Author

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 357. (Read 2591964 times)

hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
It seemed so uncalled for and unfair that I just donated 0.5BTC to forrestv.

That's because you're a mug who fell for this sorry ass sob story  Roll Eyes

I'm also someone who could extend his company's business to cryptocurrency mining thanks to people like forrestv.

Donate all you want - it's your money.

Yep, almost exclusively earned by mining with p2pool.
sr. member
Activity: 379
Merit: 250
Welcome to dogietalk.bs
It seemed so uncalled for and unfair that I just donated 0.5BTC to forrestv.

That's because you're a mug who fell for this sorry ass sob story  Roll Eyes

Donate all you want - it's your money.
hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
p2pool became abandonware.

Yeah right : https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool/commits/master

Maybe you should lookup the definition of the words you use.

And to sum your post : p2pool works for you (you wrote you used it exclusively for your mining) but you disabled donations anyway because there was no change in the code ? By the same twisted logic, you should have donated when you weren't mining and there was change.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C
Just today I spent about 10 hours getting http://p2pool.info/ working
Wait - you agreed & wanted to take on p2pool.info did you not? Now you're saying you don't have the time or resources? It hasn't worked for the majority of the time you've had it anyway, despite you saying weeks ago you'd have it up "within a day or two". Personally I wish you hadn't taken it on, those "10 hours" of getting it back online would have been much better spent on doing something with p2pool instead. The only reason that you have got p2pool.info back up is to enable you to post here after so long - because you would have been shot to pieces had you posted this while p2pool.info was still down, and you know it.

I don't believe anybody disabled donations because of a lack of development

You couldn't be more wrong - that's exactly the reason people have done it - plus trying to get any kind of response from you was impossible, so you can't blame them at all.

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.

Really? So according to your calculations 90% of p2pool users are hypocrites? It is interesting to note that the majority of users who suggest disabling donations are long-term users of p2pool - why do you think that is? Probably because they are the ones who have seen the development of p2pool as well as the involvement of it's dev in this here thread dwindle to zero over the last year. It is also the long-term users who have kept faith in p2pool which have stopped it from dying out completely - calling them hypocrites is not only unwise, it is also kicking them in the teeth.

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

Basically you're saying that unless everyone turns on donations again you won't do anything. The trouble with that is, users have been donating over the last year while you have done nothing. Then, out of the blue you post this & expect everyone to instantly give you donations again? That's bordering on bribery. I stopped donating to p2pool when development stopped & you went AWOL about 8 months ago, I see nothing in your post to change my mind & switch donations on again - quite the opposite in fact. I might not have used p2pool for as long as many other users have, but I have been using only p2pool for the entire time I have spent mining & have promoted it constantly up until you disappeared & p2pool became abandonware. When I see something happening to p2pool again I will switch donations on again - but not before. Calling me a hypocrite & blackmailing me will not change my mind either, in fact it puts me off even more.

Pull your head out of your arse, communicate with your users, discuss, talk & do something.

If you build it - they will come.
hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
@ forrestv: What a sad, sad sob story.....I'm crying here.....really..... Roll Eyes

If you can't be bothered to post updates (if any),

@cathoderay : pathetic. Actual crybabies calling people producing something crybabies.

So you don't have any progress reports meaningful to you on bitcointalk for one year? Maybe you should have registered before April 2014 ?

When forrestv started to work on p2pool he had 0 donation. Until it was fully working he worked for nothing. People coming here to reap the benefits without having contributed anything and complaining in the process are disgusting.

It seemed so uncalled for and unfair that I just donated 0.5BTC to forrestv. Keep whining cathoderay, you might just motivate others to do the same.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
Decentralize your hashing - p2pool - Norgz Pool
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. Tongue) 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).

Thank you Forrestv, i'll update the code at p2poolinfo.azurewebsites.net as soon as I get a chance. Appreciate getting it working.

Thanks for coming here and updating everyone, although not all will be satisfied with this. I fear the only thing that will silence the critics will be the release of some new p2pool code.
I'm glad some of my prodding has spark some more interest and follow with great interest.

