Topic: A guide for mining efficiently on P2Pool, includes FUD repellent and FAQ - page 2. (Read 174901 times)

Hello guys ,
I make a noob experiment for p2pool , i rent miners 2 THs and point that to minefast ( which is the p2pool mining pool ) with user name my wallet add and pass x , in the other side i have miner that run on my own node (wallet) with user name and pass same with the miner that i rent ,  the target is i just want to know are the hashing power is miner rent + my miner or they run independently each other. The results of that noob experiment is each miner run independently . the question is how the p2pool networks identify each miner ? cause before i join minefast , i check my address wallet and its appear with the hashing of my own miners , after i join the minefast the hashing powers appear only the rent miner.

regards

kano replied to you in the other thread.

address/2500 will set your diff target to the minimum sharechain difficulty when submitting real shares, however it's so much higher than that, using / that low has no effect.

address+2500 will set your pseudo share target to that, for graphing purposes. No effect on actual shares that go on the sharechain for payouts.

Is there a way to set difficulty besides + / net to your address I set my difficulty for one of my miners to 2500 but sets at 1000. Can anyone tell me why? Or how should i set it?
bitcoinaddress+2500/2500
bitcoinaddress+2500
bitcoinaddress/2500

I compiled it with no wallet   Pretty much negates the need for disablewallet

You start bitcoind with disablewallet=1 in the bitcoin.conf to have no wallet.

It means don't run your public p2pool node on the same machine that holds your wallet.  For example I have bitcoind compiled and built without wallet functionality.  I connect my p2pool node to that daemon.  I start p2pool using
My miners I point to a different address.  That way if my node gets compromised I won't lose any coin because there are none there.

========================
Security

Don't use the node's wallet, always configure p2pool to pay an address (use the "-a" parameter) you can secure appropriately (big fat wallets on a public server are not a good idea).
========================

What does it mean by "big fat wallets on a public server are not a good idea"?

I need some advice on rebuilding a node. I'm rebuilding my p2pool node, a home server. Can I point my asic miners at an public node to keep up with the shares with a same pay address until the home node completed? Is it a good idea to do?

Thanks,
J.

I just updated to the newest p2pool and for some reason my asic runs fun but if i just try to run a few gpu miners i just get continuous hw errors. I left 1mhs of gpu run like this all day and still got no shares. The older versions used to do that too, but only when initially starting up mining on the server.

Has anyone else had this problem?

Latency is the time it takes for y to reach z.  I could run a local p2pool with 1ms local latency, but have some godawful amount of latency to all the other p2pool nodes, since I have jack shit for upstream.  Hence, it's better for me to use a remote server.


I don't suppose you ever figured this out?  I'm still using --fix-protocol and longpolling.  Guess it's not a huge issue, seeing as how long polling is much faster, anyway ..  15.0 + 733, 15.733 MH/s... never saw those numbers with stratum.

though it would be nice for ppl to be able to randomly mine on my node without getting spammed out w/ the 0 difficulty shares.  

I guess I probably just need to change some minimal difficulty setting in the networks.py file, eh.  Oh, I'm finally done resetting server too, got p2pool-nodes set up nicely

ed: oh, with --fix-protocol (or "fix-protocol": true,  .. I think in .conf file) the difficulty setting works properly w/ longpolling, re: Litecoinaddress+0.05 or whatever.

Is latency on a P2Pool really only for when miners are connected to it from the outside or is it something more?

Thanks,

the same thing is happening to me, re: litecoin.  i didnt want to post here since i figured it was just something dumb i was doing.

in my case, it starts at 0 and slowly increases and then evens out around 0.002 difficulty,  which gets some godawful number of HW failures and about 1/2 hash rate.

"fix-protocol": true,

in the config file fixes this,  that is, using  longpolling instead of stratum

it's at nogleg.com:9326 atm.  tried setting up some stratum proxy that failed miserably too, hence the 9326 port.  no clue.  long polling works but it creates a ton of connections.  it also seems to get more DOA, but then, i usually don't get 16mhash from my X3

ed: i was running a doge scrypt p2pool like 3 days ago, w/o any problems.  i also need to fix my --p2pool-node list, but not until i get stratum working properly ^_^

Since I'd rather be mining than screwing around, I ended up editing cgminer.c to check stratum for diff < 1 and forcing diff=256 to my asics.  This way I can still switch to a fallback pool and not lose anything.

