Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 601. (Read 2591920 times)
December 30, 2012, 05:39:52 AM
does stratum use a new port?
December 30, 2012, 05:37:59 AM
v10 windows binary?
December 30, 2012, 05:36:45 AM
After two hours on p2pool/cgminer/Stratum, I got a block http://blockchain.info/block-index/329787 and Best Share reads 9.69M
Current difficulty is 2.98M. Shouldn't I get credit for at least three blocks on that?
Cool! Wrong reward system Current difficulty is 2.98M. Shouldn't I get credit for at least three blocks on that?
December 30, 2012, 05:33:05 AM
Upgraded. Doesn't seem to have decreased cgminer stales though.
M
My Doa wents up from 3% in v9 to 10% in v10 with Stratum between cgminer V2.10.4 an p2pool
December 30, 2012, 02:31:10 AM
After two hours on p2pool/cgminer/Stratum, I got a block http://blockchain.info/block-index/329787 and Best Share reads 9.69M
Current difficulty is 2.98M. Shouldn't I get credit for at least three blocks on that?
Current difficulty is 2.98M. Shouldn't I get credit for at least three blocks on that?
December 29, 2012, 08:07:26 PM
Upgraded. Doesn't seem to have decreased cgminer stales though.
M
December 29, 2012, 07:34:38 PM
Upgraded. Doesn't seem to have decreased cgminer stales though.
M
December 29, 2012, 06:33:12 PM
December 29, 2012, 03:57:24 PM
Complete blocks are never sent over the P2Pool network; the most you should ever have to burst upload when you get a share is ~2kB to every peer. If decreasing the block size helps your stale rate, it's more likely a latency issue within the P2Pool codebase that can be fixed, instead of a result of your internet connection.
zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
Local rate: 7.74GH/s (7.2% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0917 hours
Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours
that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large? it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
Having every single share orphaned is a sign of bitcoind being broken or some other misconfiguration, not any fixable latency. Did reducing maxblocksize to 0 help?Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours
that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large? it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
When whould this Version been published?
December 29, 2012, 10:43:53 AM
Complete blocks are never sent over the P2Pool network; the most you should ever have to burst upload when you get a share is ~2kB to every peer. If decreasing the block size helps your stale rate, it's more likely a latency issue within the P2Pool codebase that can be fixed, instead of a result of your internet connection.
zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
Local rate: 7.74GH/s (7.2% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0917 hours
Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours
that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large? it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
Having every single share orphaned is a sign of bitcoind being broken or some other misconfiguration, not any fixable latency. Did reducing maxblocksize to 0 help?Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours
that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large? it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
Yeah, but to do so I had to restart bitcoind. So it could very well have been something wrong with the bitcoind->p2pool connection.... couldn't see how it could be bitcoind itself, since it was still reporting everything as normal...
The blocksize was at around 900KB, I thought maybe that might be the issue... although I doubt it was so high for 2 hours
December 29, 2012, 08:42:36 AM
My incoming peer has always been 0. Any cause for concern?
That means you aren't forwarding the p2pool port from your firewall. Probably okay.
M
December 29, 2012, 07:54:43 AM
My incoming peer has always been 0. Any cause for concern?
December 29, 2012, 02:19:24 AM
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
Great. I just released a new version of cgminer, 2.10.4, as a hotfix to ensure it works with p2pool stratum.
December 29, 2012, 01:08:38 AM
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
Great. I just released a new version of cgminer, 2.10.4, as a hotfix to ensure it works with p2pool stratum. December 28, 2012, 10:47:49 PM
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
Great. I just released a new version of cgminer, 2.10.4, as a hotfix to ensure it works with p2pool stratum. December 28, 2012, 02:38:03 PM
TRC pool is forked?
I`m playing witch some changes in code on windows, and when I delete shares graph shows pool rate as about 600MH then after few minutes drop to less than 200.
From my linux node it seems that I`m inly active TRC miner ~150MH + 2 or 3 users that make about 50MH total.
I also see total 4-5 nodes tops.
I`m playing witch some changes in code on windows, and when I delete shares graph shows pool rate as about 600MH then after few minutes drop to less than 200.
From my linux node it seems that I`m inly active TRC miner ~150MH + 2 or 3 users that make about 50MH total.
I also see total 4-5 nodes tops.
December 28, 2012, 11:41:11 AM
Complete blocks are never sent over the P2Pool network; the most you should ever have to burst upload when you get a share is ~2kB to every peer. If decreasing the block size helps your stale rate, it's more likely a latency issue within the P2Pool codebase that can be fixed, instead of a result of your internet connection.
zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
Local rate: 7.74GH/s (7.2% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0917 hours
Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours
that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large? it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
Having every single share orphaned is a sign of bitcoind being broken or some other misconfiguration, not any fixable latency. Did reducing maxblocksize to 0 help?Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours
that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large? it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
December 28, 2012, 06:33:42 AM
just fyi, my "standard ADSL" connection has 768k up.
M
mdude77,
I was talking about 64kB (or 640 kbits ), so it really makes little difference if you have a 200kB block to send around.
spiccioli
December 28, 2012, 06:23:08 AM
kano,
IMHO the only good thing for bitcoin are:
- distribution, p2pool envisions the original idea of a distributed network
- fees should in the end replace block reward.
mining has different costs in different parts of the world and not everyone can have a T1 at his/her home.
So, restricting block size/imposing a fee are legal ways to handle such differences.
If a p2pool user has a fiber connection, for example, he could mine a much bigger block.
BTW, if you see here
http://blockchain.info/blocks
you'll find out that block sizes can be a lot lower than 32 kB even for big pools.
spiccioli
IMHO the only good thing for bitcoin are:
- distribution, p2pool envisions the original idea of a distributed network
- fees should in the end replace block reward.
mining has different costs in different parts of the world and not everyone can have a T1 at his/her home.
So, restricting block size/imposing a fee are legal ways to handle such differences.
If a p2pool user has a fiber connection, for example, he could mine a much bigger block.
BTW, if you see here
http://blockchain.info/blocks
you'll find out that block sizes can be a lot lower than 32 kB even for big pools.
spiccioli
December 28, 2012, 06:17:16 AM
kano,
there are two issues here:
I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not.
I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions.
spiccioli
edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones.
there are two issues here:
- users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
- users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.
I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not.
I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions.
spiccioli
edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones.
just fyi, my "standard ADSL" connection has 768k up.
M
I live in a rural area and the best option here until 2 yrs ago was cable that was limited to 256kbps upstream.... that was called the 'business package'
actually, if you're trying to sling around 200kb blocks to multiple peers, the best option in that case I guess would be to just eat close to a second of latency from satellite.... well, if you can get satellite
i could in texas! (not wireless in this area tho, hah)
Jump to: