[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 245.

mahrens917

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: mahrens917 on December 31, 2014, 06:27:09 AM

Quote from: yslyung on December 31, 2014, 04:26:55 AM

hi guys,

how can i be added to the p2pool list such as the ones here : http://nodes.p2pool.co/

my pool is captminerp2pool.ddns.net:9332 this is in malaysia so i hope i can add to the worldwide p2p node expansion.

thx

I can add you but it might take a day or two.

I got it done early. Please check it. Thanks.

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: windpath on December 31, 2014, 01:26:33 PM

if I understand your question; pointing all miners to the same address will give you lower transaction fees when you go to spend your mining income...

I believe it's miniscule, but I think you are correct.

M

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: yslyung on December 31, 2014, 07:10:53 AM

Quote from: mahrens917 on December 31, 2014, 06:27:09 AM

Quote from: yslyung on December 31, 2014, 04:26:55 AM

hi guys,

how can i be added to the p2pool list such as the ones here : http://nodes.p2pool.co/

my pool is captminerp2pool.ddns.net:9332 this is in malaysia so i hope i can add to the worldwide p2p node expansion.

thx

I can add you but it might take a day or two.

Thx. As long i get added to the list to join the gamg.

@patman what pool is that with diff of 1? If p2p why 1? Shouldn't it be at default 999.9xxxxxx ?

Also another question but I'm sure it has been brought up before...
what is the or any difference if i point all miners to 1 add or each miner 1 add to be pointed at a p2pool. Either way the diff is still the same at 999.9xxxx except i do sometimes see the worker submitted shares more than once msg.

Thx again

if I understand your question; pointing all miners to the same address will give you lower transaction fees when you go to spend your mining income...

yslyung

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1002

Mine Mine Mine

Quote from: mahrens917 on December 31, 2014, 06:27:09 AM

Quote from: yslyung on December 31, 2014, 04:26:55 AM

hi guys,

how can i be added to the p2pool list such as the ones here : http://nodes.p2pool.co/

my pool is captminerp2pool.ddns.net:9332 this is in malaysia so i hope i can add to the worldwide p2p node expansion.

thx

I can add you but it might take a day or two.

Thx. As long i get added to the list to join the gamg.

@patman what pool is that with diff of 1? If p2p why 1? Shouldn't it be at default 999.9xxxxxx ?

Also another question but I'm sure it has been brought up before...
what is the or any difference if i point all miners to 1 add or each miner 1 add to be pointed at a p2pool. Either way the diff is still the same at 999.9xxxx except i do sometimes see the worker submitted shares more than once msg.

Thx again

mahrens917

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: yslyung on December 31, 2014, 04:26:55 AM

hi guys,

how can i be added to the p2pool list such as the ones here : http://nodes.p2pool.co/

my pool is captminerp2pool.ddns.net:9332 this is in malaysia so i hope i can add to the worldwide p2p node expansion.

thx

I can add you but it might take a day or two.

yslyung

legendary

Activity: 1500

Merit: 1002

Mine Mine Mine

hi guys,

how can i be added to the p2pool list such as the ones here : http://nodes.p2pool.co/

my pool is captminerp2pool.ddns.net:9332 this is in malaysia so i hope i can add to the worldwide p2p node expansion.

thx

mahrens917

member

Activity: 78

Merit: 10

Quote from: jcumins on December 30, 2014, 09:14:03 PM

Ok I have a question. What are people setting there p2pool max connections for inbound and outbound settings to. What is a good number that's efficient and one not to give al the work away either.

currently i have 13 peers and 7 inbound.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-guide-for-mining-efficiently-on-p2pool-includes-fud-repellent-and-faq-153232 recommends 8 in and 4 out. The author determined this number based off of the impact of increased bandwidth of more node connections versus the resulting effect on node efficiency.

Nodes.p2pool.co shows the number of peers of all the public p2pool nodes.

jcumins

full member

Activity: 312

Merit: 100

Bcnex - The Ultimate Blockchain Trading Platform

Ok I have a question. What are people setting there p2pool max connections for inbound and outbound settings to. What is a good number that's efficient and one not to give al the work away either.

currently i have 13 peers and 7 inbound.

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C

Well, I was hoping to do a report on how the S5 performs with p2pool, but as I'm unable to get a response from Bitmain about where the cgminer config file is located in order to change the --queue setting from 8192 to something a little more civil, it wouldn't be an accurate test.

I can say that it works, but that's about it. The reject rate is ~4-5% though, which is higher than all my other equipment by ~2-3%. I'm pretty sure that adjusting the queue setting will reduce the stale/DOA rate, but until I can find where it is I can't say for sure.

If anyone finds out, please let me know, Ta.

EDIT: Found it!

Quote from: IYFTech on December 30, 2014, 12:00:58 PM

Quote from: BITMAIN_XLXUE on December 29, 2014, 09:52:43 PM

Quote from: IYFTech on December 29, 2014, 07:40:52 PM

Philipma,

Do you know where the cgminer conf file is? I can't find it anywhere - seems to be a different file system to Bitmains usual setup. I want to change the --queue setting, it's set at 8192!!

Cheers.

Hello：
You can modify 'user_setting' file in /config directory to change --queue setting.

Yes! Excellent - thank you

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C

Quote from: mdude77 on December 29, 2014, 07:22:49 PM

If you PM me the results from the "get miner info" button, I'll add formal support for it.

M

PM'd

Nice one - thanks!

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: IYFTech on December 29, 2014, 07:17:55 PM

Quote from: mdude77 on December 29, 2014, 06:24:29 PM

Quote from: PatMan on December 29, 2014, 03:10:56 PM

Soooo, fired up the S5 and......it's a dud Roll Eyes

One board not hashing.......hay ho.

Seems like things haven't changed. Sad

M

PatMan dude, is your middle name lucky? Cheesy

WTF is it with you & Bitmain, I've never known anyone get so much grief...... Tongue

I feel for ya dude, got mine today & it runs OK.....touch wood.

Has anyone found where the cgminer .conf file is yet? They got the -queue set at 8192 ffs.
It's a different file system to the S3 & S4 from what I can see, but Mdudes monitor works if you set it to S3 - so that's handy

If you PM me the results from the "get miner info" button, I'll add formal support for it.

M

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C

Quote from: mdude77 on December 29, 2014, 06:24:29 PM

Quote from: PatMan on December 29, 2014, 03:10:56 PM

Soooo, fired up the S5 and......it's a dud Roll Eyes

One board not hashing.......hay ho.

Seems like things haven't changed. Sad

M

PatMan dude, is your middle name lucky? Cheesy

WTF is it with you & Bitmain, I've never known anyone get so much grief...... Tongue

I feel for ya dude, got mine today & it runs OK.....touch wood.

Has anyone found where the cgminer .conf file is yet? They got the -queue set at 8192 ffs.
It's a different file system to the S3 & S4 from what I can see, but Mdudes monitor works if you set it to S3 - so that's handy

mdude77

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1001

Quote from: PatMan on December 29, 2014, 03:10:56 PM

Soooo, fired up the S5 and......it's a dud Roll Eyes

One board not hashing.......hay ho.

Seems like things haven't changed. Sad

M

jonnybravo0311

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1024

Mine at Jonny's Pool

Quote from: PatMan on December 29, 2014, 03:53:59 PM

Update: Make that a half dead dud........

Awww man... that sucks Sad

. Hopefully Bitmain will hook you up with a speedy RMA and a bit of compensation (good luck with that, by the way).

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....

Update: Make that a half dead dud........

PatMan

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1000

Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....

Soooo, fired up the S5 and......it's a dud Roll Eyes

One board not hashing.......hay ho.

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

Quote from: jonnybravo0311 on December 28, 2014, 04:19:10 PM

Quote from: windpath on December 28, 2014, 04:07:34 PM

...

When the 0.9.x core was released, there was that whole heart bleed issue. A lot of people never bothered upgrading from the 0.8.x version because of this.

Agreed, I jumped into that upgrade and was vulnerable when Heartbleed was discovered (don't keep coins on my nodes so no worries).

It's worth noting that Heartbleed had nothing to do with Bitcoin but was a bug in OpenSSL...

jonnybravo0311

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1024

Mine at Jonny's Pool

Quote from: windpath on December 28, 2014, 04:07:34 PM

I think this is relevant:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qmrh8/bitcoin_093_came_out_in_september_but_still/

The question:

Quote

Bitcoin 0.9.3 came out in September but still doesn't even make up 50% of the network. Why? (self.Bitcoin)

As far as I know there is nothing controversial about 9.3 and yet it has been rejected by over half of the network. What is happening?

It seems weird if the answer is just laziness. Someone that runs a bitcoin node would presumably be a person that is fairly deep into bitcoin.

Is this effect a thing we are going to start to run into issues with? If non-controversial branches are failing to hit 50% is there a big risk that a branch that had more far reaching changes would struggle? Or is the consensus that all these updates are worthless to the normal person and a big update would excite the crowd into action?

Theymos's response (which I agree with):

Quote

Older versions are still supported, and they still contribute to the network. 0.10 can efficiently download the chain from nodes as old as 0.3.18, for example. Each new version tends to add a few new protocol features and improvements, but it's not necessary for everyone to upgrade. In fact, it's probably good if the majority of the network doesn't upgrade for several months in case the new version has a serious bug.

I don't think it is a huge concern short term, long term if there is a problem we will have to figure out how to get it fixed...

When the 0.9.x core was released, there was that whole heart bleed issue. A lot of people never bothered upgrading from the 0.8.x version because of this.

windpath

legendary

Activity: 1258

Merit: 1027

I think this is relevant:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qmrh8/bitcoin_093_came_out_in_september_but_still/

The question:

Quote

Bitcoin 0.9.3 came out in September but still doesn't even make up 50% of the network. Why? (self.Bitcoin)

As far as I know there is nothing controversial about 9.3 and yet it has been rejected by over half of the network. What is happening?

It seems weird if the answer is just laziness. Someone that runs a bitcoin node would presumably be a person that is fairly deep into bitcoin.

Is this effect a thing we are going to start to run into issues with? If non-controversial branches are failing to hit 50% is there a big risk that a branch that had more far reaching changes would struggle? Or is the consensus that all these updates are worthless to the normal person and a big update would excite the crowd into action?

Theymos's response (which I agree with):

Quote

Older versions are still supported, and they still contribute to the network. 0.10 can efficiently download the chain from nodes as old as 0.3.18, for example. Each new version tends to add a few new protocol features and improvements, but it's not necessary for everyone to upgrade. In fact, it's probably good if the majority of the network doesn't upgrade for several months in case the new version has a serious bug.

I don't think it is a huge concern short term, long term if there is a problem we will have to figure out how to get it fixed...

jedimstr

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

The problem with everyone waiting for the stable version to be out is that it will leave no time for anyone to execute any fixes needed to make p2pool compatible for 0.10.0 if needed. Release candidates (and betas) are sent out for testing for a reason.

That said, I'm probably gonna wait as well. At least until the later Release Candidates (which there are always multiple).

As far as the "if it ain't broke" philosophy, I would follow that for certain things like miner configurations and hardware setup, but for something as important as Bitcoin Core, its a good idea to keep up with the rest of the network. I wouldn't expect anyone here to still be running BitcoinD version 0.7.x or 0.8.x. Everyone should be on 0.9.3. Though we're not talking about a soft or hard fork situation, it helps the network to always be up-to-date with its core functionality.

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 245. (Read 2591928 times)