Not really - I'm joking. Really, I am.
Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 356. (Read 2591964 times)
You?
Not really - I'm joking. Really, I am.
Not really - I'm joking. Really, I am.
Easy, bud. I'm not your enemy, here.
So let's go at these one by one.
1) Moving forward isn't always "code-based", that's a close-minded way to think, no? Even something as trivial as spreading awareness is moving p2pool forward. Talking about ideas, basic brainstorming.. all things that help p2pool move forward. So maybe his contribution is bringing up the topic to discuss so people who are competent can further discuss.
So let's go at these one by one.
1) Moving forward isn't always "code-based", that's a close-minded way to think, no? Even something as trivial as spreading awareness is moving p2pool forward. Talking about ideas, basic brainstorming.. all things that help p2pool move forward. So maybe his contribution is bringing up the topic to discuss so people who are competent can further discuss.
That's not like he just started and he is alone on this. Competent devs don't often engage in technical discussions here, they mainly use github and irc.
2) Actually no, by default you are paying the author. If "nobody was forcing you" then by default it would be 0% and you would opt-in for give author.
That's twisting reality, having to opt-out isn't the same has being forced to do something.
Plus it means that the only people who pay without realizing it are the ones who don't bother to read the doc. These people are usually wasting everyone's time asking the very same questions that the documentation answers. I see it as instant karma.
3) Heard of ghash.io , it's this small mining pool with 10% fees, no merged coins and the worst UI
And you seriously believe that they provide their time and hosting fees for free? I'm not sure what their business model is, but I don't believe for a second it's throwing money out the window.
4) I've thanked him and donated plenty. Who's the one dishing out for donations, better check that definition of greed.
In closing you're missing the point. p2pool can be huge. HUGE. I'm sorry if the author doesn't feel that way but at this point it is bigger than him and his personal issues. Which brings me back to the original quote from IFYT: Find someone else to do.
« greed »: have you computed his earnings with best and worst case scenario (depending on when he sold his donations) and compared it to the amount of work done (count the lines of code in p2pool to have a rough estimate and ask a dev if you aren't one for an estimation of the time he would need to produce the same)? Until someone compared the two there's nothing to say about greed.
« p2pool can be huge »: that's a free statement ignoring all technical difficulties. Of course if all the technical problems raised by trying to bring lower variance to slower miners were magically solved by another dev and forrestv wouldn't cooperate I would have a far different look on the situation. But the actual situation is simple: no one else has contributed significantly yet and the only one working on solutions is forrestv.
« Find someone else »: and whom do you have in mind?
I suspect that default 1% donation to one developer may actually discourage code contributions and encourage forking. That is, forrestv gets all the credit if somebody submits a patch. I don't think that is intentional though.
It is absolutely intentional, forestv has even gone out of his way to make it hard to change his donation address easily within the code:
https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/blob/39767a2c7da3b22efc8d90623dcda12b6ab4f419/p2pool/data.py#L52
Hard to change?
You just pointed to the single line needed to change to change the donation address.
sp30s should once again work with p2pool and 1000 6TH devices will be delivered in August.
Some of those will surely use p2pool.
Some of those will surely use p2pool.
I suspect that default 1% donation to one developer may actually discourage code contributions and encourage forking. That is, forrestv gets all the credit if somebody submits a patch. I don't think that is intentional though.
I'm not a fan of automatic donation either: the main reason why I disable it myself is that I prefer distributing my donations to developers manually to better keep track of my donations (I have donated to ckolivas, lukejr and kano too).
But I understand why it makes sense for forrestv, most users wouldn't donate anything otherwise.
Currently (https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/graphs/contributors), forrestv is by far the largest contributor, with more than 75% of the commits (not counting merges for code or content contributed by other developers which isn't free).
So it's not a problem currently: no other developer can claim having contributed meaningfully without looking like a troll. The second contributor way behind forrestv with ~1% of the commits is coblee who provided the litecoin support (which served as a base for other scrypt support). I'm not sure who gets the donations when using p2pool for litecoin, it might be coblee.
If someone else took over or even contributed large enough amounts of code they would have to ask forrestv if they can receive part of the donations or fork if they can't agree on this.
Our german Litecoin (LTC) P2Pool Node is now online with 0% Fee! The Server is a Dell Poweredge with 8 x Xeon, 32 GB RAM and 2 x 1 TB WD Raid 1 HDD. Lets rock.
This way to Pool: http://litecoin.minerpool.de:9327
User : Litecoin Address
Password: any
This way to Pool: http://litecoin.minerpool.de:9327
User : Litecoin Address
Password: any
I suspect that default 1% donation to one developer may actually discourage code contributions and encourage forking. That is, forrestv gets all the credit if somebody submits a patch. I don't think that is intentional though.
It is absolutely intentional, forestv has even gone out of his way to make it hard to change his donation address easily within the code:
https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/blob/39767a2c7da3b22efc8d90623dcda12b6ab4f419/p2pool/data.py#L52
These are forrestv's addresses that he gets donations to:
https://blockchain.info/address/1Kz5QaUPDtKrj5SqW5tFkn7WZh8LmQaQi4 Total Received 210.78862928 BTC
https://blockchain.info/address/1J1zegkNSbwX4smvTdoHSanUfwvXFeuV23 Total Received 36.7754832 BTC
http://ltc.blockr.io/address/info/LeD2fnnDJYZuyt8zgDsZ2oBGmuVcxGKCLd Total received 1,709.79411620 LTC
I don't believe anybody disabled donations because of a lack of development - pool donations have been comparably low for a very long time, since before this development hiatus - so I don't think I'm being "punished" for not working hard enough or obviously enough. I don't think that most miners ever think about their donation amount again after setting it or pay attention to development. (I don't blame them for not dedicating their lives to tweaking P2Pool. 
)
)When setting up my P2Pool node, I did some math and tried to assess the state of the code. I think the calculation I used was something like: 25BTCx$1000/BTCx1%=$250/block. Let's assume the price is $500 and P2Pool gets one block/day. 25BTCx$500/BTCx1%x30days/month=$3750/month or $45,000 per year. It did not appear to me that anybody was working on the code full-time (or even half-time).
I set my pool donations to 0.1% It is a level that triggers a "consider donating more" message in the log. Part of the reason is that the code does not work with mining proxies. I have examined the code and determined what the problem is. The slush stratum proxy that I looked at tries to auto-detect stratum support by sending a dummy getwork request first. However, P2Pool also auto-detects the protocol the miner is using. In this case, it falls back to the getwork protocol, which the mining proxy does not support. I could not see an easy way to disable the autodetection because it is also required for overloading the pool stats. I even thought of a possible simple work-around, but have not gotten around to testing it yet: Make use of the x-stratum (would have to look up the exact name) header that the proxy expects. TL;DR: I figure I can donate patches rather than BTC... If I can just find the time.
I suspect that default 1% donation to one developer may actually discourage code contributions and encourage forking. That is, forrestv gets all the credit if somebody submits a patch. I don't think that is intentional though.
The sooner someone forks p2pool from the donation demanding invisible-dev here, the sooner the community can start developing p2pool to make it compatible with all the available mining hardware.
Forking is only useful when the original dev doesn't develop and doesn't accept patches. Obviously you didn't bother to educate yourself on the current state of p2pool by reading the list of past year's commit.
His wording may be wrong/incorrect but his point isn't.
IYFT simply stated he wants to move p2pool forward, not put this on hiatus like forrestv said.
Exactly, thank you.
Don't see anything constructive from you.
I'm beginning to think that gyverlb is actually forrestv?......
Which basically shows everyone here with any will to check facts that you're a bit quick on the writing and slow on the fact checking.
The sooner someone forks p2pool from the donation demanding invisible-dev here, the sooner the community can start developing p2pool to make it compatible with all the available mining hardware.
Forking is only useful when the original dev doesn't develop and doesn't accept patches. Obviously you didn't bother to educate yourself on the current state of p2pool by reading the list of past year's commit.
His wording may be wrong/incorrect but his point isn't.
IYFT simply stated he wants to move p2pool forward, not put this on hiatus like forrestv said.
Yes, IYFT simply stated. Some people here are really good at stating things (between sad facts and blatant lies with gross exaggerations in between).
IYFT wants to move p2pool forward? Where is his code that forrestv didn't want to merge?
Or is it that he thinks that simply stating things will move p2pool forward. That's more or less the definition of a spoiled child.
P2pool is free, open-source, no-one forces anyone to use it and to give anything to the author (or don't they know how to read?) but that's not enough, the author doesn't have the right to his own life and should develop new code in a timely manner just because some people would like to have their needs fulfilled?
Guess what: all more and less stable pools donate to the maintainer more than what we give forrestv although they don't have to solve the same technical problems (and most of them fall to DoS attacks on occasion, which I've yet to witness on p2pool). Without forrestv everyone on p2pool would pay between 2 or 3% of their income to pool operators or risk suffering downtimes or even losses when pools vanish into thin air (if you don't know what I mean, you probably didn't mine for long: pools with 0 fees are a little too good to be true, some simply cheat you of merged-mined coins for example...). Everybody using it (correctly with compatible hardware) is earning money.
