Hm, hm -hmm-
This whole mining fuckup needs to be sorted.
Its the very core of the coin, but its as fucked up and handled as wrong, as with any other shit coin.
After thinking about it for more than 1.5 minutes, I think it is unavoidable to implement the following:
The masternodes should authorize each pool, or each individual node, for mining.
That could mean anything.
It needs to run the right software...
In the right version... having the right signature for an approved project.
It has to be launched exactly 3 o clock UTC and register with the masternodes, whatever...
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 3460. (Read 9723748 times)
November 19, 2014, 02:22:11 PM
November 19, 2014, 02:02:06 PM
--P2pool is unusable for small miners
...
...
This is absolutely not true.
it kinda is.
you have to have really luck to submit a valid share. (as a small miner)
Yes, it is true.
What is a small miner ? One 750ti for 100 Euro gets you 2.6MHs.
And you can have multiple miners submit under same address, right ? Like if you want to use your University Cluster for mining
Nah, only self-centered a$$holes use public money for their own benefit. Had a tennant in one of my flats who was mining coins - I only found it
after he was gone, the sucker left me witha a hefty bill to pay. Electricity parasites. Fortunatelly the court has ordered him to repay the costs so the story had a happy ending after all.
November 19, 2014, 01:56:29 PM
--P2pool is unusable for small miners
...
...
This is absolutely not true.
it kinda is.
you have to have really luck to submit a valid share. (as a small miner)
Yes, it is true.
What is a small miner ? One 750ti for 100 Euro gets you 2.6MHs.
And you can have multiple miners submit under same address, right ? Like if you want to use your University Cluster for mining
And I see I forgot to add another benefits of p2pool.
+ You will get better rewards: P2Pools award transaction fees from black rewards to the miners
+ P2Pool is DDoS resistant, it is impossible to DDoS the entire peer-to-peer P2Pool network, at best all someone can do is knock a node offline, in which case your client will just switch to one of your failover nodes
+ Most P2Pool nodes have <1% fees, and if you want 0% fees, you can even set up your own node on your local network.
+ Even if the node you are using goes down, you will not lose a single microdoge of payment, as the network itself stores your pending rewards, and will distribute them to you as normal.
November 19, 2014, 01:54:30 PM
not sure if you're referring my proposal, but I dont mean p2pool dev, I mean direct contribution to the p2pool miners to incentivise the p2pool network.
Is it possible to allow p2pool miners to earn 5% more by allowing payments to masternodes at 20%?
My suggestion is an optional choice to "tip" back the p2pool network, not to redistribute mining earnings. That way incentivising the use of p2pool network. This was back in April when MN earned 10%. I'm not technically savvy to fully propose a valid solution (for example, where would the payment go? a central wallet? thats a very bad idea... ) ... but in essence, p2pool nodes could have could have a "genkey", and participant MN's could send out a % cut, much in the same way MN receive a % cut from mining rewards.
Like I said, that would seriously work against central ASIC raping and potentially all the centralised issues of mining.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/
ASICs are a threat regardles of how many people engage in P2P mining. 1 half decent ASIC = 1,000,000 CPU miners. Once the ASICS come into the game, everything else than ASIC will be a waste of electricity.
ASICs should not be considered a thread. ASICs are a natural evolution of a coin and helping provide greater security to the network.
Sometimes i use http://solomining.com/ all people can try it, its like a lotto haha
ASICs did not kill LTC. LTC killed LTC. LTC hasn't done anything in over a year and the price is not dropping because people are dumping ASIC coins. If this were true than BTC would not be where it's at, not to mention the diff was created so it can be adjusted with more hashing power. We need to ensure the network is secure by putting as much hashing power behind it as possible. I don't want darkcoin mined by people at home with their PCs. I want to see as much hashing power spread out across as many users as possible which of course will be small with x11 asics hit the market.
November 19, 2014, 01:45:37 PM
not sure if you're referring my proposal, but I dont mean p2pool dev, I mean direct contribution to the p2pool miners to incentivise the p2pool network.
Is it possible to allow p2pool miners to earn 5% more by allowing payments to masternodes at 20%?
My suggestion is an optional choice to "tip" back the p2pool network, not to redistribute mining earnings. That way incentivising the use of p2pool network. This was back in April when MN earned 10%. I'm not technically savvy to fully propose a valid solution (for example, where would the payment go? a central wallet? thats a very bad idea... ) ... but in essence, p2pool nodes could have could have a "genkey", and participant MN's could send out a % cut, much in the same way MN receive a % cut from mining rewards.
Like I said, that would seriously work against central ASIC raping and potentially all the centralised issues of mining.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/
ASICs are a threat regardles of how many people engage in P2P mining. 1 half decent ASIC = 1,000,000 CPU miners. Once the ASICS come into the game, everything else than ASIC will be a waste of electricity.
ASICs should not be considered a thread. ASICs are a natural evolution of a coin and helping provide greater security to the network.
Not really. You won't have a decent number of people running x11 asics therefore the centralisation problem is likely to be bigger
bitcoin shows the opposite..
if there would be additionally p2pool everything would be fine
with the DRK price you would not have thousands of ASICS miner all around the world.. so there would be a large centralisation in the beginning.
P2P mining with your PC would not make sense in ASIC times.
November 19, 2014, 01:43:24 PM
not sure if you're referring my proposal, but I dont mean p2pool dev, I mean direct contribution to the p2pool miners to incentivise the p2pool network.
Is it possible to allow p2pool miners to earn 5% more by allowing payments to masternodes at 20%?
My suggestion is an optional choice to "tip" back the p2pool network, not to redistribute mining earnings. That way incentivising the use of p2pool network. This was back in April when MN earned 10%. I'm not technically savvy to fully propose a valid solution (for example, where would the payment go? a central wallet? thats a very bad idea... ) ... but in essence, p2pool nodes could have could have a "genkey", and participant MN's could send out a % cut, much in the same way MN receive a % cut from mining rewards.
Like I said, that would seriously work against central ASIC raping and potentially all the centralised issues of mining.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/
ASICs are a threat regardles of how many people engage in P2P mining. 1 half decent ASIC = 1,000,000 CPU miners. Once the ASICS come into the game, everything else than ASIC will be a waste of electricity.
ASICs should not be considered a thread. ASICs are a natural evolution of a coin and helping provide greater security to the network.
Sometimes i use http://solomining.com/ all people can try it, its like a lotto haha
November 19, 2014, 01:43:02 PM
--P2pool is unusable for small miners
...
...
This is absolutely not true.
it kinda is.
you have to have really luck to submit a valid share. (as a small miner)
November 19, 2014, 01:42:27 PM
not sure if you're referring my proposal, but I dont mean p2pool dev, I mean direct contribution to the p2pool miners to incentivise the p2pool network.
Is it possible to allow p2pool miners to earn 5% more by allowing payments to masternodes at 20%?
My suggestion is an optional choice to "tip" back the p2pool network, not to redistribute mining earnings. That way incentivising the use of p2pool network. This was back in April when MN earned 10%. I'm not technically savvy to fully propose a valid solution (for example, where would the payment go? a central wallet? thats a very bad idea... ) ... but in essence, p2pool nodes could have could have a "genkey", and participant MN's could send out a % cut, much in the same way MN receive a % cut from mining rewards.
Like I said, that would seriously work against central ASIC raping and potentially all the centralised issues of mining.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/
ASICs are a threat regardles of how many people engage in P2P mining. 1 half decent ASIC = 1,000,000 CPU miners. Once the ASICS come into the game, everything else than ASIC will be a waste of electricity.
ASICs should not be considered a thread. ASICs are a natural evolution of a coin and helping provide greater security to the network.
Not really. You won't have a decent number of people running x11 asics therefore the centralisation problem is likely to be bigger
bitcoin shows the opposite..
if there would be additionally p2pool everything would be fine
November 19, 2014, 01:39:56 PM
not sure if you're referring my proposal, but I dont mean p2pool dev, I mean direct contribution to the p2pool miners to incentivise the p2pool network.
Is it possible to allow p2pool miners to earn 5% more by allowing payments to masternodes at 20%?
My suggestion is an optional choice to "tip" back the p2pool network, not to redistribute mining earnings. That way incentivising the use of p2pool network. This was back in April when MN earned 10%. I'm not technically savvy to fully propose a valid solution (for example, where would the payment go? a central wallet? thats a very bad idea... ) ... but in essence, p2pool nodes could have could have a "genkey", and participant MN's could send out a % cut, much in the same way MN receive a % cut from mining rewards.
Like I said, that would seriously work against central ASIC raping and potentially all the centralised issues of mining.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/
ASICs are a threat regardles of how many people engage in P2P mining. 1 half decent ASIC = 1,000,000 CPU miners. Once the ASICS come into the game, everything else than ASIC will be a waste of electricity.
ASICs should not be considered a thread. ASICs are a natural evolution of a coin and helping provide greater security to the network.
Not really. You won't have a decent number of people running x11 asics therefore the centralisation problem is likely to be bigger
November 19, 2014, 01:38:14 PM
not sure if you're referring my proposal, but I dont mean p2pool dev, I mean direct contribution to the p2pool miners to incentivise the p2pool network.
Is it possible to allow p2pool miners to earn 5% more by allowing payments to masternodes at 20%?
My suggestion is an optional choice to "tip" back the p2pool network, not to redistribute mining earnings. That way incentivising the use of p2pool network. This was back in April when MN earned 10%. I'm not technically savvy to fully propose a valid solution (for example, where would the payment go? a central wallet? thats a very bad idea... ) ... but in essence, p2pool nodes could have could have a "genkey", and participant MN's could send out a % cut, much in the same way MN receive a % cut from mining rewards.
Like I said, that would seriously work against central ASIC raping and potentially all the centralised issues of mining.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/
ASICs are a threat regardles of how many people engage in P2P mining. 1 half decent ASIC = 1,000,000 CPU miners. Once the ASICS come into the game, everything else than ASIC will be a waste of electricity.
ASICs should not be considered a thread. ASICs are a natural evolution of a coin and helping provide greater security to the network.
November 19, 2014, 01:36:59 PM
Some news about X11 asic or FPGA 
November 19, 2014, 01:36:18 PM
Couple of issues with P2Pool.
--Memory Leak
The current p2pool software has a memory leak that uses all the available ram until it shuts down. It's an unfortunate pain.
--Memory Leak
The current p2pool software has a memory leak that uses all the available ram until it shuts down. It's an unfortunate pain.
This is absolutely not true.
Looking at your signature it seems you have a p2pool. Maybe it's changed but last time I've used it absolutely had a memory leak.
--Dust Payments
When mining on a p2pool, you receive payments in very small inputs over the course of a day. Unlike a traditional pool when you can specify when to withdraw your coins or set up a predetermined withdrawal amount, you have no control over a p2pool payment. After a certain amount of transactions into the wallet, the QT wallet fails to function properly and becomes unusable. (possible bug with qt itself)
This is absolutely not true.
QT is affected by the dust payments not the daemon.
--P2pool is unusable for small miners
P2pool works by using a shared chain. It requires a higher hashrate than an MPOS or NOMP pool due to it needing to submit work faster than the latter. This disqualifies cpu miners from ever submitting valid shares in the time frame required of them. The minimum hashrate for LTC's p2pool is roughly 10MH/s. Before ASIC's I believe it was around 2.5MH/s. Unfortunately, I don't have the information to determine the minimum hashrate needed for a Darkcoin p2pool. Vertoe asked on stackoverflow but the answer was awful. http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/24557/how-to-calculate-the-minum-recommended-hashrate-for-p2pool-network
So there definitely are some drawbacks to p2pool. I think it's a great concept but impractical.
This is absolutely not true.
What the hell man every single point except one? It absolutely does require a higher hash rate than a normal pool. Don't know why you say otherwise. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool November 19, 2014, 01:34:59 PM
btw. whats about the idea supporting p2p pools somehow..? masternode donation seems quite interesting..
whats evans opinion?
whats evans opinion?
As owner of three masternodes I strongly disagree with redistribution of MN income.
Let the market decide whether P2P pool will be used or not - the key is to improve the user experience and make
it accessible to total Linux newbies not to bribe the users to mine there.
LOL, will be the same discussion as miners strongly disagreeing with MN payments
But I also think that is not the way to go.
In the end, it's miners who should be rewarded for using p2pool nodes.
They are rewarded for mining dark wherever they want to.
Darkcoin will do great with much smaller number of miners; the current hashrate is a luxury.
C'mon, not again. I hate this 'miners are shit, just the working class the upper class does not give a shit about' attitude.
Miners are the ones that secure the block chain, and 'create' new coins. It's not MN, its not an exchange.
And don't start with ' if the miners leave, difficulty will come down, and they will return' crap.
I am not saying miners are shit - we need a certain number and currently we have much more than we need.
Are you able to see the difference?
The mining balancing theory is a basis of crypto, not a crap
November 19, 2014, 01:33:56 PM
btw. whats about the idea supporting p2p pools somehow..? masternode donation seems quite interesting..
whats evans opinion?
whats evans opinion?
As owner of three masternodes I strongly disagree with redistribution of MN income.
Let the market decide whether P2P pool will be used or not - the key is to improve the user experience and make
it accessible to total Linux newbies not to bribe the users to mine there.
LOL, will be the same discussion as miners strongly disagreeing with MN payments
But I also think that is not the way to go.
In the end, it's miners who should be rewarded for using p2pool nodes.
They are rewarded for mining dark wherever they want to.
Darkcoin will do great with much smaller number of miners; the current hashrate is a luxury.
C'mon, not again. I hate this 'miners are shit, just the working class the upper class does not give a shit about' attitude.
Miners are the ones that secure the block chain, and 'create' new coins. It's not MN, its not an exchange.
And don't start with ' if the miners leave, difficulty will come down, and they will return' crap.
November 19, 2014, 01:32:39 PM
not sure if you're referring my proposal, but I dont mean p2pool dev, I mean direct contribution to the p2pool miners to incentivise the p2pool network.
Is it possible to allow p2pool miners to earn 5% more by allowing payments to masternodes at 20%?
My suggestion is an optional choice to "tip" back the p2pool network, not to redistribute mining earnings. That way incentivising the use of p2pool network. This was back in April when MN earned 10%. I'm not technically savvy to fully propose a valid solution (for example, where would the payment go? a central wallet? thats a very bad idea... ) ... but in essence, p2pool nodes could have could have a "genkey", and participant MN's could send out a % cut, much in the same way MN receive a % cut from mining rewards.
Like I said, that would seriously work against central ASIC raping and potentially all the centralised issues of mining.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/masternode-donation-to-p2pool.326/
ASICs are a threat regardles of how many people engage in P2P mining. 1 half decent ASIC = 1,000,000 CPU miners. Once the ASICS come into the game, everything else than ASIC will be a waste of electricity.
November 19, 2014, 01:31:29 PM
I've really been getting into the idea of enforced p2pool mining. I think it's a fantastic idea...but I think it's also a non-starter. I just realized that everyone (including me) has been ignoring the overarching problem: network consensus.
Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
If MNs can enforce p2pool mining via a privkey system like they validate other MNs, what the centralised pools want won't matter. If a mined block isn't signed as coming from a p2pool node, it would get orphaned.
People who run big pools should be able to make the same % running p2pool nodes instead.
Sort of how enforcement works?
Y'all are forgetting one of the most basic tenets of cryptocurrency: the longest chain is ALWAYS right.
Sure, Evan could "enforce" a chain with only 20% of the network behind it...but then there would be a fork and the updated clients would be on the wrong side of it...
Why do y'all think Evan waits until 80% - 90% of pools are updated before turning on enforcement? It's not because he's nice; it's because forking the network at much less than that is dangerous. Either he or Flare has pointed this out before (I think on darkcointalk).
November 19, 2014, 01:31:00 PM
I've really been getting into the idea of enforced p2pool mining. I think it's a fantastic idea...but I think it's also a non-starter. I just realized that everyone (including me) has been ignoring the overarching problem: network consensus.
Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
If MNs can enforce p2pool mining via a privkey system like they validate other MNs, what the centralised pools want won't matter. If a mined block isn't signed as coming from a p2pool node, it would get orphaned.
People who run big pools should be able to make the same % running p2pool nodes instead.
Sort of how enforcement works?
I could imagine, that they use the 'yet to be payed' coins to do some trading maybe ?
And I bet there are people that keep coins on the pools records.
It's basically same as a bank, you 'bring your money = hash power ' to the 'bank=pool', and set some payout levels, lets say 30 DRK. Until 30DRK is not accumulated in your account, you don't get payed. So if 1000 miners do it, and keep 30DRK in the pools wallet, thats 30k DRK at one place.
November 19, 2014, 01:28:48 PM
btw. whats about the idea supporting p2p pools somehow..? masternode donation seems quite interesting..
whats evans opinion?
whats evans opinion?
As owner of three masternodes I strongly disagree with redistribution of MN income.
Let the market decide whether P2P pool will be used or not - the key is to improve the user experience and make
it accessible to total Linux newbies not to bribe the users to mine there.
LOL, will be the same discussion as miners strongly disagreeing with MN payments
But I also think that is not the way to go.
In the end, it's miners who should be rewarded for using p2pool nodes.
They are rewarded for mining dark wherever they want to.
Darkcoin will do great with much smaller number of miners; the current hashrate is a luxury.
November 19, 2014, 01:27:03 PM
I've really been getting into the idea of enforced p2pool mining. I think it's a fantastic idea...but I think it's also a non-starter. I just realized that everyone (including me) has been ignoring the overarching problem: network consensus.
Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
One should not care about such pools. Force the update on the exchanges, that would leave them with an useless outdated fork. Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
If miners would not be too 'lazy' to switch to p2pool, you would not have a situation where mining power is concentrated in centralized pools.
It's all about the miners, they have to switch, and realize that they will earn marginally more and have benefit of mining directly to they wallets, so being sure that they don't get ripped off or stuck on wrong chain because some central pool 'did not care to update'.
November 19, 2014, 01:24:04 PM
I've really been getting into the idea of enforced p2pool mining. I think it's a fantastic idea...but I think it's also a non-starter. I just realized that everyone (including me) has been ignoring the overarching problem: network consensus.
Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
Let's face it...the big pools make a profit off their operations. Probably a significant profit...and they are not likely to voluntarily accept a mandatory p2pool update. Without support from the very pools we are trying to replace, we won't reach high enough levels of network consensus to safely fork the network to a new p2pool-based protocol.
If MNs can enforce p2pool mining via a privkey system like they validate other MNs, what the centralised pools want won't matter. If a mined block isn't signed as coming from a p2pool node, it would get orphaned.
People who run big pools should be able to make the same % running p2pool nodes instead.
Sort of how enforcement works?
Jump to: