|
|
|
|
|
|
by quirino
728 days ago
|
|
|
I'm glad you had some fun! This experiment went about as well as I could hope! If anyone's curious, I'm getting 4.5MH/s single-threaded and 12.2MH/s multi-threaded on a slightly old i7 with 4 cores. It's my own C++ implementation, which I've made about 20% faster than the fastest one I found online (Zig/stdlib, also tried Go/stdlib, C++/cgminer, rust/ring, C++/VanitySearch and Python/stdlib). I think it might be faster just because I was able to skip some steps, since all inputs are short and of the same length. I've just finished testing 10^12 inputs. I think I'll stop with 10 zeroes, which is very likely to happen in the next couple of days, according to my calculations. I might revisit it later to learn some GPU programming. |
|
|
But same, I also was able to skip some steps as I can make some assumptions about the input as its fixed in length and doesn't need padding.
I got lucky and found a hash with 12 zeroes in 60s with my OpenCL implementation, and now I got my second spot back.
GPUs are so crazy