I'm running my own p2pool for both bitcoin and litecoin.

I pulled the latest github master from today and I'm happily running away on the BTC instance.
My bitcoin asics are getting vardiff balanced out to around 250-400 depending on what kind they are.

The litecoin instance I ran from the same root folder.  (I didn't forget to compile the scrypt stuff first)
My scrypt asics are all coming in from one machine running cgminer 4.3.5 customized for zeus (but not by them).
This cgminer version works fine connecting to other external p2pools for litecoin.

However, when I connect locally to my p2pool for litecoin, it keeps telling the miners to set difficulty to 0.0 and it is creating havoc since my miners are backing up the usb buses trying to throw that many crappy little shares.
This has been going for 20 minutes and I only ever see messages from my p2pool for difficulty like:

Nothing I add to the end of my litecoin address has any effect on initial or continuing vardiff, it just keeps sending me to 0.0.  Resulting in some very bad stats:

Does anyone has any ideas about how to fix this?

First off, re: this guide, this was on my DOGE pool, but since it's down now:

Since all the "guides" are wrong, I'll talk a little bit about latency when choosing a p2pool. This DOGE pool setup has 15s shares and 60s blocks, for five interruptions per minute. So assume you have a very high 200ms latency (and no packetloss, packetloss *IS* a big deal)... your system will continue working on an old share for 0.2s and it'll take an additional >0.2s for the server to send you out the new share information (well, plus 1-5ms overhead).... so, basically, 400ms per interruption is your DOA window.  5x400ms = 2s, 2 out of 60 = 3.33% DOA. For other coins it's even less of a factor (bitcoin with the 20s share times and the much longer block periods).  I found it wasn't worth mining on my machine locally since I ended up with tons more orphans.  European nodes in general will get less orphans & orphan rate should be the primary factor in determining the best pool. If you get 50ms latency to pool A and 200ms latency to pool B, then pool A would only be better if the orphan rate was an absolute ~2.5% or so lower than pool B.  If not, pool B is better... regardless of the DOAs looking bad on your miner or not...

Bitcoin share time is 30s, so that's even less interrupts.


I don't remember what the advice says at the beginning of this thread, but a lot of it has always been wrong.

I don't see a reason to set a higher share difficulty level unless you like gambling (the /2000 part)...  If you are on a pool that is 2TH, then that 512 will be lower than the default.  All it's used for is to calculate your hash rate and display it on the p2pool graphs.  The lower it is, the more data you'll transfer and the more accurate your hash rate graph will be.

Not sure how you can make a blanket statement about low latency, I mean, I'm sure lots of people in Europe have sub 50ms to my Hetzner server, but I don't.  re: 2TH and no shares, that's because the base p2pool code attempts to "equalize" the shares each pool gets.  I guess 2TH isn't a whole lot for bitcoins anymore, I have no clue.  For scrypt, let's say litecoin p2pools are at 5GH/s total, a node mining litecoins at 5MH/s will be at base share difficulty (the amt used to "attempt" to get one share every 30s network-wide), while a node at 200MH/s will have a share difficulty 20x + of the 5MH/s node.

Has the advice at the beginning of this thread been updated to take into account current difficulty and network hashing power, and newer hardware?

Also, what is best practice for tacking "/2000+512" or whatever onto the end of your BTC address to set a higher share quality and manual difficulty?

I'm finding myself on a good network connection with low latency on good hardware and I suddenly have 2TH of miners on my node, but hardly anybody is getting shares.

Thanks In Advance

Thanks (I was thinking the question was relevant since the OP suggested tweaking the max blocksize to increase the amount of potential fees or to limit bandwidth).

While this has nothing to do with p2pool mining...

Look at the main.h for your coin:

static const unsigned int DEFAULT_BLOCK_MAX_SIZE

This can be overridden by passing -blockmaxsize to your *coind on startup, or by putting a value in *coin.conf files.

Does anyone know where you can find the default (and possibly max) block size for a coin in the wallet code?

It matters because you only get paid out when someone in p2pool finds a block. This doesn't not affect your expected (average) earnings but it does affect the frequency of your payouts and the variance of your earnings.

Happily, p2pool hash rate has increased a lot recently.


Yss!

Quick questions, sorry if it has been addressesed.

1) does it matter what % of p2pool has rate in comparison to total hashrate affects earning in the long run, after ramp-up?

2) Can you point multiple miners from multiple IP's or same LAN, to the same p2pool using the same payout address?