Nova: You have blatantly misunderstood how hash functions work, and specifically how scrypt works. I agree with WindMaster, there is no way you have made, or will make a scrypt FPGA. I advise everyone to not send Nova money.
Ok, elaborate. Please explain in laymans terms how a cryptographic hash function in general works first. Then also explain in laymans terms how scrypt differs from the SHA-256 of bitcoin.
Why should I explain it to
you in layman terms? I can only assume that you are indeed not a technical person. Besides, I have already proven that I know what I'm talking about (by for example writing a BTC miner from scratch, and the first ever open source GPU miner for LTC, which no-one has been able to improve significantly, at least not publicly). You haven't. The only reason you can't explain your ideas technically is that
you don't know what you're talking about.
If I have completely misunderstood hashing over a lifetime of programming, then I really have some long hard thinking to do.
Time doesn't give you knowledge. Time gives you the opportunity to gather knowledge. When I started coding my own miner in 2011, I had no idea what a hash function even was or how to program OpenCL. Now I know. Before I started working on my Yacoin GPU miner, I had no idea how SHA-3 or ChaCha worked. After 13.5 hours, I had a fast GPU implementation.
My guess is that you're focusing on an over simplified explanation, something I can present to people who may or may not have any sort of experience with programming or hardware dev and assuming that the reductions and omissions are there as an oversight or misunderstanding rather than the fact that they are not relevant to what I'm attempting to explain and thus intentionally omitted.
I focus on an over-simplified explanation because that's all you have given. From what I can decipher from it, it's completely bogus.
mtrlt, please enlighten us.
While doing so, don't try to point at the flaws in my explanation and say "it's not x but y & z". Instead start from scratch. Try to remember your audience here.
My audience is you, and you alone.
EDIT:
Anyways for the crux of my argument, take lines 124 through 142 which consist of the bulk of the random number generator.
These are currently implemented as defines.
defines are a sort of macro they're going to be put into the final output as the code they represent.
Ask yourself what happens if you just have that section of code isolated as it's own separate core.
Then modify the code to call into that core rather than keep repeating that section over and over again?
They are the rounds of SHA-256... not a random number generator. I am now completely sure you are completely ignorant. You also talk about #defines like they are a completely new concept to you. Are you even a programmer?