Quote from: jgarzik on August 15, 2010, 17:46:27 the extended-help might have been based on my idea, but the code was somewhat different. The idea was the main part.  When you posted your patch, I realized it should have been done that way instead of “-?”.  I always had reservations […]

This is a good point.  I don’t think I underestimated people’s ability to generate bitcoins efficiently and legitimately – the difficulty adjustment does a good job of compensating for that, and that makes it a non-issue in my scenario.  But I probably underestimated the effect of minters using other people’s […]

0.3.10 has tcatm’s 4-way SSE2 as an option switch. Use the switch “-4way” to turn it on.  Without the switch you get Crypto++ ASM SHA-256. I could only get this working with Linux. Download: Get 0.3.10 from http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827.0 Please report back your CPU and results!  I think it’s pretty clear […]

Well, reporting back. I got it to compile by specifying -msse and -msse2 to gcc when compiling. I first was hashing about 692kh/s (50% of SVN r130[1400kh/s]) but recompiled and am now receiving about ~1120kh/s. This is currently the equivalent of using both of my CPUs without HyperThreading, though I […]

Looks like we’re triggering a compiler bug in the tree optimizer. Can you try to compile it -O0? MinGW GCC 4.5.0: Crypto++ doesn’t work, X86_SHA256_HashBlocks() never returns I only got 4-way working with test.cpp but not when called by BitcoinMiner MinGW GCC 4.4.1: Crypto++ works 4-way SIGSEGV GCC is definitely […]

Looks like we’re triggering a compiler bug in the tree optimizer. Can you try to compile it -O0? Got the test working on 32-bit with MinGW GCC 4.5.  Exactly 50% slower than stock with Core 2. Related posts: Re: 4 hashes parallel on SSE2 CPUs for 0.3.6 If you haven’t […]

If you haven’t already, try aligning thash.  It might matter.  Couldn’t hurt. Quote from: tcatm on August 14, 2010, 00:53:07 Looks like we’re triggering a compiler bug in the tree optimizer. Can you try to compile it -O0? No help from -O0, same error. MinGW is GCC 3.4.5.  Probably the […]

Just a question for whoever, trying to wrap up the information in this thread. Does this: 1. Work on 32-bit? 2. Patch the SVN (r130 as of current) or Git? 3. Compile on CentOS? If anyone has any answers I would greatly appreciate them. MinGW on Windows has trouble compiling […]

Quote from: jgarzik on August 13, 2010, 20:13:30 What happens when we desire to return additional information, beyond tx-id? For the sake of future compatibility, it seems like the flag should present a choice between returning (a) just the current ‘sent’, or (b) a JSON map containing tx-id, and perhaps […]

[…] Yes, I am talking about the hypothetical system. The way I proposed the system, each time a block gets generated every validating node must accept or reject that block by validating the transactions and confirming the hashes in the block. In effect, the same work that is being done […]