Donations to open source a GPU Protoshares miner (PTS)

[jagali2014]

i am getting the following error

balu@jagali:~/cudapts$ make -f makefile.unix
make: ./osfinder.sh: Command not found
make: ./osfinder.sh: Command not found
make: ./osfinder.sh: Command not found
g++ -c -O2  -fpermissive -o obj/cpuid.o cpuid.c
yasm -f elf64 -o obj/sha512_avx.o intel/sha512_avx.asm
make: yasm: Command not found
make: *** [obj/sha512_avx.o] Error 127

[jbutta2k13]

I have attempted to compile the code.  However, I get the following errors under cygwin 64..
 
make -f makefile.mingw64
yasm -f win64 -D WINABI -o obj/sha512_avx.o_asm intel/sha512_avx.asm
yasm -f win64 -D WINABI -o obj/sha512_sse4.o_asm intel/sha512_sse4.asm
g++ -c -O2 -march=athlon64 -mmmx -msse -msse2   -fpermissive -o obj/sha512.o_amd                               sha512.c
g++ -c -O1 -march=athlon64 -mmmx -msse -msse2   -fpermissive -o obj/sph_sha2.o_a                              md sph_sha2.c
g++ -c -O1 -march=athlon64 -mmmx -msse -msse2   -fpermissive -o obj/sph_sha2big.                              o_amd sph_sha2big.c
g++ -c -O2 -march=athlon64 -mmmx -msse -msse2  -mthreads -w -Wall -Wextra -Wform                              at -Wformat-security -Wno-unused-parameter  -DWIN32 -D_WINDOWS -DBOOST_THREAD_US                              E_LIB -DBOOST_SPIRIT_THREADSAFE  -I"/home/jng/cudapts-master/cudapts-master" -I"                              /usr/local/include" -o obj/main_poolminer.o_amd main_poolminer.cpp
main_poolminer.cpp:18:25: fatal error: sys/syscall.h: No such file or directory
 #include <sys/syscall.h>
                         ^
compilation terminated.
makefile.mingw64:66: recipe for target 'obj/main_poolminer.o_amd' failed
make: *** [obj/main_poolminer.o_amd] Error 1

i dont see a file in the github for syscall.h...also, how do I find the boost suffix?,  I am almost there, so your help is appreciated.

[dga]

DGA,
   Around here we don't do "contracts" but operate on the basis of trust and informal/non-binding agreements.  My entire trust with the community and valuation of PTS, AGS, and future in the bitcoin space is on the line and I am very well known.   So that is more of a guarantee than any signed contract, it is in my best interest to do right by everyone I deal with.
 
   It is nice that it is based on ptsminer so does that mean it works with standard pools?

   Post the code and when I hear feedback from those on the forum that it works I will pay you 160 PTS. 

Dan
   

ponder.

Done.

It's on github now.

[bytemaster]

DGA,
   Around here we don't do "contracts" but operate on the basis of trust and informal/non-binding agreements.  My entire trust with the community and valuation of PTS, AGS, and future in the bitcoin space is on the line and I am very well known.   So that is more of a guarantee than any signed contract, it is in my best interest to do right by everyone I deal with.
 
   It is nice that it is based on ptsminer so does that mean it works with standard pools?

   Post the code and when I hear feedback from those on the forum that it works I will pay you 160 PTS. 

Dan
   

[dga]

I've put all of the code except the .cu file on github to verify that this format for a release meets your expectations.

https://github.com/dave-andersen/cudapts

I've licensed my own parts of the code under Apache2.  Because it's based on ptsminer, the .cpp and .hpp files are covered under whatever copyright they started out as, which seems to be lost in the Mac port that I started with.  But the core important thing is the .cu code, and that's basically free for anyone to do anything with.

  -Dave

How about a contract signed by your PTS address, and I'll trust based on that and upload the .cu file?

  -Dave

[dga]

Let me know what you all think.

  -Dave

Would you release this open source for 100 PTS?

I think it's worth more (but then again, I'd say that.  *grin*), but I want to do the right thing by the community, also (or I'd sell it privately as I suspect the previous people to do this did).  How about half the earlier bounty paid for the non-implementation proof, which would be about 160 PTS at current exchange?

  -Dave

If you produce it open source and at least one other person on this forum is able to compile and replicate your results then I will provide 160 PTS to have this in the open for everyone and maintain a fair playing field.

OK.

What's the right approach for ensuring that we can both trust each other on this one?  You have a verification mechanism by having someone replicate the results, which seems appropriate, but is there a similar surety on my side?

I'll start getting the source ready for a quick release now.  I'll update it over the coming weekend to be easier to build and use.

  -Dave

A first cut release is ready.

I've put all of the code except the .cu file on github to verify that this format for a release meets your expectations.

https://github.com/dave-andersen/cudapts

I've licensed my own parts of the code under Apache2.  Because it's based on ptsminer, the .cpp and .hpp files are covered under whatever copyright they started out as, which seems to be lost in the Mac port that I started with.  But the core important thing is the .cu code, and that's basically free for anyone to do anything with.

  -Dave

[dga]

Let me know what you all think.

  -Dave

Would you release this open source for 100 PTS?

I think it's worth more (but then again, I'd say that.  *grin*), but I want to do the right thing by the community, also (or I'd sell it privately as I suspect the previous people to do this did).  How about half the earlier bounty paid for the non-implementation proof, which would be about 160 PTS at current exchange?

  -Dave

If you produce it open source and at least one other person on this forum is able to compile and replicate your results then I will provide 160 PTS to have this in the open for everyone and maintain a fair playing field.

OK.

What's the right approach for ensuring that we can both trust each other on this one?  You have a verification mechanism by having someone replicate the results, which seems appropriate, but is there a similar surety on my side?

I'll start getting the source ready for a quick release now.  I'll update it over the coming weekend to be easier to build and use.

  -Dave

A first cut release is ready.

[dga]

Let me know what you all think.

  -Dave

Would you release this open source for 100 PTS?

I think it's worth more (but then again, I'd say that.  *grin*), but I want to do the right thing by the community, also (or I'd sell it privately as I suspect the previous people to do this did).  How about half the earlier bounty paid for the non-implementation proof, which would be about 160 PTS at current exchange?

  -Dave

If you produce it open source and at least one other person on this forum is able to compile and replicate your results then I will provide 160 PTS to have this in the open for everyone and maintain a fair playing field.

OK.

What's the right approach for ensuring that we can both trust each other on this one?  You have a verification mechanism by having someone replicate the results, which seems appropriate, but is there a similar surety on my side?

I'll start getting the source ready for a quick release now.  I'll update it over the coming weekend to be easier to build and use.

  -Dave

[bytemaster]

Let me know what you all think.

  -Dave

Would you release this open source for 100 PTS?

I think it's worth more (but then again, I'd say that.  *grin*), but I want to do the right thing by the community, also (or I'd sell it privately as I suspect the previous people to do this did).  How about half the earlier bounty paid for the non-implementation proof, which would be about 160 PTS at current exchange?

  -Dave

If you produce it open source and at least one other person on this forum is able to compile and replicate your results then I will provide 160 PTS to have this in the open for everyone and maintain a fair playing field. 

[dga]

Let me know what you all think.

  -Dave

Would you release this open source for 100 PTS?

I think it's worth more (but then again, I'd say that.  *grin*), but I want to do the right thing by the community, also (or I'd sell it privately as I suspect the previous people to do this did).  How about half the earlier bounty paid for the non-implementation proof, which would be about 160 PTS at current exchange?

  -Dave

[bytemaster]

Hi, all - I posted this on bitcointalk, but figured it's most relevant here.  For those who don't follow things over there, I developed the improved Nvidia mining code for scrypt coins (LTC, etc.) last month.

I have a working prototype of an nvidia-based GPU miner for Protoshares, and I'm convinced that it's not going to utterly disrupt the ecosystem - the GPU is better than CPU, but not so much so that a good CPU won't compete.  At least, until other people improve upon my code.  Also, as you'll see below, mining with a GPU is very power efficient (and the $ mined per kilowatt-hour spent is better than for any other coin).

I don't want to go the route of long-term maintaining this or releasing closed-source builds that siphon off a portion of the mining income, though I like that model a lot.  Instead, I'd like to ask for tips _now_ in advance of releasing it open source.  I contacted the Protoshares company about their bounty, but heard nothing yet.

Is there a kickstarter-equivalent in bitcoin, or a recommended best way to do this?

Here are the numbers I can put together.  Note that there's still work to be done to make this thing friendly.  Right now it's about in the same state as the Nvidia miner code I released for scrypt/LTC.  Gunky to compile, not platform friendly, etc.

Dual GTX 690s:  2400 c/s at 115W at 10% CPU.
650Ti:  330-340 c/s at 1% CPU.
Macbook Pro with GT 650M:  200 c/s.
Tesla K20c:  ~800c/s.

As with my previous release, this may be Kepler-only, but I think the algorithm will work on Fermi.  Part of why I want to open source it is to let the community build upon it.  I know that there's more performance that could be tuned into it - probably on the order of 30% but maybe 200%.  I also think it's likely that there's an existing GPU implemention running privately, and this release would level the field a bit.

Let me know what you all think.

  -Dave

Would you release this open source for 100 PTS?

[kana]

I think most people will need more profit before they do anything.

[dga]

Hi, all - I posted this on bitcointalk, but figured it's most relevant here.  For those who don't follow things over there, I developed the improved Nvidia mining code for scrypt coins (LTC, etc.) last month.

I have a working prototype of an nvidia-based GPU miner for Protoshares, and I'm convinced that it's not going to utterly disrupt the ecosystem - the GPU is better than CPU, but not so much so that a good CPU won't compete.  At least, until other people improve upon my code.  Also, as you'll see below, mining with a GPU is very power efficient (and the $ mined per kilowatt-hour spent is better than for any other coin).

I don't want to go the route of long-term maintaining this or releasing closed-source builds that siphon off a portion of the mining income, though I like that model a lot.  Instead, I'd like to ask for tips _now_ in advance of releasing it open source.  I contacted the Protoshares company about their bounty, but heard nothing yet.

Is there a kickstarter-equivalent in bitcoin, or a recommended best way to do this?

Here are the numbers I can put together.  Note that there's still work to be done to make this thing friendly.  Right now it's about in the same state as the Nvidia miner code I released for scrypt/LTC.  Gunky to compile, not platform friendly, etc.

Dual GTX 690s:  2400 c/s at 115W at 10% CPU.
650Ti:  330-340 c/s at 1% CPU.
Macbook Pro with GT 650M:  200 c/s.
Tesla K20c:  ~800c/s.

As with my previous release, this may be Kepler-only, but I think the algorithm will work on Fermi.  Part of why I want to open source it is to let the community build upon it.  I know that there's more performance that could be tuned into it - probably on the order of 30% but maybe 200%.  I also think it's likely that there's an existing GPU implemention running privately, and this release would level the field a bit.

Let me know what you all think.

  -Dave