Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 115. (Read 2591920 times)

Dropped an email to the contact address on the pool page.

Regards,

Theo

Minefast is running version 15, the custom front end creates the wacky version #.

http://61.219.120.109:9332/static/ 120TH/s P2Pool version: 14.0-6-g18b5ad5-dirty
http://minefast.coincadence.com:9332/web/version - strange version: "unknown 7032706f6f6c"

at this time of bad luck...I sent another small donation  

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/c7c190b1a746ff7a6e31f41e07588ddd893d12010ac9222ff582e256385e2f9f

The main difference is that if P2Pool ever had over X% of the global hashrate (Where X = whatever amount of centralized global hashrate you consider to be a threat), I assure you P2Pool has not, and will not ever reach that %. The community (and the software as it's written) would not allow it.

Furthermore, all folks have to do if X threshold is ever aproached or reached (through some miracle of decentralized mining) is fire up a P2Pool node of their own and mine away with the same variance as the rest of P2Pool... Heck, it's even easy to split the share chain and divide the hashrate between 2 or more P2Pool share chains, but we need a hashrate worthy of splitting first.

What centralized pool can offer that easy of a method of decentralization? None, only P2Pool and solo mining can.

Kano, everyone respects and appreciates your enormous contribution to the community and we (p2pool) are the only decentralized trustless mining pool, please stop arguing facts of the minutiae of the Pool and recognise the benefits of the trustless decentralization it provides.

I agree with Kano about p2pool concept, but the reason is not centralization only - but as I told before some online wallets do not accept generated transactions (I'd prefer Core but some guys want their BTC directly to exchanges), and another reason that some hardware like Antminer S5s often fails and hangs with direct connection to p2pool and their owners not so experienced to resolve this issue , but they still want too use p2pool for their reasons. In case p2pool software will be redesigned in some way and rewritten - it may resolve this.  We were talking about here a few pages before but there are no enthusiasts who can do it. 

I see no hypocrisy at all from me.

Yes I run a centralised pool - I'm not hiding that at all.

P2pool, on the other hand, states in the title it is a 'decentralised' pool.
However, it seems to have many 'centralised' nodes, and that 'centralisation' has only increased over the past couple of years.

Bitcoin has 'centralised' pools.
P2Pool has 'centralised' nodes.

That is your opinion and a hypocritical one I might add.  Having sub-pools with different features run by different operators to attract miners that otherwise would not participate with p2pool mining is not a bad thing for network decentralization.  It is a step forward from the centralized pools we see owning nearly all of the network today.  Maybe when p2pool has evolved a bit more, casual Bitcoin miners can easily run their own nodes.  I certainly encourage it and get nothing from users on our 0% fee node.  However, until some major issues are worked through, sub-pools may be the ONLY option for small miners who want to participate on the p2pool network without having to sacrifice regular earnings.

As stated above, though this is simply centralising a 'supposed' decentralised pool.
The point of p2pool is to not do this.
Though that is also a part of the problem with it.

That is our vision (credit to nonnakip for the work he's done on it), only we also distribute based on hashrate and not accepted p2pool shares to be fair to the little guys.  I think it is a much better solution than to run a centralized pool out of the gate.  I would love to see more p2pool sub-pools pop up with their own unique features, the way NastyPool offers our unique payout method and mining credits.  It sounds like -ck is working to help make his proxy more stable for this use which may be a huge step forward in bringing more users to the p2pool network.

It seems like in this thread there have been lots of recommendations for various settings and tweaks for bitcoind, p2pool and the various miners. It doesn't seem like anyone is correcting these anywhere. I may do so if someone is not already.

if connections thru 9333 were compressed, would it make sharing the chain faster?
or if there was added 9334 compressed as an alternative for 9333...

This is already common with p2pool making centralised mining nodes ...

Yes.

yes i have p2pool v 15.0.1, but this work?:

https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/blob/master/p2pool/work.py

 - version=min(self.current_work.value['version'], 4),
 + version=536870919,

does it mean that the best ever would be p2pool was mining to just one address and then as coins mature it would be redistributed? is not this what nasty is doing? if there was different payout mechanism implemented in p2pool it would probably solve a lot but we will hear again that it is way to lose control. so...

You need to be upgraded to the newest P2Pool version (v15.0, to support v4 blocks/BIP65) and then also make that change (if you want to support Bitcoin XT).

this change http://xtnodes.com/p2pool_configuration.php

work for new v4 ? or need different configuration for xt nodes?

Sure I got this.
Another solution (or almost the same?) is also ckpool based, this may be not so elegant as yours but looks like it may work.

One guy asked me about how to configure ckpool in proxy mode for multiple users to deal with p2pool network.
As these users do not want to install and have Core wallet but they use online wallets which not accepts generated transactions.  So in this test enviroment ckpool works like a gateway and uses the single connection from ckproxy to p2pool network and single worker (payout address).  Is this the same what you doing?

In this case original Payout module and pplns_process() calculations of ckpool will be useless for this exact case (p2pool) and it need to be rewritten because ckpool will never know about solved p2pool Block and payouts will be never calculated based on received payout from p2pool network to specified address. But in case of single node owner with multiple miners (own devices) payout is not a problem. For different miners (persons) ckpool still can be  adopted for completely another payment module and another Block detection mechanism.  
PS: I do not ask you to do it for sure, just told it is possible if someone need this solution.

So.. This is local node w/ bitcoind, p2pool and ckpool on the same server, it is running well with no DOA shares for now and I am pretty sure only because this is LOCAL node but not remote.
I still do not have statistics for long period but for 12 hours now and just 2 workers but maybe it doesn't as soon as ckproxy running well . I have made conclusion for some time of using p2pool that it is necessary to have own local node with the shortest round trip delay, in this case DOA hashrate and DOA shares are minimal.   Another issue is GBT latency but this is not related to this particular task.

1 more block for BIP65 enforcement 949/950

https://chainquery.com/bitcoin-api/getblockchaininfo

Edit: and we are there: