I get it. :) Being able to run Bitcoin Core on open hardware is a noble (and
important) goal! I hope that once we’ve figured out what the current
requirements are that we can adjust these requirements (if needed) to include
certain open hardware platforms. But that’s the next step. Bitcoin Core
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Jeremy Rubin
jeremy.l.rubin.tra...@gmail.com wrote:
Moxie looks fantastic! The reason I thought RISC-V was a good selection is
the very active development community which is pushing the performance of
the ISA implementations forward. Can you speak to the health
Hi Jean-Paul,
that's a very interesting point of view and I have never thought about
it this way, since I have a totally different background.
How would you go on about defining a min spec? Is this done by testing
the software on different hardware configurations or are you looking
at the
In the case of Bitcoin Core, for a starting point, you basically have to work
backwards from what we have right now. We know some of the bounds already.
Block size already tells you a lot about your bandwidth requirements, and
Pieter’s simulations gives you even more information when you take
I'm an end user running a full node on an aging laptop.
I think this is a great suggestion! I'd love to know what system
requirements are needed for running Bitcoin Core.
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Jean-Paul Kogelman jeanpaulkogel...@me.com
wrote:
I’m a game developer. I write time
I'm also a user who runs a full node, and I also like this idea. I think
Gavin has done some back-of-the-envelope calculations around this stuff,
but nothing so clearly defined as what you propose.
On 07/02/2015 08:33 AM, Mistr Bigs wrote:
I'm an end user running a full node on an aging
Might I suggest that the min-spec, if developed, target the RISC-V Rocket
architecture (running on FPGA, I suppose) as a reference point for
performance? This may be much lower performance than desirable, however, it
means that we don't lock people into using large-vendor chipsets which have
If the freedom to pick architecture exists, Moxie is a nice, compact, easy
to audit alternative:
http://moxielogic.org/blog/pages/architecture.html
https://github.com/jgarzik/moxiebox
Scaling can occur at the core level, rather than hyper-pipelining, keeping
the architecture itself nice
Ideally, the metrics that we settle on would be architecture agnostic and have
some sort of conversion metric to map it onto any specific architecture. An
Intel based architecture is going to perform vastly different from an ARM based
one for example.
Simple example: The PS3 PPE and Xbox 360
Jean-Paul,
I think you're missing what I'm saying -- the point of my suggestion to
make Rocket a min-spec is more along the lines of saying that the Rocket
serves as a fixed point, Bitcoin Core performance must be acceptable on
that platform, however it can be lower. Yes there are conversion
Hi folks,
I’m a game developer. I write time critical code for a living and have to deal
with memory, CPU, GPU and I/O budgets on a daily basis. These budgets are based
on what we call a minimum specification (of hardware); min spec for short. In
most cases the min spec is based on entry model
11 matches
Mail list logo
