From 67f5b270f352b64d3b1254b86eee37ed4d00f602 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: realaravinth Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2021 13:46:31 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] fix typo and add foot note --- content/blog/pow-performance/index.md | 18 +++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/blog/pow-performance/index.md b/content/blog/pow-performance/index.md index 4a1ce07..d439b69 100644 --- a/content/blog/pow-performance/index.md +++ b/content/blog/pow-performance/index.md @@ -22,8 +22,10 @@ wouldn't offer proper protection against bots. Malicious bots(the ones that wreak havoc), run native code which is capable of running in a multi-threaded context. This creates an unfair advantage for crackers using these bots over legitimate users, who -usually | browsers to access a website. I wanted to see how much of -an advantage a native program would have over our WASM library. +usually use browsers to access a website. + +I wanted to see how much of an advantage a native program would have +over our WASM library. ## Benchmark tools @@ -110,8 +112,18 @@ I ran the tests on both Firefox and Chromium to compare results At the highest difficulty factor, the native implementation was a almost second faster than the WASM library. But the fact that both of them were able -to run to completion in under 5 seconds is impressive. +to run to completion in under 5 seconds is impressive! So, in my opinion, native implementation is only slightly faster than the WASM library and for all intents and purposes, this shouldn't matter much. + +--- + +P.S Work is underway to benchmark multiple platforms. A detailed report +will be published when that data is available. + +For this post, I asked some of my friends to run the tests on their +computers. The results slightly varied but even the slowest case +generated proof for 4500000 difficulty(the highest in this test), in under +15 seconds!