[hashcash] Re: hashcash 1.04 released

Hi, welcome to hashcash-list :-)

Following Jonathan's suggestion of MINGW, I hacked on it enough to get
it to compile on there.  And then some more to get the assembler on
(signal handler API used by assembler to detect non-MMX cpus not
supported in MINGW API set).

And it works!  (That's got to be the fastest hack-job ever:-)

I just uploaded 1.06 which now for first time in a really long time
has win32 exes.

You can get them from the binaries->windows->console menu on
http://www.hashcash.org

or if impatient:

http://www.hashcash.org/binaries/win32/hashcash.exe

and pgp sig:

http://www.hashcash.org/binaries/win32/hashcash.exe.asc

And this enables me to test on some more machines so here's a
1.4GHz celeron M:

  2535393 AMD64/x86 MMX Standard 1x2-pipe *
    Solution:   1:22:040404:foo::0123456789abcdef:0000000JaED
    Iterations: 5129101
    Time taken: 2.023

(that's MMX assembler code) and fastest C code:

  1493622 ANSI Compact 1-pipe
    Solution:   1:22:040404:foo::0123456789abcdef:0000000JaED
    Iterations: 5129101
    Time taken: 3.434

maybe as very rough estimate .6/1.4x the celeron M based on what
Jonathan said.

So 2.5 megahashes/sec * .6/1.4 = about 1 megahash/sec

1megahash = 20 bits.

So for 27 bits that would be 128secs ~ about 2mins.

(All highly rough given uncertainty about PIII 600 vs celeron M 1.4Ghz
scaling etc.)

Adam

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 04:06:28PM +0000, panta-admin wrote:
> >Hi Adam, all !!
> 
> I run an anonymous remailer with a hashcash requirement for usenet postings.
> 
> Adam, I am in dire need of a windows binary to include in my GUI.
> If minting is now much faster it needs to be updated in my minter.
> 
> I would also need it to check how long it will now take to mint tokens for 
> panta 
> (now at 27 bits) on my PIII 600. 
> Could you benchmark a few 27 bit tokens for me ?
> 
> > Still no windows compile.  Oh well.  If someone who is good at that
> > wants to compile and send patches that would be most welcome.
> > (Probably generic would be easier -- already Jonathan's C code is
> > faster).
> 
> Please if someone could do that,

Other related posts: