lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 14:15:27 -0400
From: Bill Cox <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] BSTY - yescrypt-based cryptocoin

Hash: SHA1

On 09/15/2014 01:21 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:06:53AM -0400, Bill Cox wrote:
>> On 09/09/2014 11:15 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:45:28PM -0400, Bill Cox wrote:
>>>> On 09/09/2014 01:36 PM, Bill Cox wrote:
>>>>> I just started it up on my testing server (yes, my son's 
>>>>> MineCraft server).  With your patch it does up to 3,100-ish
>>>>>  hashes/second, slightly below what your processor does.
>>>>> It has mined 1,388 BSTY so far.  I'm rich! :-P
>>> Sorry to disappoint you, but it appears they have another
>>> nasty bug in there (and probably more).  It looks like some
>>> systems (all 64-bit?) mine a different blockchain from 32-bit
>>> ones (which are apparently the majority, due to Windows binary
>>> wallet).  I reported it and provided some detail, so I hope
>>> they'll figure this out and deal with it somehow.
>> Haha!  That's pretty funny.  I let my son's MineCraft server
>> keep running, and it's happily mining away on the wrong block
>> chain.
> My initial guess is not confirmed: I've just pulled the revised
> wallet code with some unrelated(?) changes made to it (including my
> changes to enable the SIMD code), and its 64-bit build works just
> fine on the same system where a 64-bit build previously failed for
> me.  So I guess the bug was different (and I guess it's still in
> there and might show up again in some builds or after some more
> changes).  I've e-mailed the developer with these observations.

They have another bug where if you start mining before syncing, you
wind up creating an alternate chain where people get stuck forever.
Some people are even trying to trade the coins on the wrong branch :-p

They had trouble syncing people initially, so many of us just started
mining anyway, and that didn't work out.  I've switched to the main
chain, which required deleting my copy of everything and starting
over.  I've won 6 blocks so far with my son's MineCraft server, so
it's still fun.  He wants half :-)

>> I'll leave it running for the entertainment value :-)
> Actually, it is possible that you mined those 1,388 BSTY just fine,
> if your build was luckier than mine.  I only have 0.01 BSTY from a
> faucet now (in the new wallet), as well as tens of thousands of
> fake BSTY in the unlucky-build old wallet (which only some other
> nodes were willing to confirm - perhaps the similarly unlucky
> ones).
> Perhaps it's some out-of-bounds memory access problem, or maybe
> it's padding of fields in a struct (whereas other portions of code
> use the struct as if it were packed, with no field alignments), or
> similar.
> I am not willing to spend time debugging the wallet.  Someone else
> may.
> Meanwhile, there's standalone minerd:
> which works fine for me (and the rebuilt new wallet happens to
> work, too).  It does 11.03 kh/s on 2x E5-2670, and 3.47 kh/s on
> i7-4770K. (I built it with "-O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=native"
> on each.)
> There are also several pools (3 of them so far?)  This one works
> for me, along with minerd above:
> Alexander

Thanks for the pointers!  I had to start over, but I'm just letting it
run constantly at about 3,200 h/s.  I'm kind of enjoying letting it
run without a pool for now.

Version: GnuPG v1


Powered by blists - more mailing lists