Author

Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool - page 776. (Read 2591916 times)

legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1333
ten blocks one every 10 seconds and one block once every 100 seconds gives you exactly the same amount of security if the overall hash rate is the same.

That might be true if the blocks were chained together, with each one depending on the previous one.  But in P2Pool the share chain doesn't require this.  The transactions appearing in one share may or may not appear in the following share in the sharechain and it just doesn't matter.

So it's possible you see your transaction in a share in the sharechain, and then see 10 more shares follow it, each of which not containing your transaction.

All that seeing your transaction in a share tells you is that a miner somewhere has accepted your transaction into his pool and is trying to mine it at the moment.  It absolutely doesn't tell you that it will ever be successfully mined.
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
If P2Pool ever makes it into the main client I have an idea/question... could it incorporate the concept of 'mini-confirmations' for transactions. They are every 10 seconds so they would be great for point of sale type stuff.. merchants would have a bit of confidence for small purchases after just a few seconds. Of course for large transactions you would still want to wait for the 6 full real confirmations. Anyways.. just a thought.

The point of a conformation is to make it difficult to double-spend and difficulty is based on hashing power x amount of time required to hash. It does't matter how many blocks are solved in the mean time; ten blocks one every 10 seconds and one block once every 100 seconds gives you exactly the same amount of security if the overall hash rate is the same.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
If P2Pool ever makes it into the main client I have an idea/question... could it incorporate the concept of 'mini-confirmations' for transactions. They are every 10 seconds so they would be great for point of sale type stuff.. merchants would have a bit of confidence for small purchases after just a few seconds. Of course for large transactions you would still want to wait for the 6 full real confirmations. Anyways.. just a thought.
P2Pool shares are not in any way analogous to block solves in that manner. So basically, no.
sr. member
Activity: 604
Merit: 250
If P2Pool ever makes it into the main client I have an idea/question... could it incorporate the concept of 'mini-confirmations' for transactions. They are every 10 seconds so they would be great for point of sale type stuff.. merchants would have a bit of confidence for small purchases after just a few seconds. Of course for large transactions you would still want to wait for the 6 full real confirmations. Anyways.. just a thought.
legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1000
I do really like the concept of P2pool, So I'm mining both BTC and LTC for the foreseeable future
sr. member
Activity: 604
Merit: 250
Even at 200 Mh/s I still get multiple shares and payouts per day which is more than enough. It's not like I was withdrawing once a day from the regular pools.

Quote from: kano
Take into consideration those numbers

Number of p2pool users will level off as many discover their rigs are too small for p2pool. p2pool proponents will sell them variance but the users won't buy it and go back to thier previous pool.

What would be considered enough hashrate to make P2Pool worthwhile? (I've got approx 700 Mh/s)
legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1000
did the pool just mine 2 blocks in the space of 6 minutes? Grin
legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1000
Quote from: kano
Take into consideration those numbers

Number of p2pool users will level off as many discover their rigs are too small for p2pool. p2pool proponents will sell them variance but the users won't buy it and go back to thier previous pool.

What would be considered enough hashrate to make P2Pool worthwhile? (I've got approx 700 Mh/s)
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Quote from: kano
Take into consideration those numbers

Number of p2pool users will level off as many discover their rigs are too small for p2pool. p2pool proponents will sell them variance but the users won't buy it and go back to thier previous pool.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
1GH/s (if you have that much) with a share difficulty of 500 (look up what it currently is) will take approximately 35.79 mins per share.

As I mentioned recently, with a variance of 8 on that (which isn't impossible) you may even take up to 4.66hours before you'd see a share at 1GH/s (or longer)

Take into consideration those numbers Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 518
Merit: 250
So I'm still new to this and I'm trying to configure my cgminer/run_p2pool thing properly. I'm just curious if Cgminer is supposed to say that a 'share' is "Accepted" or "Rejected" because I traditionally get a couple Accepted when I first run the program than 90% of the time after that it says Rejected. Is this just because it's not actually getting shares or something?

What version of CGMiner are you using? I had a problem like that on 2.2.3, switching to 2.2.5 fixed it.
member
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
So I'm still new to this and I'm trying to configure my cgminer/run_p2pool thing properly. I'm just curious if Cgminer is supposed to say that a 'share' is "Accepted" or "Rejected" because I traditionally get a couple Accepted when I first run the program than 90% of the time after that it says Rejected. Is this just because it's not actually getting shares or something?
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
Actually how do I use the "--address" option with merged mining?
Do I use a "," to separate them?

Thanks!
You can't specify an address for the merged chain (yet).  The merged mining still needs some work.  The address is currently fetched automatically via the RPC

Ok, so I have put the same wallet(s) on all my mining machines, hence they all use the same addresse(s).
Is that an ok workaround?

Thank you!

Why don't you just point all your miners to one p2pool merged mining instance?  I have 3 miners but only run one p2pool, bitcoind, and namecoind.

DING DING DING.

If you are worried about fault tolerance make a second machine be the backup p2pool.  Then setup cgminer w/ 3 pools
p2pool - main
p2pool - backup
traditional pool

If the machine w/ your p2pool goes down, cgminer will point all miners to the backup p2pool and if it also goes down it will point everything at a traditional pool. 

Or even better

p2pool - main
p2pool - backup
traditional pool 1
traditional pool 2
traditional pool tor hidden service 1
traditional pool tor hidden service 2
donator
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1079
Gerald Davis
Actually how do I use the "--address" option with merged mining?
Do I use a "," to separate them?

Thanks!
You can't specify an address for the merged chain (yet).  The merged mining still needs some work.  The address is currently fetched automatically via the RPC

Ok, so I have put the same wallet(s) on all my mining machines, hence they all use the same addresse(s).
Is that an ok workaround?

Thank you!

Why don't you just point all your miners to one p2pool merged mining instance?  I have 3 miners but only run one p2pool, bitcoind, and namecoind.

DING DING DING.

If you are worried about fault tolerance make a second machine be the backup p2pool.  Then setup cgminer w/ 3 pools
p2pool - main
p2pool - backup
traditional pool

If the machine w/ your p2pool goes down, cgminer will point all miners to the backup p2pool and if it also goes down it will point everything at a traditional pool. 
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
If they are paying fees now, wouldn't switching to a negative fee pool like p2pool be reward enough?

Maybe if you can get their attention. Offering a signup fee and bonus specifically aimed at that group would likely generate more interest than what they may perceive as "yet another 100+% pool". If they were paying attention, they wouldnt be mining at those pools, so the trick will be to reach them somehow.

Moreover, someone mining at deepbit may be turned down after 1 day of mining at p2pool after receiving nothing or only  a fraction of that they are used to. If you can convince them to mine a week or so, then they might actually see for themselves.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1851
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
Actually how do I use the "--address" option with merged mining?
Do I use a "," to separate them?

Thanks!
You can't specify an address for the merged chain (yet).  The merged mining still needs some work.  The address is currently fetched automatically via the RPC

Ok, so I have put the same wallet(s) on all my mining machines, hence they all use the same addresse(s).
Is that an ok workaround?

Thank you!
Copying a wallet to multiple bitcoind's ... hmm ... I'm sure that's gonna come back and bite you some time in the future ...
e.g. if one of them ever allocates a new address range it won't be in the others ...
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
Actually how do I use the "--address" option with merged mining?
Do I use a "," to separate them?

Thanks!
You can't specify an address for the merged chain (yet).  The merged mining still needs some work.  The address is currently fetched automatically via the RPC

Ok, so I have put the same wallet(s) on all my mining machines, hence they all use the same addresse(s).
Is that an ok workaround?

Thank you!

Why don't you just point all your miners to one p2pool merged mining instance?  I have 3 miners but only run one p2pool, bitcoind, and namecoind.
Yeah. Do that. Way simpler.

I run 2 p2pool instances so that I can upgrade without any downtime.  I run most of my systems as VMs, so it's easy for me to have lots of systems.
kjj
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1026
If they are paying fees now, wouldn't switching to a negative fee pool like p2pool be reward enough?
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 500
Had an idea.. how about we start a

Shafted Miner Relief Fund

The idea being to attract miners that have been "shafted" on hopped proportional pools or pools with insanely high fees.
Give them an incentive to switch over to p2pool. There is considerable potential, seeing how those exploited pools still maintain a 200GH+ base, and they should be relatively easy to convert as there is a real, direct financial benefit for them, even without said fund.

To qualify you could demand some proof (stats, screenshots, not sure what) that they have been mining for x months or generated Y shares on one of selected pools.

And as "relief" I would offer them a small signup bonus for getting p2pool installed and running, and a bonus on their revenue for the first 2 weeks or whatever, but long enough to keep them in and see their financial benefit despite high variability;  the height of the bonus would obviously depend on how big the fund gets and how many takers we get.

To fund the fund, perhaps forrestv or someone else can setup a donation p2p subpool were we can donate shares to?
 Perhaps we could even convince some of the hoppers to pay their fair share Smiley.

Thoughts?

donator
Activity: 798
Merit: 500
Actually how do I use the "--address" option with merged mining?
Do I use a "," to separate them?

Thanks!
You can't specify an address for the merged chain (yet).  The merged mining still needs some work.  The address is currently fetched automatically via the RPC

Ok, so I have put the same wallet(s) on all my mining machines, hence they all use the same addresse(s).
Is that an ok workaround?

Thank you!

Why don't you just point all your miners to one p2pool merged mining instance?  I have 3 miners but only run one p2pool, bitcoind, and namecoind.
Jump to: