Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3DD7EB88 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 10:55:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com (mail-wg0-f43.google.com [74.125.82.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC8141D6 for ; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 10:55:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgqq4 with SMTP id q4so85388806wgq.1 for ; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 03:55:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iO48Byi7QKE5ihf5BXUASDFr7tK9dQRdU22LQN1JJ80=; b=k7Feul3WZ6iWGO8N2YkOfc9opuOMXhGA1Ii8g5bOVByFOBbyZt0q2q4Bre9XaaOmBz vy0xr1UUegGTGXe2wS/LtA7bGaZikgAkMZLQX6GC5YnB0BjwmNgmSTxK4zEXvmB/aj3y 5JzHDtzD7FzYluUJGMERWMM/B3WsqH1NtqDO1CJ9gcoqFrETTrsQRlo78A0ZjJ1Lu0h/ 7NaPaCIs9WBxdwjltmmPuX6yyhmbDNTB/ZQv36bE2dbmVHlpgXDSBfDcZ1zStDyHaGvA pw82gvmDrgWd4qAx2JNYsM+0gBdZdHjHZxxEgO0HKo29B8ch2Q80M+VUf1dayfxr67dh DgWQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.79.162 with SMTP id k2mr45914799wix.46.1435920930404; Fri, 03 Jul 2015 03:55:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.28.140.196 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Jul 2015 03:55:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5595503D.2010608@phauna.org> <8019E8A9-AADF-44FE-99BF-8E1CB740E4B7@me.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 06:55:30 -0400 Message-ID: From: Jeff Garzik To: Jeremy Rubin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04374511fb80e80519f66456 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Cc: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Defining a min spec X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 10:55:33 -0000 --f46d04374511fb80e80519f66456 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Jeremy Rubin < jeremy.l.rubin.travel@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 of Moxie > development? Ultimately, ensuring support for many open architectures would > be preferable. Are there other reasonable open-source processors that you > are aware of? > > I would be willing to work on a design a Bitcoin specific open-hardware > processor, up to the FPGA bound, if this would be useful for this goal. > Moxie was designed to be small and efficient from the compiler standpoint. As a side effect, it is easy to audit from a security perspective. It started life as a simulator + gcc compiler backend, and then later became an FPGA implementation. Moxie would benefit from focused effort in building out the hardware side to be efficient on FPGA, developing and testing multi-core support and related efforts. This area is less mature and could use attention. Start at https://github.com/atgreen/moxiedev/tree/master/moxie/cores/moxie In terms of other projects, there are many open source processor cores at http://opencores.org --f46d04374511fb80e80519f66456 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:33 AM, Jeremy Rubin <jeremy.l.rubin.travel@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 o= f the ISA implementations forward. Can you speak to the health of Moxie dev= elopment? Ultimately, ensuring support for many open architectures would be= preferable. Are there other reasonable open-source processors that you are= aware of?

I would be willing to work on a design = a Bitcoin specific open-hardware processor, up to the FPGA bound, if this w= ould be useful for this goal.=C2=A0
Moxie was designed to be small and effici= ent from the compiler standpoint.=C2=A0 As a side effect, it is easy to aud= it from a security perspective.=C2=A0 It started life as a simulator + gcc = compiler backend, and then later became an FPGA implementation.

Moxie would benef= it from focused effort in building out the hardware side to be efficient on= FPGA, developing and testing multi-core support and related efforts.=C2=A0= This area is less mature and could use attention.=C2=A0 Start at=C2=A0h= ttps://github.com/atgreen/moxiedev/tree/master/moxie/cores/moxie

In terms of other projects, there are many open source p= rocessor cores at=C2=A0http://opencores.or= g

--f46d04374511fb80e80519f66456--