[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 476.

rav3n_pl

legendary

Activity: 1361

Merit: 1003

Don`t panic! Organize!

Quote from: HellDiverUK on October 21, 2013, 02:45:12 AM

OK, so forrestv has made some changes, but I don't see any recent changes, or even any discussion of changes in the pipeline. I'm thinking he's sitting somewhere with fingers in ears singing "la la la la" in a loud voice. I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Looks like you re missing ROOT of the trouble. As one and only DECENTRALIZED pool P2pool has to manage some way to keep track of work done by miners and calculate payout in way, that cannot be forged, stolen or broken in any way. Bitcoin block chain is the way. P2pool is using 30 seconds blocks (shares) to keep track of work done by miners and allow every node to correctly calculate payout to all miners in SAME way. This is why we have LP/WR signal every 30s. In "normal" (centralized) pools this is done on one machine and LP is only on block change in bitcoin network - about every ~10 minutes.
So miner that is trying to mine on P2pool and freezing for ~10s every LP is "missing" ~30% of time. Miner that need ~10s to compute one WU and is also ignoring LP has 30% doa.
This is NOT P2pool fault but badly coded/designed miners. LP spec is there like 2 years now, so I not see ANY explanation for miner designers that they NOT implementing it in proper way.
Same is for stratum and vardiff that IS implemented in P2pool. If miner is NOT using it why blame pool?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: HellDiverUK on October 21, 2013, 02:45:12 AM

To be fair, ck, you're not exactly Mr Carisma. If you say bfgminer is a hostile fork, then I pose the notion that you're a hostile developer. Tongue

While this was about miners, I wasn't keen to weigh in since I never used p2Pool and I haven't mined for ages.

But if you're going to judge development by charisma, let me provide some anecdotal evidence: Con has always been polite to me and taken the time to explain things I didn't understand. OTOH Luke-Jr has been rude and hostile to my questions (which started out respectful and polite, and became less so the more responses I got from him).

I'm sure there are hostile developers. Con isn't one of them.

HellDiverUK

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 501

Quote from: -ck on October 20, 2013, 04:39:48 PM

It gets tiring having you go around dissing the effort I put in just because you support a hostile fork. I don't recall personal attacks against you to make you to take sides with such an aggressive stance. You don't like my software and its approach or p2pool, don't use it, but don't expend so much energy putting down other people's hard work. There's a big difference between constructive criticism and just plain bashing. You want to flame? Take it elsewhere, this is the p2pool thread.

To forrestv's credit, he made a LOT of changes leading into the ASIC era, like beefing up stratum support, variable difficulty, clamping down on memory leaks and the longer blocks. There is ALWAYS more work to be done when the landscape is changing so fast in the bitcoin mining world, but it's clear the manufacturers till now have not put p2pool on their radar at all.

To be fair, ck, you're not exactly Mr Carisma. If you say bfgminer is a hostile fork, then I pose the notion that you're a hostile developer. Tongue

The author(s) of the Other Miner(tm) have added a lot of stuff that is genuinely useful, recently (getwork and stratum proxy built in, nicer user interface, more useful stats on the screen, author provided OpenWRT build, etc). I still loath your decision to go with WinUSB - the hotplug thing is pointless, and the WinUSB stuff just adds a layer of complication that isn't needed. He also answers questions in his thread, rather than your stock "README Roll Eyes

" answers you seem to give.

OK, so forrestv has made some changes, but I don't see any recent changes, or even any discussion of changes in the pipeline. I'm thinking he's sitting somewhere with fingers in ears singing "la la la la" in a loud voice. I'm willing to be proven wrong.

HellDiverUK

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 501

Quote from: rav3n_pl on October 21, 2013, 01:13:43 AM

How our devs can fight that?

Well, I'm coming back to the "they work with other pools".

I've donated to p2pool plenty - I left the author donation on, and I even sent BTC - but nothing has been done in ages. p2pool really is becoming a still-birth. It's not 2012, people aren't mining with GPUs any more.

I know I'm only a low-scale miner (30GH, soon 50GH), but I'm not using p2pool because it doesn't work with my hardware, even when I mine to p2pool through a proxy. OK, it's only 30GH, but if I'm giving up on the pool, what are the chances of new users going to the bother of setting up a machine, only to find it doesn't work? Nil.

p2pool's continued EXISTENCE relies on it being able to cope with the current and future ASIC miners, no matter what retarded firmware on them does.

rav3n_pl

legendary

Activity: 1361

Merit: 1003

Don`t panic! Organize!

OMG what a flamer.
The ONLY trouble that HARDWARE has witch P2pool is that LP/work reset is making HARDWARE to stop hashing for like 10 sec, or HARDWARE is IGNORING LP/WR signals at all.
ANY thing that ckolivas or forrestv do will NOT help if HARDWARE is NOT working witch STANDARDS that are around like YEAR or more.
BE BLADE is working ONLY on diff=1 and are IGNORING LP signals.
KNC stuff are FREEZING for like 10sec every LP it got.
How our devs can fight that? Where we NOT have ANY access to BEB soft, and KNC just published miner sources few days ago... not even on git... Still if this is HARDWARE issue we cant do NOTHING to make those wrong designed ASICS to work properly on P2pool.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

Quote from: HellDiverUK on October 20, 2013, 09:12:33 AM

Quote from: IYFTech on October 20, 2013, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: -ck on October 20, 2013, 08:21:04 AM

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

Agreed, but pool software should be able to adapt to newer hardware - which p2pool does not do. Other pools adapt - that's why they are more successful/bigger.

Exactly. I can point my Blades to any other pool, be it one with a getwork interface, or any stratum pool via a stratum proxy, and guess what? It works. ONLY p2pool shit's it's lips when presented an ASICMiner (or KnC it seems).

As usual, ck, you're skirting round an issue and making excuses, rather than fixing the issue - amazing as it isn't even YOUR issue this time...

I posted some good news about upcoming hardware and p2pool and you shat on it and turned it into an argument against me. Good work. It gets tiring having you go around dissing the effort I put in just because you support a hostile fork. I don't recall personal attacks against you to make you to take sides with such an aggressive stance. You don't like my software and its approach or p2pool, don't use it, but don't expend so much energy putting down other people's hard work. There's a big difference between constructive criticism and just plain bashing. You want to flame? Take it elsewhere, this is the p2pool thread.

To forrestv's credit, he made a LOT of changes leading into the ASIC era, like beefing up stratum support, variable difficulty, clamping down on memory leaks and the longer blocks. There is ALWAYS more work to be done when the landscape is changing so fast in the bitcoin mining world, but it's clear the manufacturers till now have not put p2pool on their radar at all.

gnar1ta$

donator

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

I think you are being touchy. I'm not seeing the criticism of the hardware companies where people are spending thousands of $, not by donation. P2pol was changed from 10 second work to 30 second work to help ASIC miners. The ASIC companies responded by making their hardware worse, that's my constructive criticism. Roll Eyes

to you too.

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

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

Dude, all software is free, weather it's pool or miner software. All are open to constructive criticism & all rely on donations , the devs rely on donations to further develop the software. People donate to p2pool when they use it (knowingly or otherwise), but the development is not happening.

Stating facts & indulging in constructive criticism is not "bashing" the software, don't be so touchy Roll Eyes

gnar1ta$

donator

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

You all realize you are also losing work on traditional pools with KNC right? Watch your hash rate when new work is pushed, and then check all the bad work it sent off to the pool - especially if you are set to variable difficulty work. New work is pushed more often with p2pool so it has a greater effect. P2pool works fine, the hardware companies don't. Try demanding quality products for the thousands of $'s you spend instead of bashing the free software developed by people volunteering their time.

HellDiverUK

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 501

Quote from: IYFTech on October 20, 2013, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: -ck on October 20, 2013, 08:21:04 AM

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

Agreed, but pool software should be able to adapt to newer hardware - which p2pool does not do. Other pools adapt - that's why they are more successful/bigger.

Exactly. I can point my Blades to any other pool, be it one with a getwork interface, or any stratum pool via a stratum proxy, and guess what? It works. ONLY p2pool shit's it's lips when presented an ASICMiner (or KnC it seems).

As usual, ck, you're skirting round an issue and making excuses, rather than fixing the issue - amazing as it isn't even YOUR issue this time...

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

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

Quote from: -ck on October 20, 2013, 08:21:04 AM

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

Agreed, but pool software should be able to adapt to newer hardware - which p2pool does not do. Other pools adapt - that's why they are more successful/bigger.

