0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Akado on November 16, 2015, 09:34:29 pmhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3t0kff/core_switched_to_libsecp256k1_for_verification/LOL. Delayed a few months.What's there to laugh about. Bitshares has delayed many features it promised....
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3t0kff/core_switched_to_libsecp256k1_for_verification/LOL. Delayed a few months.
PR submitted: https://github.com/BitShares/fc/pull/4Speedup of --rebuild-index is insignificant on my system, around 5%. Possibly more on an SSD. The indexing is heavy on IO, so not much speedup to be expected here.Speedup of wallet_rescan_blockchain is 4% for the mixed implementation and 25% for pure libsecp256k1.
very good work
wow that was fast @pc
Quote from: bytemaster on March 10, 2015, 12:05:15 amQuote from: jsidhu on March 09, 2015, 10:57:21 pmQuote from: vlight on March 09, 2015, 09:44:47 pmBut the main part that slows sync is HDD not CPU. The software could also use more RAM that is left unused.Sorry it already uses too much RAM lolWe are working to reduce RAM and CPU. Very glad to see you come back to the most critical topic.
Quote from: jsidhu on March 09, 2015, 10:57:21 pmQuote from: vlight on March 09, 2015, 09:44:47 pmBut the main part that slows sync is HDD not CPU. The software could also use more RAM that is left unused.Sorry it already uses too much RAM lolWe are working to reduce RAM and CPU.
Quote from: vlight on March 09, 2015, 09:44:47 pmBut the main part that slows sync is HDD not CPU. The software could also use more RAM that is left unused.Sorry it already uses too much RAM lol
But the main part that slows sync is HDD not CPU. The software could also use more RAM that is left unused.
Quote from: jsidhu on March 09, 2015, 10:57:21 pmQuote from: vlight on March 09, 2015, 09:44:47 pmBut the main part that slows sync is HDD not CPU. The software could also use more RAM that is left unused.Sorry it already uses too much RAM lolWell, for me when syncing less than 100 hours left, it takes only 1GB of RAM(2GB unused), but uses HDD heavily.
Quote from: bytemaster on March 06, 2015, 12:09:10 amI would like to have a drop in replacement that implements this api:https://github.com/BitShares/fc/blob/master/include/fc/crypto/elliptic.hppUsing:https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1I'm making good progress. Results are promising, the ecc_test program runs about 20 times faster with libsecp256k1 than with openssl.I noticed the current implementation of public_key::mult is broken - it computes the same result as public_key::add, only in a different way. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the bitshares code.Quote from: vikram on March 06, 2015, 06:29:09 pmLatest Bitcoin Core 0.10 has switched to libsecp256k1 ONLY for signing: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/aeb92792281b4cb9958f3defc9e36f63e65b778a/doc/release-notes.md#improved-signing-securityIf we choose to integrate this into mainline BitShares I will never use it for any more functionality than latest Bitcoin uses it for.I can provide a "mixed" variant, where signing is done using openssl and verification using libsecp256k1. (My plan is to use a CMake cache var for selecting the ecc implementation to use.)
I would like to have a drop in replacement that implements this api:https://github.com/BitShares/fc/blob/master/include/fc/crypto/elliptic.hppUsing:https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1
Latest Bitcoin Core 0.10 has switched to libsecp256k1 ONLY for signing: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/aeb92792281b4cb9958f3defc9e36f63e65b778a/doc/release-notes.md#improved-signing-securityIf we choose to integrate this into mainline BitShares I will never use it for any more functionality than latest Bitcoin uses it for.
Good stuff, keep up the good work!
Just did a benchmark on libsecp256k1's current master, without GMP, without hand-written assembly, and it's around 3.6x faster than OpenSSL on my machine (64-bit code, i7 cpu). When the assembly is compiled in (which does not require any extra dependencies anymore), it's 4.9 times faster.
Quote from: jsidhu on March 06, 2015, 07:32:17 amQuote from: testz on March 06, 2015, 02:09:55 amGood starting point/example can be Auroracoin sources where it's implemented (see define USE_SECP256K1):https://compilr.com/einsteinz/auroracoin-core/src/key.cppWhole sources from compilr.com can be found here: https://mega.co.nz/#!VJYRXQ7A!7LjU3M8iXWZlf4WIoRdrZw7gYXL_abtNgjxeQTyYxPQThey just based off of latest btc.... Best to look here instead https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/16a58a86442ad587449f321c0dbab08cc028c2bdBtw secp256k1 is experimental and bitcoin hasnt given it the nod yet.. Why do this?Latest Bitcoin Core 0.10 has switched to libsecp256k1 ONLY for signing: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/aeb92792281b4cb9958f3defc9e36f63e65b778a/doc/release-notes.md#improved-signing-securityIf we choose to integrate this into mainline BitShares I will never use it for any more functionality than latest Bitcoin uses it for.
Quote from: testz on March 06, 2015, 02:09:55 amGood starting point/example can be Auroracoin sources where it's implemented (see define USE_SECP256K1):https://compilr.com/einsteinz/auroracoin-core/src/key.cppWhole sources from compilr.com can be found here: https://mega.co.nz/#!VJYRXQ7A!7LjU3M8iXWZlf4WIoRdrZw7gYXL_abtNgjxeQTyYxPQThey just based off of latest btc.... Best to look here instead https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/16a58a86442ad587449f321c0dbab08cc028c2bdBtw secp256k1 is experimental and bitcoin hasnt given it the nod yet.. Why do this?
Good starting point/example can be Auroracoin sources where it's implemented (see define USE_SECP256K1):https://compilr.com/einsteinz/auroracoin-core/src/key.cppWhole sources from compilr.com can be found here: https://mega.co.nz/#!VJYRXQ7A!7LjU3M8iXWZlf4WIoRdrZw7gYXL_abtNgjxeQTyYxPQ
Quote from: jsidhu on March 06, 2015, 07:32:17 amBtw secp256k1 is experimental and bitcoin hasnt given it the nod yet.. Why do this?secp256k1 is a set of parameters for a elliptic curve and not a piece of softwarehttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Secp256k1
Btw secp256k1 is experimental and bitcoin hasnt given it the nod yet.. Why do this?
I'll take the challenge.
Quote from: pc on March 06, 2015, 08:40:08 amI'll take the challenge.
Of course, we won't be running current code on tomorrow's hardware; we'll be running better code. CPU usage should go down by a factor of about eight in the next release when we switch to Pieter's libsecp256k1 library for validating transactions.
For the non-techies.... what is this about?