Quote from: drays on October 10, 2016, 08:09:57 PM

Quote from: adaseb on October 10, 2016, 01:17:16 AM

Here are some benchmarks from the Height problem.

One of my CPUs on Block 2300 now hashes at 8.3H/s, while at Block 23000 it will hash at 1.35H/s. This doesn't take into account the difficulty changes by then. Every CPU will linearly follow this pattern.

I have a question...

I understand it will be increasingly more complex to produce a single hash. Some people see a problem in that, and expect the chain to stop at some point.
However, if hashes are be produced less often, the blocks will be found less often, the difficulty will decrease, and block will be found again, just with less hashes contributed. Is this correct?

So in short, difficulty decrease will compensate for the increased complexity of producing a hash. Doesn't this mean there is no problem at all?

Matrix size is block height * 24576 bytes per thread. Currently that's 60 MB per thread or 560 MB for an i7 with 8 threads.
At block 1 million its 24.576 GB, at 10 million 240GB. With big Xeons it would be close to 1 TB at 1 million blocks.

I actually like the concept of increasing mining resource requirenents as block height increases because it protects against tech advancements,
faster CPU clocks, more threads, more mem, faster mem, etc.

The problem with the current algo is the curve is too steep. Memory requirements of the algo would probably increase faster than memory tech.
So what we have is an algo that is impeded from graduating to GPU* and ASIC while it's ability to mine on low end systems diminishes over time.
It's squeezed at both ends.

* I'm not familiar with GPU mining specifics but typically they have many more threads than CPUs so I assume greater memory usage.
Someone who knows please correct me.