Competing implementation of RandomX in JavaScript.

[l1mey112]

RandomX.js has been implemented and tested extensively against the ground truth. It reaches a hashrate of 20 H/s per thread, quite higher than the original proposed speed of 1-2 H/s, but still 5x slower than light verification on the same machine (100 H/s). Among 8-16 threads it reaches 150-200 H/s.

I suggest you take a look. This may pave way for feasible webminers, though I doubt it unless I can micro optimise it further or AES-NI instructions are added to WebAssembly SIMD.

• RandomX.js: https://www.npmjs.com/package/randomx.js
• RandomWOW.js: https://www.npmjs.com/package/randomwow.js

[hyc]

web mining was a cool idea but it'll never be as lucrative as ad placement, so webmasters have no reason to adopt it.

[SChernykh]

No AES, and no directed rounding means it will never be as fast as a native code. But only 5x difference is impressive. Also, web-mining can't use full mode (2 GB dataset), and that's another 10x slowdown.

Also,

All C++ code has been reimplemented or removed. C++ is a cancer that made the original library impossible to understand in one piece.

That's "I don't understand it therefore it's bad" attitude. C++ is a tool and it can be used in any way, including coding in C-style only. So it purely depends on the programmer, not the language itself to be "good or bad".

[hyc]

Fwiw, the use of exceptions in the C++ library has been a persistent source of hassles. IMO writing the library in C++ was always a bad idea and I rewrote it in C myself as well to remove these issues.

[l1mey112]

I have created an issue on the repository to track possible performance improvements in tiers of how meaningful they may be compared to development cost:

l1mey112/randomx.js#1