Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 758. (Read 2591916 times)
March 05, 2012, 07:43:19 PM
Does p2pool backup the log file before it wipes it and starts over? I noticed that around 10 AM my time this morning, that p2pool wiped my log file and started fresh (first entries are after 10 AM). I cannot find anywhere that it got backed up. Can you add an option to do log file backups?
March 05, 2012, 07:23:09 PM
Am I correct in thinking that p2pool now provides variable size shares? Will shares found that are higher than the current (network) difficulty automatically scale, or does it need to be set in advance?
Well p2pool has always supported variable difficulty shares. This simple lets you set a higher than minimum diff. You would need to set it ahead of time. If you don't cheating is trivially easy. Look I just found a diff 200,000 shares woot. I get credit for 40,000 shares!
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I just didn't want to spell it all out in public until I heard from forrestv that it was taken care of.
Ah I see. Oops. Well looking over the code I the share difficulty is part of the block header. Thus diff is defined before hashing and once you find a share it is only good for that difficulty as you submit share data long w/ hash to the share chain to allow other nodes to verify.
The bitcoin network target is in the block header. This is not the same as the p2pool target.
March 05, 2012, 07:16:04 PM
Yes that is what we are talking about.
No and no.
March 05, 2012, 07:15:01 PM
Yes that is what we are talking about.
March 05, 2012, 07:13:27 PM
Yes that is what we are talking about.
March 05, 2012, 07:12:25 PM
Wasn't that one of the 2 new points of this post?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.785010
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.785010
March 05, 2012, 07:01:44 PM
Am I correct in thinking that p2pool now provides variable size shares? Will shares found that are higher than the current (network) difficulty automatically scale, or does it need to be set in advance?
Well p2pool has always supported variable difficulty shares. This simple lets you set a higher than minimum diff. You would need to set it ahead of time. If you don't cheating is trivially easy. Look I just found a diff 200,000 shares woot. I get credit for 40,000 shares!
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I just didn't want to spell it all out in public until I heard from forrestv that it was taken care of.
Ah I see. Oops. Well looking over the code I the share difficulty is part of the block header. Thus diff is defined before hashing and once you find a share it is only good for that difficulty as you submit share data long w/ hash to the share chain to allow other nodes to verify.
March 05, 2012, 06:58:54 PM
Am I correct in thinking that p2pool now provides variable size shares? Will shares found that are higher than the current (network) difficulty automatically scale, or does it need to be set in advance?
Well p2pool has always supported variable difficulty shares. This simple lets you set a higher than minimum diff. You would need to set it ahead of time. If you don't cheating is trivially easy. Look I just found a diff 200,000 shares woot. I get credit for 40,000 shares!
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I just didn't want to spell it all out in public until I heard from forrestv that it was taken care of.
March 05, 2012, 06:48:55 PM
Am I correct in thinking that p2pool now provides variable size shares? Will shares found that are higher than the current (network) difficulty automatically scale, or does it need to be set in advance?
Well p2pool has always supported variable difficulty shares. This simple lets you set a higher than minimum diff. You would need to set it ahead of time. If you don't cheating is trivially easy. Look I just found a diff 200,000 shares woot. I get credit for 40,000 shares!
March 05, 2012, 06:45:44 PM
The transition ~40 hours ago went better than expected. Thanks to all for upgrading.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
Am I correct in thinking that p2pool now provides variable size shares? Will shares found that are higher than the current (network) difficulty automatically scale, or does it need to be set in advance?
March 05, 2012, 06:29:28 PM
damn the day of blocks we got going on. 
I ain't complainin' 
March 05, 2012, 05:57:40 PM
damn the day of blocks we got going on.
March 05, 2012, 05:21:14 PM
The transition ~40 hours ago went better than expected. Thanks to all for upgrading.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
By "adding to the username" you mean the username specified in bitcoin.conf (rpcuser=)?
Dia
I think he means the username sent by the miner. i.e. in cgminer instead of a username "user" you would use a username of "user /1300" to request 1300 difficulty work from p2pool.
March 05, 2012, 05:03:08 PM
The transition ~40 hours ago went better than expected. Thanks to all for upgrading.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
By "adding to the username" you mean the username specified in bitcoin.conf (rpcuser=)?
Dia
March 05, 2012, 04:30:02 PM
I can get diablo running, but it just sits at 0.0Mh/s, even though the P2Pool app seems to be working fine.
It sounds like you might not have the port set .. are you running DiabloMiner with "-r 9332"? If you are, can you pastebin the command that you're running and its output? Check if P2Pool has any error messages and run DiaboMiner with the debug flag too (I think it's just -d).
March 05, 2012, 04:21:05 PM
Sorry to (semi)re-post this, but I'd really like to jump into the pool!
I'm trying to get my 7970 hashing in the pool, but I can't seem to get it configured correctly with diablominer.