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

zvs

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1000

https://web.archive.org/web/*/nogleg.com

Probably not, since setting up ASICs isn't like setting up a GPU farm Wink

It's much easier to pay someone some fee rather than actually figure out how p2pool works (omg, how come i'm not getting paid when i've been mining for 3 hrs at 5ghash and block was found?? wtfz)

i suspect to your 'average' user, it's just a bunch of jibber jabber

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

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

Yup, if a pool is going to grow & be successful it has to be compatible with all mining hardware - not just a select 2 or 3 (if you're lucky). I doubt that everyone who buys the Cointerra or Hashfast units will come flooding to p2pool to rescue it.....

Presuming they will work with p2pool of course.

HellDiverUK

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 501

Quote from: -ck on October 20, 2013, 07:31:01 AM

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Hashfast's ASICs will have a fast longpoll/block change/flush work implementation and it looks like Cointerra's will too.

Doesn't help the thousands of miners using the currently available ASICs, though. There's a LOT of folks out there with ASICMiner Blades...

-ck

legendary

Activity: 4088

Merit: 1631

Ruu \o/

There is light at the end of the tunnel. Hashfast's ASICs will have a fast longpoll/block change/flush work implementation and it looks like Cointerra's will too.

IYFTech

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

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

Quote from: HellDiverUK on October 20, 2013, 06:52:13 AM

Yeah, p2pool sucks for ASICs. Doesn't work with anything that's got a semi-decent hashrate. Doesn't work with ASICMiner Blades, doesn't works terribly well with Avalon, and seems to not work with KnC now either...

I loved the idea of p2pool, but it's problems with ASIC means I'm out of there and mining on a 'real' pool. I would, and probably a lot of others, would return if those issues were fixed (or even acknowledged and being worked on).

+1 This is the reason I shut my node down - none of the newer hardware works with it correctly & unfortunately it has been this way for many, many months, with not much done about it. Scrolling back through this thread I see plenty of miners complaining about lack of hardware support, nothing was done so they moved on. This is why p2pool is so small, and will stay small, which is a shame. It's a brilliant idea that perfectly suits the Bitcoin decentralisation ethos - but this lack of compatibility issue will be it's undoing I'm afraid Sad

HellDiverUK

hero member

Activity: 1246

Merit: 501

Yeah, p2pool sucks for ASICs. Doesn't work with anything that's got a semi-decent hashrate. Doesn't work with ASICMiner Blades, doesn't works terribly well with Avalon, and seems to not work with KnC now either...

I loved the idea of p2pool, but it's problems with ASIC means I'm out of there and mining on a 'real' pool. I would, and probably a lot of others, would return if those issues were fixed (or even acknowledged and being worked on).

FuzzyBear

legendary

Activity: 1420

Merit: 1010

Ok is anyone else experiencing issues with KNCminers on p2pool? low hashrate etc??

Have public p2pool node here http://fuzzypool.mine.bz/ mining BTC, NMC, DVC, IXC, I0C, coiledcoins

Someone I am working with tried pointing their KNC Saturn that gets 320GH on 50BTC pool but 60-120GH when pointing at my pool.

Just wondering if it an issue with p2pool?? and if other users have experienced the same... seems one other person has :

Quote from: btc_uzr on October 16, 2013, 06:36:31 PM

thanks for sharing experience.

I agree on what you say and I see that -if this would be applied by all- we would end up with one centralized pool in control of everything
therefore I see a need for a next step in evolution, from solo-mining to pool-mining to decentralized p2pool/solo-mining

*edit:
p2pool doesn't work well with KnCMiners right now, do not wast GH/s (just in case one might think I'm suggesting to use it)

Any ideas??

Polyatomic

sr. member

Activity: 257

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rluner on October 19, 2013, 10:17:51 AM

Quote from: gnar1ta$ on October 19, 2013, 09:31:11 AM

Quote from: Rluner on October 19, 2013, 09:08:33 AM

So as I originally said as I have 10 gh and now don't seem to find a share before p2pool finds a block I can't get paid out.

Look up, gmaxwell just explained it. You don't need to find a share every block, or even every 3 days. You will find a share and be paid, you will just have a lot of variance.

Thanks, I had read what he said, I also read the posts after him, who said I need a share to be paid out. And therein my reply to that.

As I said at the start I really like p2pool, thanks for all the replies from you hero members. I will transfer my 10 Gh back to my own p2pool and see what happens after a week with regard to payouts. I will repost here.

Ty all so much for your advice.

Rluner , you should get a similar payout to me dude , it got as high as 0.014

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 476. (Read 2591928 times)