I think we node operators should promise to turn on donations once we get some fixes through if not now. I'll be looking at my nodes and adding a donation back in also.
sr. member
Activity: 379
Merit: 250
Welcome to dogietalk.bs
@ forrestv: What a sad, sad sob story.....I'm crying here.....really..... Roll Eyes

If you can't be bothered to post updates (if any), answer questions, or communicate in the slightest despite logging on - that's your fault. You've basically admitted that nothing has happened for a year - then you moan about donations? Get real. Everything that has been said about what's not happening here is correct & you pretty much just agreed with them. If you want to see donations start to roll in again you'll have to show some kind of proof that you're actually doing something - it's gonna take more than one complaining comment every six months......
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1007
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).

Thank you for the hard work. As soon as I will organize a group buy, my next donation will go towards you. Also there might be a full or 1/2 SP10 hashing for your donation address in the appropriate future.
hero member
Activity: 516
Merit: 643
As jedimstr said, I did receive a sizable donation from the Litecoin Project (EDIT: credited wrong organization), 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. Tongue) 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).
legendary
Activity: 4634
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
...
I have built and managed large development teams in the past for specialized projects, and I have to say that none of them came close to the complexity and challenges offered by what we need in a p2pool dev team.
...
P2pool is not a massive difficult project ... forrestv is able to do it himself.

So I guess your comment above means you've only worked in small time projects Tongue
member
Activity: 73
Merit: 10
Thank you for that Forrest! It was sorely missed.
hero member
Activity: 516
Merit: 643
http://p2pool.info is back up, with a rewritten backend that is public at https://github.com/forrestv/p2pool.info2. Anyone can set up their own, which I'd encourage for redundancy. See the README - it's very simple to set up, simply a Python script that generates JSON that can be served statically along with the HTML/CSS/JS.

Missing data was recreated from public P2Pool nodes' historical graph data, except for the "number of users" line, which I have no way of recovering.


I'll post again shortly concerning P2Pool funding/donations and development.
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
Decentralize your hashing - p2pool - Norgz Pool
3. Vertical scalability that reduces variance for all miners.

This is where the real challenges lie.

For p2pool to support large mining operations, and still be able to attract medium, small, and micro miners we need completely new share difficulty and payout structures.

The first step here has nothing to do with code, some completely new concepts need to be developed and generally accepted by p2pool miners. Once we have those concepts down, and can demonstrate them to be technically possible, we can seek out devs with the chops to pull it off.

This may seem like no big deal, but I assure you it is. Here is my first crack at it:

Payouts
While miners meeting a certain threshold could still be paid directly from the generation TX, smaller miners under the payout threshold when a block is found, lets say BTC0.01 to start, would be able to see their p2pool earnings down to the Satoshi in real time, but would not receive a payout until reaching the threshold.

We (read as: nonnakip) are currently developing pretty much this exact thing right now for our node at nastyfans.org:9332.  We have been calling it P2Pool PPS...
Cool, is this something you will submit back to github?
sr. member
Activity: 308
Merit: 250
Decentralize your hashing - p2pool - Norgz Pool
donator
Activity: 4760
Merit: 4323
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
3. Vertical scalability that reduces variance for all miners.

This is where the real challenges lie.

For p2pool to support large mining operations, and still be able to attract medium, small, and micro miners we need completely new share difficulty and payout structures.

The first step here has nothing to do with code, some completely new concepts need to be developed and generally accepted by p2pool miners. Once we have those concepts down, and can demonstrate them to be technically possible, we can seek out devs with the chops to pull it off.

This may seem like no big deal, but I assure you it is. Here is my first crack at it:

Payouts
While miners meeting a certain threshold could still be paid directly from the generation TX, smaller miners under the payout threshold when a block is found, lets say BTC0.01 to start, would be able to see their p2pool earnings down to the Satoshi in real time, but would not receive a payout until reaching the threshold.

We (read as: nonnakip) are currently developing pretty much this exact thing right now for our node at nastyfans.org:9332.  We have been calling it P2Pool PPS...
legendary
Activity: 1270
Merit: 1000
3. Vertical scalability that reduces variance for all miners.

This is where the real challenges lie.

For p2pool to support large mining operations, and still be able to attract medium, small, and micro miners we need completely new share difficulty and payout structures.

The first step here has nothing to do with code, some completely new concepts need to be developed and generally accepted by p2pool miners. Once we have those concepts down, and can demonstrate them to be technically possible, we can seek out devs with the chops to pull it off.

P2Pool in it's current form is just not scalable. As others have pointed out the current sharechain model only becomes worse as more hashrate is added.

Perhaps a model where we have "super nodes" that split out smaller sharechains could be considered. I also think the concept of pseudo shares in-between real shares should be eliminated or modified so that work is not wasted.
legendary
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
p2pool Stats Update

p2pool Stats updated to include luck per block data starting with block 305238, we will not be able to calculate luck for blocks before 305238 because we do not have the data required.



Updated reports available now in near-real time: http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.php

I'll be checking in occasionally, but will not be back to working on developing this further (miner and payout information tab) until July 1, family vacation...

legendary
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
Great feedback!

I'm not sure the concept of a secured wallet that needs to maintain thresholds for users and process payouts dependent upon when a user crosses that threshold can be translated into a decentralized model.  Centralized pools like GHash/BTCGuild/Eligius/Slush all have their own payout models and can pull this off because they are indeed centralized.

You may be right, I tweeted a few of the Dark Wallet devs, some of which I have spoken with before, maybe one of them can share whether they think it is technically possible or not.

Maybe we do nothing at all, and just accept the fact that unless you increase your own hashing power, you will experience more and more variance as your hash rate becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the p2pool network's rate.

This is pretty much where we stand now. When/if a multiple PH/s miner hits the pool the minimum hash rate to even hope for a regular payout will sky rocket, and p2pool is a very attractive option if your building out a large mining operation.

Even if we go with a multi-tiered approach, as I suggested, how do we define those tiers?  What becomes the "cutoff" value to move from tier 1 to tier 2 to tier n?  How many of these tiers would be "enough" to effectively reduce the variance?

I like the concept, but it will require huge adoption to work. Correct me if I'm wrong, you would effectively be diluting any variance reduction we gain by growing in pool hash power by the number of tiers that were offered?
legendary
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1024
Mine at Jonny's Pool
Code:
This is a great conversation guys, and one that needs to be had.

I have built and managed large development teams in the past for specialized projects, and I have to say that none of them came close to the complexity and challenges offered by what we need in a p2pool dev team.

For p2pool to get to the next level I think we need an active lead dev or chief scientist to lead; and 3 technical achievements, the first 2 are easy:

1. Hardware compatibility and a responsive available individual for both HW and mining SW folks to work with.

2. A great looking front end that provides what miners want that is unified across nodes. p2pool already has the ability to be the most transparent pool in existence, lets get that data out there for miners to mull over and do it in a way that looks so good out of the box that node operators are not inclined to re-invent the front end with each install. When a miner checks out a node it should be familiar and they should know what they are looking at. I'm happy to build this using open source tools and have a solid start already on my node. Combining Bootstrap, PHP, and an SQL DB we could build an open source, cross-platform, front end that both looks great and is data rich.

Which leads me to our 3rd, and biggest challenge:

[b]3. Vertical scalability that reduces variance for all miners.[/b]

This is where the real challenges lie.

For p2pool to support large mining operations, and still be able to attract medium, small, and micro miners we need completely new share difficulty and payout structures.

The first step here has nothing to do with code, some completely new concepts need to be developed and generally accepted by p2pool miners. Once we have those concepts down, and can demonstrate them to be technically possible, we can seek out devs with the chops to pull it off.

This may seem like no big deal, but I assure you it is. Here is my first crack at it:

[b]Payouts[/b]
While miners meeting a certain threshold could still be paid directly from the generation TX, smaller miners under the payout threshold when a block is found, lets say [btc]0.01 to start, would be able to see their p2pool earnings down to the Satoshi in real time, but would not receive a payout until reaching the threshold.

To accomplish this I propose a decentralized, trust-less escrow system.

A p2pool software controlled secure wallet where all payouts from each block that did not meet the payout threshold would be stored, and then paid out to miners when they reach the threshold.

Miners who reach the minimum payout during a round are paid directly from the generation tx, while payments for all miners under the threshold are are sent to and stored in the wallet, and payouts are made from the wallet when the threshold is reached.

The caveat is that this needs to be handled entirely by p2pool in a decentralized and trust less way with no single "admin" overseeing them. How to handle the keys securely without anyone but the p2pool code knowing them is the challenge, maybe the guys from the dark wallet or Armory teams would have some technically viable suggestions.

[b]Difficulty[/b]
An automated "variable and weighted" share difficulty would need to be assigned to miners based on hash rate. Every major pool in existence does it, we just need a method of doing it across the p2pool block chain in a way that is not easily manipulated. Perhaps the MIT Bitcoin club would be interested in tackling such a challenge?

[b]End game:[/b] Protect the network, encourage miners to participate actively in both Bitcoin and p2pools decentralized nature.

Even without active development p2pool is a strong "brand" in the Bitcoin space, most miners are aware of it, and its challenges. Overcoming its biggest challenges along with a decent marketing push (by us collectively) spreading the word could easily push p2pool to the top and keep Bitcoin strong and trust less for the future.

Just my 0.02 bits.

I think the biggest obstacle with your proposal is:
Quote
A p2pool software controlled secure wallet where all payouts from each block that did not meet the payout threshold would be stored, and then paid out to miners when they reach the threshold.
I'm not sure the concept of a secured wallet that needs to maintain thresholds for users and process payouts dependent upon when a user crosses that threshold can be translated into a decentralized model.  Centralized pools like GHash/BTCGuild/Eligius/Slush all have their own payout models and can pull this off because they are indeed centralized.

We need a way to reduce the variance that will inevitably occur as more miners are added to the p2pool network.  As I previously wrote, this is what I believe is holding p2pool back from becoming a more mainstream option.  Think of it like this: if every single BTC miner decided to join the p2pool network that means ~100PH/s and share difficulty would become 1/20th of the current BTC block difficulty.
Code:
Current BTC difficulty: 13462580114.5253
Divide that by 20: 673129005.726265
A share difficulty of 673.1M is not a feasible model.  Assuming I have 1TH/s:
Code:
Difficulty * 2**32 / hashrate / 86400 = number of days to find a share
673129005.726265 * 2**32 / 1000000000000 / 86400 = 33.46142437017714
Over a month's hashing at 1TH/s to expect to find a single share, assuming the difficulty remained constant, which it wouldn't, because BTC difficulty is going to adjust every 2016 blocks.  You're looking at needing 12TH/s or more to expect to get a share onto the chain within the 3 day payout window.  Nobody besides the "big guys" currently has that kind of hashing power.  The closest you're going to get will come in August when Spondoolies-Tech starts shipping their 6TH/s SP30s.  If you happened to get in on RoadStress' group buy around Easter time, 2 of those would have cost you about $9000 USD.

Of course, the example I gave is completely contrived.  Nobody expects and/or believes that p2pool will become the sole BTC mining operation in existence.  Maybe we do nothing at all, and just accept the fact that unless you increase your own hashing power, you will experience more and more variance as your hash rate becomes a smaller and smaller portion of the p2pool network's rate.  As I wrote in my first reply on this topic, the current entry level hardware to p2pool is pretty much an Antminer S1.  Soon, that entry level hardware will be 500GH/s (the Antminer S3).  Perhaps this is just the natural progression of things and changing the underlying way p2pool works to accommodate the smaller hash rates is futile.  Even if we go with a multi-tiered approach, as I suggested, how do we define those tiers?  What becomes the "cutoff" value to move from tier 1 to tier 2 to tier n?  How many of these tiers would be "enough" to effectively reduce the variance?
legendary
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
So we should donate to an expert who makes the frontend that works and has maybe the same info as p2poolinfo once had..

I'll be done with recreating p2pool.info in a few weeks, no donations requested.

Link: http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.php

The front end will be ongoing project for a while until I think it's right...

Link Node: http://minefast.coincadence.com/index.php
Link Miner: http://minefast.coincadence.com/miner.php?id=19vXrwKGUhK4cCU8tA4kWZgbChcmh9a6qj
Jump to: