phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] BSTY - yescrypt-based cryptocoin

lists.openwall.net		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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 18:54:42 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] BSTY - yescrypt-based cryptocoin

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 02:15:27PM -0400, Bill Cox wrote:
> On 09/15/2014 01:21 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> > 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.

Oh, actually it might have been the same problem I saw.  I think I
started mining when connected, but before being fully sync'ed.  Now
sync'ing takes just a few seconds, but on the first day connections were
intermittent and sync'ing could have been slow.

> 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 :-)

Cool.

I've tried to figure out what hash rate people are getting now, from
pools' reported hash rates and worker count - but this appears to be
unreliable.  Two main BSTY pools' combined hash rate is about 1.5 times
higher than those same two pools' reported network hash rate (well, at
least they agree on the latter).

bsty.altpooler.com reports 4300 kh/s network, 3415 kh/s pool, 145 workers
bsty.nonce-pool.com reports 4300 kh/s network, 2712 kh/s pool, 117 workers

If the pool hash rate figures were correct, they'd correspond to
23k+ kh/s average speed per worker, which would be surprising, but not
impossible.  I expect Amazon's biggest CPU instance (2x E5-2680v2) to do
about 15k or maybe 16k kh/s with the current code, but some clusters use
bigger machines than Amazon's.  That said, I guess the pool hash rates
are erroneous/exaggerated by a factor of 1.5+, but I don't know why.

Alexander