It doesn't do what you need? Don't use it until it does, end of story. It does? What is your reason not to thank the author for your additional gains which you wouldn't have without him (greed excluded of course)?
I'll just put my flack jacket on.........
I'm against donations in a form of a fee. P2Pool has a number of disadvantages for miners comparing to centralized pools. There are large pools with zero fees. By asking money from miners we scare them further away. ASICs are expensive and have a limited useful life, so miners are generally only concerned about short-term ROI. Miners are not who care about future of Bitcoin. They are not ones we should expect donations from.
Instead we should appeal to those who have a stake in the Bitcoin world. There are large bitcoin holders and Bitcoin businesses. We should set up bounties, grants and subsidies directed towards mining decentralization. This way we can also fund P2Pool development.
Instead we should appeal to those who have a stake in the Bitcoin world. There are large bitcoin holders and Bitcoin businesses. We should set up bounties, grants and subsidies directed towards mining decentralization. This way we can also fund P2Pool development.
The sooner someone forks p2pool from the donation demanding invisible-dev here, the sooner the community can start developing p2pool to make it compatible with all the available mining hardware.
Forking is only useful when the original dev doesn't develop and doesn't accept patches. Obviously you didn't bother to educate yourself on the current state of p2pool by reading the list of past year's commit.
His wording may be wrong/incorrect but his point isn't.
IYFT simply stated he wants to move p2pool forward, not put this on hiatus like forrestv said.
Exactly, thank you.
I'm beginning to think that gyverlb is actually forrestv?......
The sooner someone forks p2pool from the donation demanding invisible-dev here, the sooner the community can start developing p2pool to make it compatible with all the available mining hardware.
Forking is only useful when the original dev doesn't develop and doesn't accept patches. Obviously you didn't bother to educate yourself on the current state of p2pool by reading the list of past year's commits.
Its a Misterium. Nobody will mining on P2pool in Germany. We have an 1A Node online at February 2014. The Node sleeping at 8 TH / s. I dont understand this 
It's not a mystery at all. There is very limited hardware that will work with p2pool, and the choice is getting smaller every week. SP10's are out of stock, S1's are finished, S2's don't work, S3's probably won't either when they are released, KNC's have run dry or not being delivered, Dragons don't work etc, etc.....the list is endless. Hardware that does work will soon be out of date & unprofitable to run like the S1's, Chilis,etc, etc.
All the nodes in the world won't make a blind bit of difference if there is no hardware that will work with it.
Why is this you ask? Read the posts above. Mystery solved.
The sooner someone forks p2pool from the donation demanding invisible-dev here, the sooner the community can start developing p2pool to make it compatible with all the available mining hardware.
Its a Misterium. Nobody will mining on P2pool in Germany. We have an 1A Node online at February 2014. The Node sleeping at 8 TH / s. I dont understand this
OK everyone.... We need his help.....
BUT for now, WE NEED A BLOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT for now, WE NEED A BLOCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@mdude77 - another 100k FSC sent to your donation address. Tx ID: 8b3d8cb44cb98aa45c0e5bbf6b4f75338bc00fda377d8842b960ee3f43f4c13c
@forrestv - glad to see you posting to the thread again. You stated that you've spent a lot of time thinking on how to implement some of your ideas, and may have had a breakthrough in how to reduce variance to the smaller miners. I would love to see you spending time here bouncing those ideas off of people. I think you'll find there are a number of people regularly posting in this thread that would be more than willing to help you solve some of the problems you're facing. I hope that you will use the community as a sounding board and remain active with us.
@forrestv - glad to see you posting to the thread again. You stated that you've spent a lot of time thinking on how to implement some of your ideas, and may have had a breakthrough in how to reduce variance to the smaller miners. I would love to see you spending time here bouncing those ideas off of people. I think you'll find there are a number of people regularly posting in this thread that would be more than willing to help you solve some of the problems you're facing. I hope that you will use the community as a sounding board and remain active with us.
As jedimstr said, I did receive a sizable donation from the Litecoin foundation, and I have since been brainstorming and prototyping ways to fix the core problems with P2Pool - scalability and excessive variance for small miners. I prototyped a way to do trustless verification of blocks with O(1) storage so that we could free most P2Pool nodes from needing a local *coin node. I've spent a ton of time thinking of ways to implement parallel sharechains so that we can have shares more often, decreasing variance for small miners, while decreasing the strict latency requirements for hardware, sadly without any concrete results yet. Because this is a hard problem. I spent hundreds of hours in the summer of 2011 thinking about how P2Pool could possibly work, in a time before merged mining or pools with coinbase payouts even existed. Any further improvements that get us out of this local maxima that we're stuck in will require comparable amounts of thought. Some relief though - a few days ago, when people prodding renewed my eagerness, I may have made a breakthrough in ideas for how to get parallel sharechains to work (which I discussed in #p2pool).
