Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POWER9 Could Be A Game Changer For Cryptocurrency Mining

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • POWER9 Could Be A Game Changer For Cryptocurrency Mining

    Phoronix: POWER9 Could Be A Game Changer For Cryptocurrency Mining

    Forthcoming POWER9 processors could be a game changer for cryptocurrency mining based upon some preliminary performance data we have received...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-Crypto-Mining

  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    One you start digging into the numbers, the understanding is less clear. Correcting for suicide, demographics, and reporting methods. Looks more like a wash before you even start to examine other sorts of crimes.

    Should you stop selling stoves because a few houses have burnt down? Or will you admit a full analysis takes more than looking at a few negatives?
    The thing about firearms and suicide is that they're way more effective than most methods to commit suicide. Women attempt to commit suicide more often than men, but actual suicide deaths are weighed considerably in the direction of men primarily due to men being way more likely to use a firearm.

    In other words: A successful restriction in the access to firearms will considerably lower suicide-related deaths when much fewer attempts are successful and those who would previously have been successful can instead get help.

    I love how you try to sound oh-so-official by talking about "demographics" when you're referring to black gang violence. The thing about firearms and gang violence is that firearms are required for the #1 cause of gang violence related deaths, drive-by shootings, to be possible in the first place. It also makes murders in general way easier when compared to any other type of weapon not to mention how much higher the chance of getting caught becomes when you have to walk up to someone and stab them a dozen times or more to kill them rather than being able to shoot them from a distance.

    In other words: A successful restriction in the access to firearms will considerably lower gang violence deaths when murders become much harder to pull off, less likely to be successful and the chance of being caught and put behind bars goes up significantly.

    I also love how you immediately start talking about a total ban when the talk is actually about restricting the types of weapons available to civilians, for what use and the conditions that need to be met before someone is allowed to own a firearm, not a complete ban on firearms altogether. Having been in the army and trained to use an assault rifle I can say from personal experience that most civilians have no legitimate uses for the firepower even a semi-automatic assault rifle can offer. In all honesty it's kind of ironic how you talk about people wanting heavier restrictions on firearms being dishonest while you yourself are putting up a massive straw man with your "they want to ban all guns" attempt at an argument.

    Your stove analogy also falls completely flat on it's face at even cursory scrutiny. If a stove is misused the only person who suffers is generally the person who misuses it when their burns his/her house down and the thing about things is that they can be replaced. If a firearm is misused it's generally other people who pay the price and are killed or injured and a person cannot be replaced.

    Leave a comment:


  • WorBlux
    replied
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post

    That may be the american interpretation, but over here in europe we're smart enough to understand that handguns and other firearms for "self protection" cause more problems than they actually solve so we don't allow people to have them for that reason. You need to look no further than the almost weekly mass shootings the U.S has had for the last decade or so for an explanation as to why we restrict gun ownership a lot harder than you do.

    Just like handguns for "self defense", internet funny money causes more problems than what it actually solves or pretends to solve...
    One you start digging into the numbers, the understanding is less clear. Correcting for suicide, demographics, and reporting methods. Looks more like a wash before you even start to examine other sorts of crimes.

    Should you stop selling stoves because a few houses have burnt down? Or will you admit a full analysis takes more than looking at a few negatives?

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    There's a very good reason to have a handgun, and that's personal self defense. Likewise crypto could prove a very useful defense against central bank shenanigans (inflation, bail-ins, negative interest rates, capital controls.)
    That may be the american interpretation, but over here in europe we're smart enough to understand that handguns and other firearms for "self protection" cause more problems than they actually solve so we don't allow people to have them for that reason. You need to look no further than the almost weekly mass shootings the U.S has had for the last decade or so for an explanation as to why we restrict gun ownership a lot harder than you do.

    Just like handguns for "self defense", internet funny money causes more problems than what it actually solves or pretends to solve...

    Leave a comment:


  • WorBlux
    replied
    Originally posted by L_A_G View Post

    In all seriousness, crypto "currencies" are essentially the financial transaction equivalent of using a handgun as a hole punch. Sure it does one perfectly reasonable job, but there's plenty of other tools that do the same job without having multiple seriously less-than-legal alternative uses for the tool.
    There's a very good reason to have a handgun, and that's personal self defense. Likewise crypto could prove a very useful defense against central bank shenanigans (inflation, bail-ins, negative interest rates, capital controls.)

    Leave a comment:


  • WorBlux
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    It does not mean it comes for free for them. YOU would not want to provide services for free either, do you? It's just part of expenses.


    You do still have the option of cash. It is also untraceable.
    Yes I want to make money, but I want to do so by being good at what I do. Not because I've captured the regulatory environment and have special government protection.

    And actually all bank notes are serialized, it may only be a matter of time before all banks and ATM's are required to track which notes go out to whom. And again you conveniently ignore the international war on cash. There is no guarantee whatsoever central banks will continue to issue cash into the future.
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post

    I know ALL about the black market. I was born in Soviet Union bit before the big period of deficit began, I lived in it until I was teenager and it fell apart.
    You may want to check up how big portion of USSR's "economy" was black market and "under the counter"-system but I can just tell you - it was most of it. You went to grocery store - all you could generally get from there - were soap, salt and matches. Unless you had "hand in" and knew people - who informed you when something was coming or were willing to put something aside for you. Whole fucking system ran on special private deals, bartering and plain stealing. Akin to anarchists, officially everything was owned by State - which meant it was ripe for plucking - IF you could get away with the stealing.
    So why are you so confident that money should be controlled by the state? It's exactly what banks are doing, using "ins" with regulators to shape things to their benefit. Again the keyword is regulatory capture.

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    This ideology is as workable in reality as socialism is. It is itself faulty.
    Creating a market or voluntary system in dispute resolution is the exact opposite of socialism.
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Do make mental distinction about "not paying tax"-type of evasion and "paying-less-because-law-allows-for-it"-type of evasion. You are putting both together and treat them as same. It ain't same.
    If you are concerned about government revenues, they are the same. Legal/illegal is purely based of the written opinion of so-called "legislators".
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    US tax code is more than 70 000 pages of legal text. With enough money and resources you would eventually find some loopholes allowing you to pay less. Legally. Chasing such legal loopholes makes sense if you could save more than 1 000 000 USD in a year. Chasing such loopholes is not cost effective when you stand to save perhaps 1 000 USD in a year. Because you'd have to pay people ferreting such holes (which are moving target) tens of thousands of dollars for their effort alone. Unless you read as fast as a computer does, have IQ of 200 and legal background - you won't do it alone.
    So it's exactly the people who have the most to gain by keeping the status quo that pay the least? And the power law distribution of wealth means you are actually giving up quite a bit of revenue if the top 5% of "persons" can cut their taxes in half via complex legal menuevers.
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post

    "paying-less"-tax evasion is a completely different beast from "not paying taxes at all" cryptocurrency deals because with the latter there is no way to fucking check anyone's transactions. Whole civilization works on redistribution of wealth and also using a cut from it for providing public services. Like schools for example. Suddenly - no money in State treasury, no social welfare - nothing.
    There's a problem with your though process here... mainly in that you didn't think at all. How exactly do you have a publicly traded company without disclosing basic financial information? Schools are often funded through property tax, something that a blockchain isn't going to let you hide. Revenue, excise, tarrifs, and property tax will prevent sudden collapse.

    But even without independent blockchains, western nations are heading full speed towards bankruptcy. Increasing regulation is slowing growth while demographics have turned upside-down, leading to hundreds of trillions of unfunded liabilities in the U.S. alone. The current road is a dead end,

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post

    I bet low-income people would flat out love it. Not.
    In the long run, I think so. Poverty was steadily decreasing the the U.S. until Johnson declared a war on it, and then it flat-lined. The incentive structure of government welfare keeps people in poverty. Additionally various regulation makes it very difficult for many of the poor to climb up into the middle class or seek value outside the cash nexus. (See Charles Johnson, Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty as We Know It, and Mary Ruwart, Healing Our World)

    I think it will be a lot better for everyone to have parallel institutions established so as to allow a reasonably paced transition that to face a sudden collapse.

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Eventually it would cause way more massive difference in income - with most people dirt poor, massive increase in criminal activities (there would be no money to pay for law enforcement) etc etc.. It would eventually disrupt whole civilization and make it fall apart.
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Your "anarchism" theory is "nice" until you do have bigger civilization close-by that would help supporting your lives with stuff you won't and can't make. And keeps crimes at check. When it all falls away - you'd be no better than bunch of cavemen, along with other cavemen. Everyone taking from everyone else and fighting to death over scraps 24/7/365. That's what you want, correct? No? But it's where anarchism would lead to.
    How cute, you know socialism works, but you still believe in redistribution. The actual data however shows there is a strong correlation between economic freedom and income equality. There's always going to be a power law distribution, but it's freedom, not welfare that elevates the tail. And please don't be dramatic. Crime response and prevention (talking crimes per se here) is a small portion of current LEO budget, and LEO budget is a small portion of local budgets. And if you look at the origins of police forces it's not pretty. The first formal forces were founded in England to suppress Irish dissent. The western frontier of the U.S had much lower crime rates than the east even though it courts and police were in short supply. You also totally misrepresent cave men. (hunter-gatherer societies) were quite cooperative and sharing within the tribe. Only when resources were scarce would war with neighboring tribes break out, but in a modern society and judicious use of birth control, that really shouldn't be an issue. Historical example of Iceland, Ireland, New Jersey, and Pensylvania fail to reveal a war of all against all.
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post


    Oh, it's very special. You know why? Such organization cannot be put together out of nothing, fast. If you cannot think on it yourself, you are stupider than you think. First thing it needs, is simple common widespread literacy. Which cannot be provided without public education. Our civilization as it is now, has been built stone-by-stone over the thousands of years. Even the democracy presumes couple centuries worth of political development and ideas. Reason you simply cannot "export" it to Arabs. They utterly lack the political tradition and so the system simply falls apart in no time. There has to be tradition, sufficient amount of people who like it - agree to it's rules and work for it. Disrupt the functioning of such civilization seriously enough and it would fall apart like house of cards.
    A university also can't be put together out of nothing fact, or a car manufacture. And just because a limited democracy may be better that what was established before, doesn't mean it's the best possible system. It also doesn't mean there isn't a flaw in the foundation that must be carefully excavated, removed and replaced with something more resilient. Allowing a monopoly in dispute resolution is that flaw. It is a well recognized in the western legal tradition that no person should stand judge in their own case. However establishing a monopoly necessarily violates this rule in the cases of "government", guaranteeing continual expansion of power and control. The U.S started with the smallest least intrusive government in the western world, with the most advance legal and philosophical basis to found a government, yet it ballooned into a behemoth.

    Additionally I've studies history and know that public education is not necessary for literacy. New England had literacy rates in excess of 90% before government schools were established. What created widespread literacy were the capital advances that freed families from the necessity of child labor. Additionally literacy does not take 13 years to teach. 50 hours of one on one training is sufficient to grant basic literacy, with further advance mainly coming from practice. Public schooling was implemented to advance the goals of would-be social planners. (Against School, John Taylor Gatto)

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Let's say we do kill off the civilization and about 10% of people survives the experience. What would happen? Process of creating civilization would simply restart. Because in bigger numbers people would find safety, people would bunch together but from certain threshold you'd have to bring in shit like taxes and organization. Oh, and you'd have buttload of misery along the process of re-creating the civilization. Anarchism is just another self-destructive ideology thought about clueless and naive people who have had no encounter with harsher facets of life.
    If only 10% survive, mankind is totally fucked. Knowledge of critical systems is implicitly held in widely dispersed people. Even losing 1/3 of the global population at random would destroy modern industry. And we don't have access to the easy fossil fuels that would be needed to bring us back to this point even.

    So the point isn't to destroy, it's to build alternative parallel institutions that are simply better than what is possible under government control. Western governments are already committed financially to a path of bankruptcy. At which point give up power, control, and a lot of spending (which pretty much no government ever has voluntarily done), or go full totalitarian. We are building life-boats and emergency kits, because what mathematically cannot continue, will not continue.

    Leave a comment:


  • pavlerson
    replied
    Originally posted by arakan94 View Post

    Barely as fast as Xeon? In what?

    POWER is niche platform specialized to certain tasks. And it's WAY faster than any x86 CPU in them. This article just says that calculating hashes is one of those areas
    Oh, POWER9 is much faster than x86? Just like POWER8 is much faster than x86? Have you looked at any P8 vs x86 benchmarks? Enough said.

    Also, IBM Mainframe cpus are much faster than x86? Well, they are not. IBM has never posted any Mainframe benchmarking vs x86. Never ever. For a reason; they are dog slow. Just watch the POWER9 benchmarks, it will be hardly faster than x86. For a much higher price. Post benchmarks here, and I will agree it is faster if you can find any benhcmarks.

    Leave a comment:


  • L_A_G
    replied
    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    I think you definition of criminal is a little too narrow. Have you seen what credit cards charge merchants? Just over 3%. And a bank wire transfer starts at $10. Just for moving a couple numbers around in computer memory? And how about TARP? The customer service and fee scams you see pop up every 3 months or so? The banking monopoly needs to die.
    High credit card charges in the U.S are mostly to do with the relatively costs relating to credit card fraud, which stems from the abysmally bad security in the magstripe-based solutions the U.S has been stuck with due to merchants not wanting to invest in new infrastructure. Here in Europe chip-based solutions have been the norm since the very early 2000s and as a result retailers just have to pay for renting a terminal, which costs about 50€/month for small businesses and less for big ones with many terminals.

    Can't say I've got much experience in wire transfers, but basic bank transfers are also included in the base fee you pay for your banking services and this applies to businesses as well. All in all your complaints are really more to do with bad improper implementations of things rather than anything wrong with the underlying technology.

    And even with a strict definition, there are still transactions people may want to keep private that are perfectly legal: Abortions and other medical proceedures, sex toys and pornography, sales of used goods, and purchase of gifts. Additionally businesses may not want their competitors to be able to track all of their transactions. If crypto-currencies take off like many expect, of course there is going to be legitimate demand for some sort of privacy in day to day transactions.
    There's plenty of ways of keeping the transaction anonymous from the perspective of the seller and anyone seeing those transactions without needing to use internet funny money. The only real use for them that can't be filled by other alternatives are when you want to make transactions that you don't want law enforcement to be able to track down and those transactions tend to be for illegal goods/services and transferring money made from selling illegal goods/services.

    In all seriousness, crypto "currencies" are essentially the financial transaction equivalent of using a handgun as a hole punch. Sure it does one perfectly reasonable job, but there's plenty of other tools that do the same job without having multiple seriously less-than-legal alternative uses for the tool.

    Leave a comment:


  • aht0
    replied
    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    Banks sure don't act like they have a cash flow problem .. executive bonuses, stock buyback, speculative investments out the wazoo. And every year you can do more in a datacenter with less hardware. Even with overhead of Hashing, cryptocoins, by leveraging commodity hardware and public networks can operate with a much lower cut.
    It does not mean it comes for free for them. YOU would not want to provide services for free either, do you? It's just part of expenses.

    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    I was speaking in comparison to a open ledger cryptocurrency. An open ledger and conventional big-data tools could reveal quite a bit. If you don't think meta-data is informative, you haven't been paying attention.

    And what if the box has something a little more fetishistic? Do you want the IRS agent auditing you to know about your fetish? And some people do care even though it's none of thier business.
    You do still have the option of cash. It is also untraceable.

    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    Black markets are caused by flawed rules. When rules make open business impossible confusing, or subject to vague and arbitrary whims, people seek the black market. Cusa and the U.S.S.R were largely kept afloat my massive black markets that routed around damaging rules. We already know the half dozen or so basic conditions that make room for peace and prosperity. We also know that government often don't act to further these ends, and instead act to increase thier own power, to reward thier friends, or punish their enemies. Regulatory capture and mission bloat are great examples.
    I know ALL about the black market. I was born in Soviet Union bit before the big period of deficit began, I lived in it until I was teenager and it fell apart.
    You may want to check up how big portion of USSR's "economy" was black market and "under the counter"-system but I can just tell you - it was most of it. You went to grocery store - all you could generally get from there - were soap, salt and matches. Unless you had "hand in" and knew people - who informed you when something was coming or were willing to put something aside for you. Whole fucking system ran on special private deals, bartering and plain stealing. Akin to anarchists, officially everything was owned by State - which meant it was ripe for plucking - IF you could get away with the stealing.

    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    We anarchists won the crypto wars, not because we won hearts and minds, but simply we built crypto tools that are indepensible for everyday life. Blockchains will win because people will find money so much easier to do without middlemen. If you think that central banks won't start leveraging blockchain tech in the next five years, you haven't been paying attention.
    This ideology is as workable in reality as socialism is. It is itself faulty.

    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    Increased tax evasion is not a bad thing, as the big multinationals already do it. Once the little guys start, you'll see a shift to tax on revenue and capital, which could provide a lot more of an even playing field in business.
    Do make mental distinction about "not paying tax"-type of evasion and "paying-less-because-law-allows-for-it"-type of evasion. You are putting both together and treat them as same. It ain't same.
    US tax code is more than 70 000 pages of legal text. With enough money and resources you would eventually find some loopholes allowing you to pay less. Legally. Chasing such legal loopholes makes sense if you could save more than 1 000 000 USD in a year. Chasing such loopholes is not cost effective when you stand to save perhaps 1 000 USD in a year. Because you'd have to pay people ferreting such holes (which are moving target) tens of thousands of dollars for their effort alone. Unless you read as fast as a computer does, have IQ of 200 and legal background - you won't do it alone.

    "paying-less"-tax evasion is a completely different beast from "not paying taxes at all" cryptocurrency deals because with the latter there is no way to fucking check anyone's transactions. Whole civilization works on redistribution of wealth and also using a cut from it for providing public services. Like schools for example. Suddenly - no money in State treasury, no social welfare - nothing.

    I bet low-income people would flat out love it. Not.

    Eventually it would cause way more massive difference in income - with most people dirt poor, massive increase in criminal activities (there would be no money to pay for law enforcement) etc etc.. It would eventually disrupt whole civilization and make it fall apart.

    Your "anarchism" theory is "nice" until you do have bigger civilization close-by that would help supporting your lives with stuff you won't and can't make. And keeps crimes at check. When it all falls away - you'd be no better than bunch of cavemen, along with other cavemen. Everyone taking from everyone else and fighting to death over scraps 24/7/365. That's what you want, correct? No? But it's where anarchism would lead to.

    Originally posted by WorBlux View Post
    At the end of the day there is nothing magical or particularly special about government. It's just men and women working together. And after a great deal of research, discussion, and introspection, if firmly believe there are better ways to cooperate than to establish and maintain a coercive monopoly upon dispute resolution.
    Oh, it's very special. You know why? Such organization cannot be put together out of nothing, fast. If you cannot think on it yourself, you are stupider than you think. First thing it needs, is simple common widespread literacy. Which cannot be provided without public education. Our civilization as it is now, has been built stone-by-stone over the thousands of years. Even the democracy presumes couple centuries worth of political development and ideas. Reason you simply cannot "export" it to Arabs. They utterly lack the political tradition and so the system simply falls apart in no time. There has to be tradition, sufficient amount of people who like it - agree to it's rules and work for it. Disrupt the functioning of such civilization seriously enough and it would fall apart like house of cards.

