[bitcoin-dev] Defining a min spec

Jeremy Rubin jeremy.l.rubin.travel at gmail.com
Fri Jul 3 03:13:14 UTC 2015


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
unknown, or known to be bad, security properties such as Intel AMT.

In general, targeting open hardware seems to me to be more critical than
performance metrics for the long term health of Bitcoin, however,
performance is still important.

Does anyone know how the RISC-V FPGA performance stacks up to, say, a
Raspberry Pi?

On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Owen Gunden <ogunden at phauna.org> wrote:

> 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 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
>> <jeanpaulkogelman at me.com <mailto:jeanpaulkogelman at me.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     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 machines that are available during launch, and will
>>     give the user an enjoyable experience when playing our games.
>>     Obviously, we can turn on a number of bells and whistles for people
>>     with faster machines, but that’s not the point of this mail.
>>
>>     The point is, can we define a min spec for Bitcoin Core? The number
>>     one reason for this is: if you know how your changes affect your
>>     available budgets, then the risk of breaking something due to
>>     capacity problems is reduced to practically zero.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150703/881fb610/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list