Despite that, it is hard to work on this project when most people insist on cutting off the pool donations to me. When I see guides telling people to use --give-author 0 without any mention made of what it does, people blindly following them, or people asking me for help, providing screenshots of them running P2Pool with donations disabled, it hurts a bit. Actually, more than a bit. Right now, I get 0.09% of the revenue from P2Pool due to node donations (which default to 1%), which likely means that about 90% of people have completely disabled donations. That doesn't result in much revenue. Just today I spent about 10 hours getting http://p2pool.info/ working, which is the equivalent of two weeks of pool donations - if I were being paid minimum wage! I don't have a job (I am a student) and I do have other side-ventures that I'm working towards that look a bit more optimistic, so pardon me for rationally allocating my free time.
I don't believe anybody disabled donations because of a lack of development - pool donations have been comparably low for a very long time, since before this development hiatus - so I don't think I'm being "punished" for not working hard enough or obviously enough. I don't think that most miners ever think about their donation amount again after setting it or pay attention to development. (I don't blame them for not dedicating their lives to tweaking P2Pool.) But this is vicious downward cycle and anyone running P2Pool with donations lower than the default while demanding improvements (or even planning to use P2Pool for an extended amount of time) is a hypocrite. It's simply a lack of foresightedness when miners decide to prioritize an amount of income that is invisible in the noise of variance of P2Pool payouts over the sustainability of P2Pool. Perhaps we'd be better off if I hadn't changed the mandatory 0.5% fee to an optional 0.5% donation (does anyone here even remember that?).
I do plan to continue working on P2Pool, and eventually great changes will happen. Unless something changes though, don't expect it to happen too quickly, and don't be surprised if people who disable donations get bugged a bit more when they start P2Pool (or with any other similar change to increase donations).
Despite that, it is hard to work on this project when most people insist on cutting off the pool donations to me. When I see guides telling people to use --give-author 0 without any mention made of what it does, people blindly following them, or people asking me for help, providing screenshots of them running P2Pool with donations disabled, it hurts a bit. Actually, more than a bit. Right now, I get 0.09% of the revenue from P2Pool due to node donations (which default to 1%), which likely means that about 90% of people have completely disabled donations. That doesn't result in much revenue. Just today I spent about 10 hours getting http://p2pool.info/ working, which is the equivalent of two weeks of pool donations - if I were being paid minimum wage! I don't have a job (I am a student) and I do have other side-ventures that I'm working towards that look a bit more optimistic, so pardon me for rationally allocating my free time.
I don't believe anybody disabled donations because of a lack of development - pool donations have been comparably low for a very long time, since before this development hiatus - so I don't think I'm being "punished" for not working hard enough or obviously enough. I don't think that most miners ever think about their donation amount again after setting it or pay attention to development. (I don't blame them for not dedicating their lives to tweaking P2Pool.
) But this is vicious downward cycle and anyone running P2Pool with donations lower than the default while demanding improvements (or even planning to use P2Pool for an extended amount of time) is a hypocrite. It's simply a lack of foresightedness when miners decide to prioritize an amount of income that is invisible in the noise of variance of P2Pool payouts over the sustainability of P2Pool. Perhaps we'd be better off if I hadn't changed the mandatory 0.5% fee to an optional 0.5% donation (does anyone here even remember that?).I do plan to continue working on P2Pool, and eventually great changes will happen. Unless something changes though, don't expect it to happen too quickly, and don't be surprised if people who disable donations get bugged a bit more when they start P2Pool (or with any other similar change to increase donations).
Now if you chimed in with some of this info every once in awhile (even a one lined comment saying you're still working) maybe you wouldn't have seen so many complaints and reduction in the already miniscule donations settings. It's not so much just lack of work that was pissing people off, it was the lack of communication. Especially since your profile showed you were still reading the forums. That makes people think you were abandoning this thing.
I for one will be bumping my node's donations back up above the minimum to 1%. All you had to do was ask. That also goes for asking for help. There are other developers out there to bounce ideas and can do some of the lifting for you. Innovation and breakthroughs are only a git pull away.
I get it now.....you're in love. That's sweet.......
Jump to: