Topic: [ANN][DGC] Digitalcoin | Multi-algo & Masternodes | Established 2013 - page 169. (Read 523584 times)

Please someone correct me if I am mistaken.  I am not a Python coder.

I have taken a quick look at the code and from my limited knowledge of Python
it seems that if "IDENTIFIER" and "PREFIX" values in p2pool/networks.py are not equal
between P2Pools, the pools will be working on their own individual shares (a block in P2Pool terms)
and not a collective block distributed amongst ALL P2Pools.  This is where the fragmentation
happens and results in a number of decentralised P2Pools.

So it seems the key here would be for ALL P2Pools to use the same "IDENTIFIER" and
"PREFIX" values.

So taking an example from akabane's kind submission to github,
if ALL P2Pool ops had the following in their p2pool/networks.py,
ALL P2Pools would acknowledge each other and work on the same
share (block)..


Please please correct me if I am mistaken...

What fork are you using and what needs to be changed?

Switching back to SPREAD=30.  90 was a disaster found only two blocks both orphans I think that is just way too short a spread for local pool

I'm in I would love to run a node just need the correct info

Ok that I've seen what I'm trying to do is figure that out, how do I do that?

Can't wait to gamble away all my DGC! 

Changed SPREAD=30 to SPREAD=90 for my pool

Note that this actually created a lot more, not less, Stratum "work restart" requests.

I think what is happening is that the P2Pool targets blocks for about 1/10'th the time as the main network.  Hence, if the main network has 20 second block targets the pool now has 2 second block targets

I think we're in uncharted territory with the 20 second blocks not sure anyone has thought through optimal pool settings for a coin that fast.  For now I'll stick with the SPREAD 90 and see how well it works

Am working on it....get ready for some demos soon... got a server today, loading the files...

Yes, it's bad for many reasons. The owner needs to close the signup form.

Just think if his pool got attacked or hd crashed..

There's no concern about a pool having more than half. I have a full explanation in an earlier post answering a similar question.


P2Pool Announcement

To speed things up deliberations, anyone who is interested in joining the P2pool settings decision making process can contact me within the next 2 days to join the panel. The panel will eliminate alternatives until a consensus is reached. At which point, a new fork will be created on Git with the accepted settings that everyone can update to.

P2pool owners: Your success depends on your community. Build it.

Cartman, you're a champion. totally explained the concept of networked p2Pools, and i agree that it would be beneficial to the average miner and DGC as a whole. I'll definitely check out that pool you linked once i get home to my miner tomarrow.

speaking of pool talk, i noticed that http://www.digicoinpool.com/ seems to be well over half of the total network hashrate? as of this posting, the site's header reads: Pool Hashrate: 310.19 MH/s    
Network Hashrate: 448.26 Mh/s    
Difficulty: 2.24897441    
Pool Miners: 114    
Pool Workers: 246

isn't this a bad thing? again i don't know much about this stuff, but i've heard word that 51% of the network can start making like false results or something, and they have enough hashing power to verify the false results so they look real? or something? is DGC less prone to this type of attack?

I really don't know why people don't just stick to the p2pools, as i've already enjoyed the regular and fast payouts ticking away on my taskbar, get a warm feeling everytime i see a deposit, like: "i'm working too hard, i gotta sit back and let my cryptocoins work FOR me" heh

*edit, the only thing i can think of is that the "h" in Mh or MH mean something different? one's capitalized and the other isn't... i would have thought just the big or small "m" is what would matter with that format.

We need to reach a consensus on the P2pool settings so that we can make a standard.

I just found another github source for P2Pool which includes a
Digitalcoin configuration.

https://github.com/novaspirit/p2pool

This one also has alternate values.

p2pool/networks.py

The SPREAD value of 90 was a result of the research of "CartmanSPC"

Can all P2Pool ops use this?  Or are there any suggestions for alternate values?

The IDENTIFER and PREFIX values differ.  I will contact the author of P2Pool "forrestv" to see if there
is a method for choosing those values.

Please help create a consensus P2Pool for Digitalcoin.  

Yeah, I don't know where they go to discuss but they are cranking out services for the DGC community.   
This is what I called development.  WDC?  That's another story. 


-tb-

Yep dgc is performing quite nicely. Steady climb in value on Cryptsy rather than a regular pump and dump like some other alts. Looking forward to Baritus bringing online the dgc advertising platform and his other excellent ideas for dgc. Dgc is really starting to gather some good momentum now.

QueenB is working on this. 

http://digitalcoin.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=83


-tb-

Anyone know someone who could make a pokergame for this coin?

With a concensus p2p I would mine this coin 24/7

Your input has great value.  I consider myself a newbie to P2Pool but I can see the potential of Digitalcoin and I can see
what a great help a consensus P2Pool would be for Digitalcoin.

I will step back into the background if we can pull it off.  I am here to learn from the experience of others.

Yes.  The litecoin P2Pool is a great example. 

There are plenty of miners out there who would like to participate but due to the lower hash rates they sit on the
sidelines and only mine at the inception of a coin.  If all P2Pool ops came to a consensus, Digitalcoin P2Pool could
expand towards the depth of the Litecoin P2Pool where even the miners with lower hash rate can have
a piece of the Digitalcoin future!