Momentum 2.0 Discussion

[bytemaster]

I have been thinking about ways to restore Momentum to a memory-hard problem and have had an insight that I believe changes the game.

Lets define a Birthday to be 1 MB of 'random data' that is relatively expensive to calculate and seeded with a nonce
Lets define a Collision to be the number of bits in common between two random sequences. 
The goal is to produce two nonces such that the number of bits in common between the two 1 MB sequences is above some threshold.
The cost of validation is populating 2 MB of memory, performing an XOR, and then a population count.
Now lets populate the memory with AES which has hardware acceleration on CPU but not GPU

The population of the memory is sequential which helps eliminate memory bus latency and allows the CPU to saturate the BUS.  A GPU would have an advantage in the comparison step because it could compare all birthdays with the new birthday in parallel.    That said, a GPU would be limited in parallelism because it could only store 1000 or 2000 birthdays at a time.   Even so I am not convinced that a GPU implementation would be a bad thing given the other changes we are making.

This proof is slightly harder to validate, but most of the optimization techniques used to accelerate Momentum 1.0 would not scale as well with this system and an ASIC would still require a very large amount of memory.   

What do you all have to say?

[Brekyrself]

Would this go along with the vesting period?

Botnets, ASIC, and even to an extent cloud computing should be the overall concern.  If GPU mining provides a < 50% speed boost it still levels the playing field as both CPU and GPU's will get faster with new technology.  Also, most new cpgpu's can do opencl so I do not believe GPU's should be the ultimate enemy, however momentum algorithm may limit their effectiveness which is a plus.

[bytemaster]

Would this go along with the vesting period?

Botnets, ASIC, and even to an extent cloud computing should be the overall concern.  If GPU mining provides a < 50% speed boost it still levels the playing field as both CPU and GPU's will get faster with new technology.  Also, most new cpgpu's can do opencl so I do not believe GPU's should be the ultimate enemy, however momentum algorithm may limit their effectiveness which is a plus.

Yes.  The goal was to make minor improvements in every area based upon lessons learned.  I agree that GPUs are not an enemy by themselves unless the reason the GPU successful is because the algorithm is trivial for an ASIC.   I believe this will keep ASICs and GPUs using a large amount of memory.

[Brekyrself]

Would this go along with the vesting period?

Botnets, ASIC, and even to an extent cloud computing should be the overall concern.  If GPU mining provides a < 50% speed boost it still levels the playing field as both CPU and GPU's will get faster with new technology.  Also, most new cpgpu's can do opencl so I do not believe GPU's should be the ultimate enemy, however momentum algorithm may limit their effectiveness which is a plus.

Yes.  The goal was to make minor improvements in every area based upon lessons learned.  I agree that GPUs are not an enemy by themselves unless the reason the GPU successful is because the algorithm is trivial for an ASIC.   I believe this will keep ASICs and GPUs using a large amount of memory.

Any thought on lowering the vesting time period to under 6 months?  45-90 days would be nice 

[bytemaster]

Would this go along with the vesting period?

Botnets, ASIC, and even to an extent cloud computing should be the overall concern.  If GPU mining provides a < 50% speed boost it still levels the playing field as both CPU and GPU's will get faster with new technology.  Also, most new cpgpu's can do opencl so I do not believe GPU's should be the ultimate enemy, however momentum algorithm may limit their effectiveness which is a plus.

Yes.  The goal was to make minor improvements in every area based upon lessons learned.  I agree that GPUs are not an enemy by themselves unless the reason the GPU successful is because the algorithm is trivial for an ASIC.   I believe this will keep ASICs and GPUs using a large amount of memory.

Any thought on lowering the vesting time period to under 6 months?  45-90 days would be nice 

Vesting is a separate discussion from the proof of work.   Lots of thought, but not sure how to evaluate the different periods so it is not set in stone.

[barwizi]

I think 2.0 should be even more memory intensive and have a minimum processing threshold that has a large footprint process. By raising the minimum compute power required to hash we force botnets out of business by making it very noticeable to owners that their computer is being used. Also users of instances will have to hire out more expensive machines which may not give them ROI, i ROI.

with that in mind, let us always remember that there is no such thing as ASIC resistant algo, as long as the market has enough fiat supporting it and a growing requirement for more specialized machinery, one entity will venture to make one. So a more balanced approach should include a distribution plan that evens the curve in a manner beneficial to the community.

[FreeTrade]

I'd like to suggest the following POW for consideration -

Step 1.
Generate 1GB-4GB of psuedo random data, maybe SHA512

Step 2.
Find pattern in this data
>Step 2.0 Choose starting byte, say byte 0, use nonce as seed.
>Step 2.1 Load sequential 1-2MB from data into L2 cache from starting byte
>Step 2.2 Perform simple conditional + arithmetic operations on 1-2MB data and seed to provide answer + new seed
>Step 2.3 Use answer at byte start location for next data set.
>Step 2.4 Repeat from 2.1  n times
>Step 2.5 If answer < x, problem solved
>Step 2.6 Choose new starting byte, say byte 1, repeat

Step 1 and 2.3 is designed to require minimum amount of RAM per process
Step 2.1 is designed to obviate any latency advantage of GPU
Step 2.2 is designed to harness the CPU's large L2 cache

The validation will take longer than Momentum 1.0 - as the validating system will need to generate the psuedorandom data used in the solution, maybe 20 or 40MB, but a miner will likely need to generate it all.

[Sy]

Keep in mind that you usually want a cpu coin to be mineable by everyone, the steps you are taking will reduce your audience to a smaller circle, those with more than 4 GB of RAM and such and yes, there are still ppl with 4 GB and less.

Avoiding GPUs and such is always a good thing, allowing gpus usually pushes out cpus thus shrinking the ppl who can mine even more.

Don't be so concerned about botnets and ec2, botnets were and will always be out there, just accept it, if you got the criminal energy to control a 100k+ botnet you can mine whatever you like no matter what you do - this is starting to become a DRM vs warez analogy which always ended bad for the important part, the user / customer. And ec2 is always only a viable option at the beginning, it is not cost effective pretty soon unless you front a serious amount of cash which in turn could have bought rigs aswell - same same but different

Concentrate on the core, faster retargets for the next one (4032 is really bad) and that maturing time are good.

[FreeTrade]

botnets were and will always be out there, just accept it, if you got the criminal energy to control a 100k+ botnet you can mine whatever you like no matter what you do

[liberman]

Don't be so concerned about botnets and ec2, botnets were and will always be out there, just accept it, if you got the criminal energy to control a 100k+ botnet you can mine whatever you like no matter what you do - this is starting to become a DRM vs warez analogy which always ended bad for the important part, the user / customer. And ec2 is always only a viable option at the beginning, it is not cost effective pretty soon unless you front a serious amount of cash which in turn could have bought rigs aswell - same same but different

EC2 is all right, as you have to pay for it. The only inconvenience is that at the end the money goes to Amazon.
But botnets... how can we accept those? Do we want criminals to be part of our organization?
I don't like the idea of sharing my parts with such people. And the more shares they STEAL, the less we decent people have.

[Sy]

Don't be so concerned about botnets and ec2, botnets were and will always be out there, just accept it, if you got the criminal energy to control a 100k+ botnet you can mine whatever you like no matter what you do - this is starting to become a DRM vs warez analogy which always ended bad for the important part, the user / customer. And ec2 is always only a viable option at the beginning, it is not cost effective pretty soon unless you front a serious amount of cash which in turn could have bought rigs aswell - same same but different

EC2 is all right, as you have to pay for it. The only inconvenience is that at the end the money goes to Amazon.
But botnets... how can we accept those? Do we want criminals to be part of our organization?
I don't like the idea of sharing my parts with such people. And the more shares they STEAL, the less we decent people have.

Unless you come up with an idea how to prevent a botcontrolled pc from mining but a normal one not without crippling everything and making the whole process a pain in the ass, thats the way it is and you are just whining because you think something is unfair - welcome to the real world.

[liberman]

Don't be so concerned about botnets and ec2, botnets were and will always be out there, just accept it, if you got the criminal energy to control a 100k+ botnet you can mine whatever you like no matter what you do - this is starting to become a DRM vs warez analogy which always ended bad for the important part, the user / customer. And ec2 is always only a viable option at the beginning, it is not cost effective pretty soon unless you front a serious amount of cash which in turn could have bought rigs aswell - same same but different

EC2 is all right, as you have to pay for it. The only inconvenience is that at the end the money goes to Amazon.
But botnets... how can we accept those? Do we want criminals to be part of our organization?
I don't like the idea of sharing my parts with such people. And the more shares they STEAL, the less we decent people have.

Unless you come up with an idea how to prevent a botcontrolled pc from mining but a normal one not without crippling everything and making the whole process a pain in the ass, thats the way it is and you are just whining because you think something is unfair - welcome to the real world.

I had an idea that I put in the other thread. I just repeat it here:

Why don't you use signed mining?
I mean: to be a miner, you must be aproved by Invictus and recive a key to be able to mine, and any client which tries to mine without being signed cannot find a block. You can also impose limits on the amount one miner can mine.
Then, after the 6 months period, you just release a new version which removes the signing requirement.
You can even sell a license to mine, but please make it cheap.

I don't exactly know how this could be implemented, but I'm sure you can think ways.

And another answer from BitMinerN8:

I also had this idea on my way driving to work this morning. It's great to have so many people thinking about it. I don't have it fully fleshed out either, but I think we can all agree that we don't want it centralized. There needs to be some method of Mining Contracts or Mining DAC's that utilize Keyhotee ID's. Something that tied mining availability, the right to work, to a reward system. This along with difficulty keeps it from spinning out of control.

[Sy]

Which brings me straight back to my prevous quote - dont make it a pain in the ass.

You guys sound like the music industry and mp3s - just accept that there is a part you can't control and don't make it hard for everyone else - you are not really missing out, every miner still gets the same with or without botnets mining.

This is the internet, you are doomed if you try to control everything - signed mining, seriously? For a currency which greatest benefit has always been anonymity... 

[liberman]

Which brings me straight back to my prevous quote - dont make it a pain in the ass.

You guys sound like the music industry and mp3s - just accept that there is a part you can't control and don't make it hard for everyone else - you are not really missing out, every miner still gets the same with or without botnets mining.

This is the internet, you are doomed if you try to control everything - signed mining, seriously? For a currency which greatest benefit has always been anonymity... 

Please, don't compare us with music industry, it has absolutely nothing to do. This is about a business model and how shares could be distributed, not about copyright.

1. We don't want to make it hard for everyone, just for botnets. And this is what this thread is all about.
2. Every good miner gets much less than it could if there were no botnets.
3. Invictus and their supporters get less if they put things easy to botnets.
4. Nobody says nothing against anonimity, but about identity, which is what Keyhotee is all about.
5. This is an idea of Invictus, they are free to impose the rules they want. If you don't like them, don't use the system or fork it.

¿Perhaps you have something to loose so you insist so much about not putting things difficult to botnets?

[phoenix]

I definitely like the idea of restoring the momentum to the POW algorithm. I think the comparison step might be to easy for a GPU, although that might not be a bad thing for the network, as long as it stays ASIC resistant.