It works fine with cgminer, but I get better hashrates with diablo.
Anyone got this combo (diablominer+P2Pool) working?
I can get diablo running, but it just sits at 0.0Mh/s, even though the P2Pool app seems to be working fine.
Is there a log file or something I can post that will help track down the issue?
I followed the setup instructions in the first few posts, but they don't seem to address diablo specifically, and I think I'm just missing some minor (but important) bit of string to get it hashing.
Any help appreciated.
I'm trying to get my 7970 hashing in the pool, but I can't seem to get it configured correctly with diablominer.
It works fine with cgminer, but I get better hashrates with diablo.
Anyone got this combo (diablominer+P2Pool) working?
I can get diablo running, but it just sits at 0.0Mh/s, even though the P2Pool app seems to be working fine.
Is there a log file or something I can post that will help track down the issue?
I followed the setup instructions in the first few posts, but they don't seem to address diablo specifically, and I think I'm just missing some minor (but important) bit of string to get it hashing.
Any help appreciated.
March 05, 2012, 04:06:37 PM
The transition ~40 hours ago went better than expected. Thanks to all for upgrading.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
Now that we're using the new implementation, miners can volunteer to raise their share difficulty by adding something like "/1300" to the end of their miners' usernames. The 1300 is the difficulty of your own shares, and can be changed but must be higher than P2Pool's difficulty (currently 650) to have any effect. I urge anyone whose variance is dominated by P2Pool's block finding to try this (which really means anyone who gets more than a few shares per hour). This has the effect of lowering P2Pool's difficulty for the benefit of small miners, which may let P2Pool grow further.
Last, a side note (mainly to DeathAndTaxes): I just pushed a commit that will add another option ("+1") that lets you choose your pseudoshare difficulty, so you can fix it to some value.
March 05, 2012, 02:59:11 PM
Anyone else notice the trend of rising hashing power and falling users? The avg hashing power per user is rising.
Higher network hashing power = lower block variance.
Higher network hashing power = higher share variance.
The above combo is a win-win for large miners but a win-lose for smaller ones. Taken to the extreme at 600 GH/s avg block time is roughly 3 hour (current difficulty). However at 600 GH/s share difficulty is ~1400 and for a 500 MH/s miner that means a 3.3 hour share time. Further increases in network hashing power mean increased not reduced effective variance.
Of course there are potential solutions I am just pontificating.
Higher network hashing power = lower block variance.
Higher network hashing power = higher share variance.
The above combo is a win-win for large miners but a win-lose for smaller ones. Taken to the extreme at 600 GH/s avg block time is roughly 3 hour (current difficulty). However at 600 GH/s share difficulty is ~1400 and for a 500 MH/s miner that means a 3.3 hour share time. Further increases in network hashing power mean increased not reduced effective variance.
Of course there are potential solutions I am just pontificating.
So in other words little guys like me doing 200 MH/s should probably just stick with a traditional pool until these p2pool issues are settled.
March 05, 2012, 10:14:46 AM
I am running a x6500 FPGA board and a icraus FPGA board with my ARM board as host.
I hope this week a bitforce box from butterflylabs will join them
The ARM plattform is using ~4W out the wall at max performance, so slightly less in its current operation mode.
I will do simmilar systems on panda board and rasberry pi as soon as i get them.
These systems feature full operability as Host computers (ethernet,HDMI,USB OTG,...)
I will also create a thread with HowTo's and downloadble images for these systems soon.
I just quite busy at work at the moment so i have to ask your patience for some time.
I hope this week a bitforce box from butterflylabs will join them
The ARM plattform is using ~4W out the wall at max performance, so slightly less in its current operation mode.
I will do simmilar systems on panda board and rasberry pi as soon as i get them.
These systems feature full operability as Host computers (ethernet,HDMI,USB OTG,...)
I will also create a thread with HowTo's and downloadble images for these systems soon.
I just quite busy at work at the moment so i have to ask your patience for some time.
March 05, 2012, 09:59:08 AM
So in other words little guys like me doing 200 MH/s should probably just stick with a traditional pool until these p2pool issues are settled.
Well p2pool may not grow any larger so it may not matter. Still at 200 MH/s p2pool growing larger doesn't help your variance. In the long run you expected return remains the same however in short run higher hashing power results in more variance.
If/when p2pool grows larger it becomes more of a concern. If you want to use a conventional pool try p2pool hybrid pool (it provides a 1 difficulty shares as a front end to p2pool so you can still support p2pool indirectly).
I'm willing to "support" p2pool if it benefits me, but I really don't see any advantage for myself at this point. There are 0% fee pools that give me a steady payout. I'm agnostic on the arguments about whether p2pool is "better" than normal pools so I'll do whatever gets me the most BTC on average.
Security isn't an issue for me since if the pool's web site is hacked I'll only lose less than 1 day's worth of mined BTC.
Jump to: