have time to edit this post better, so I hope it's making sense.

 

There's really no doubt that all this stuff is a big waste of energy -- crypto-mining in general.  The biggest issue is to make sure there are enough distributed nodes mining/hashing to protect the network from some big whale coming along and finding most of the blocks and performing a malicious "51% attack" on the coin.  With that in mind, the more network hash there is, to some degree, the more secure the network potentially is.

 

...again, I think that's roughly coming out correct.  I'll wait to see if anyone rebukes my points here to come in and clarify better. :P  I hope I'm making at least some sense.

 

The idea of using all this power for something more valuable to the world society is a bit of a Holy Grail at the moment. There have been some efforts, but currently they're not showing too much fruit, from last I checked.  CureCoin was one of them, but my research on the subject is stale.

 

I'd personally LOVE to push all my hashing power at something like protein folding or such.  It's just that there's also the greedy side of things where protein folding (et. al) don't make money for me, and I'm not in a position to be very altruistic at the moment.. unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.