    Let's say we do kill off the civilization and about 10% of people survives the experience. What would happen? Process of creating civilization would simply restart. Because in bigger numbers people would find safety, people would bunch together but from certain threshold you'd have to bring in shit like taxes and organization. Oh, and you'd have buttload of misery along the process of re-creating the civilization. Anarchism is just another self-destructive ideology thought about clueless and naive people who have had no encounter with harsher facets of life.
    Last edited by aht0; 11-11-2017, 09:03 AM. Reason: typo, typos, typos

    Leave a comment:


  • WorBlux
    replied
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Moving those numbers does not come free for a bank, by the way. They do have to keep up the support structure that allows you doing it in the first place. Which ain't cheap. Look up the money you need for running your own data centers.
    Banks sure don't act like they have a cash flow problem .. executive bonuses, stock buyback, speculative investments out the wazoo. And every year you can do more in a datacenter with less hardware. Even with overhead of Hashing, cryptocoins, by leveraging commodity hardware and public networks can operate with a much lower cut.

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post

    Same with criminality and need for privacy. What business can really track it's competitors transaction? Get real. In reality such powers are entitled to governmental structures, unless you are talking about some Third World corrupt shithole where business may be paying government and receive "services". If you try to do business in such place - be smarter. Nobody really fucking cares nor follows if you received non-descript box with a artificial vagina or not. To bring it as beating argument for justifying the need for cryptomining is sort of hilarious
    I was speaking in comparison to a open ledger cryptocurrency. An open ledger and conventional big-data tools could reveal quite a bit. If you don't think meta-data is informative, you haven't been paying attention.

    And what if the box has something a little more fetishistic? Do you want the IRS agent auditing you to know about your fetish? And some people do care even though it's none of thier business. And then there's the whole matter of what is and is the business of the public at large being hotly debated and ever-changing. And some people do make a big stink even though have no objective grounds to.

    Privacy, autonomy, and intamacy are intelinking basic human needs, not some hallmark of criminality. (Taliking true crime here as behavior that directly causes loss, harm, or injury)

    Originally posted by aht0 View Post

    Selective thinking. Ignore what fits you, bring up what fits you.

    Criminality. A lot of ransomware nowadays asks for cryptocurrency. All sorts of shady activities can be financed by it. If companies used it exclusively - it could evade taxes to no end - in the end fucking up whole economies. What do you think would happen to a country that has 95% of it's economy "black"? It would kill the prosperity deader than door nail faster than you can say "boo.." Do you like Africa everywhere?

    You may hate governmental structures and preach freedom but in the end - it's the hated State which provides oversight, set of rules and more or less even playground for all. Remove one - you have anarchy in no time. Back-to-feudalism-ABC.

    I fucking pray to God that countries simply banned that idiotic cryptocurrency. It would stop yet another facet of endless waste of resources (like we did not have enough already), stop speculations with graphics cards, make harder to finance criminal activities, make harder to evade taxes, make harder to hide your perversions.. Want some transaction to be anonymous - use fucking old-fashioned cash.
    I had a bigger reply here, but the board ate it. To summarize.

    Black markets are caused by flawed rules. When rules make open business impossible confusing, or subject to vague and arbitrary whims, people seek the black market. Cusa and the U.S.S.R were largely kept afloat my massive black markets that routed around damaging rules. We already know the half dozen or so basic conditions that make room for peace and prosperity. We also know that government often don't act to further these ends, and instead act to increase thier own power, to reward thier friends, or punish their enemies. Regulatory capture and mission bloat are great examples.

    We anarchists won the crypto wars, not because we won hearts and minds, but simply we built crypto tools that are indepensible for everyday life. Blockchains will win because people will find money so much easier to do without middlemen. If you think that central banks won't start leveraging blockchain tech in the next five years, you haven't been paying attention.

    Increased tax evasion is not a bad thing, as the big multinationals already do it. Once the little guys start, you'll see a shift to tax on revenue and capital, which could provide a lot more of an even playing field in business.

    And as nice as cash is, I can't make a payment remotely, and it's not very difficult to steal. Additionally, if you don't think there's an increasing Internationale effort by central banks against cash, you haven't been paying attention. They are literally drooling at the prospect of negative interest rates.

    At the end of the day there is nothing magical or particularly special about government. It's just men and women working together. And after a great deal of research, discussion, and introspection, if firmly believe there are better ways to cooperate than to establish and maintain a coercive monopoly upon dispute resolution.
    Last edited by WorBlux; 11-10-2017, 05:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X