Topic: Any pool want to buy difficulty 2 shares?? (Read 2374 times)
I have been encouraging any pool operator that will listen to raise their difficulty.
It would make more sense to fix the miners to accept whatever difficulty the pool requests rather than the other way around.
Poclbm miners will already just work on whatever diff. is sent to them.
It would make more sense to fix the miners to accept whatever difficulty the pool requests rather than the other way around.
What changes would need to be made to pushpool to implement a configurable difficulty response to the miners?
I've been considering swapping BTC Guild to a higher difficulty of shares to reduce the work being sent to/from miners, as well as lowering the amount of requests going between pushpool, bitcoind, and MySQL. My only concern at this point is for CPU miners, who are already submitting shares so rarely that a difficulty of 2 could mean they don't even complete a share before some rounds end.
I think Meni Rosenfeld (Holy-fire) has some mathematics in the deepbit thread that proves missing out on short rounds in a pool does not change your variance ....
(I'm not sure how complete it was though)
network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.
How do you figure that? More difficulty is because of more miners (most who are on pools now) sending difficulty 1 shares over the network ... how can there not be an increase in diff. 1 shares on the network ... can you not count?
Bring on-line twice as many miners pointed at the same pool as you are using now and tell me your network traffic of diff. 1 shares didn't double ... I dare you.
Some of you guys are abstracting yourselves into irrelevancy ... just go and count the numbers going across your screen, sheesh.
Network Hashing Power directly correlates to the number of difficulty>1 shares found. Network Difficulty does not. An increase in Network Difficulty does not necessarily mean that more difficulty>1 shares will be found as it is possible that the Network Hashing Power drops after the difficulty increase.
Now you are using semantics to get out of it .... I did NOT say how many are found I said how many go onto the network ... if you just want to argue I suggest you go somewhere else. FO.
This is an open source community and open source derives its quality from everybody coming together to correct eachothers' mistakes. In order for such a process to work smoothly, people must check their egos at the door. You need to remove your emotions from your submissions and allow them to grow into the best that they can be.
I agree with the intent of your idea, I merely submitted a correction to one inaccuracy in your OP.
So you do want to argue semantics ... whatta piece of work ... point to my "inaccuracy" or apologise for derailing my thread with erroneous, nit-picky fuckwitting around.
Quote
Great. How big is "big enough" and where do I sign up?
Edit I'm using poclbm raw so no problem with changing any mining code.
A ghash or so. ONly because this would involve me writing some pushpool modifications. I don't think it'd be wise to implement pool wide just because users might confuse over half the shares but doing it on a per-worker basis wouldn't be hard. Edit I'm using poclbm raw so no problem with changing any mining code.
network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.
How do you figure that? More difficulty is because of more miners (most who are on pools now) sending difficulty 1 shares over the network ... how can there not be an increase in diff. 1 shares on the network ... can you not count?
Bring on-line twice as many miners pointed at the same pool as you are using now and tell me your network traffic of diff. 1 shares didn't double ... I dare you.
Some of you guys are abstracting yourselves into irrelevancy ... just go and count the numbers going across your screen, sheesh.
Network Hashing Power directly correlates to the number of difficulty>1 shares found. Network Difficulty does not. An increase in Network Difficulty does not necessarily mean that more difficulty>1 shares will be found as it is possible that the Network Hashing Power drops after the difficulty increase.
Now you are using semantics to get out of it .... I did NOT say how many are found I said how many go onto the network ... if you just want to argue I suggest you go somewhere else. FO.
This is an open source community and open source derives its quality from everybody coming together to correct eachothers' mistakes. In order for such a process to work smoothly, people must check their egos at the door. You need to remove your emotions from your submissions and allow them to grow into the best that they can be.
I agree with the intent of your idea, I merely submitted a correction to one inaccuracy in your OP.
It would half the pool network traffic and half likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.
I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?
Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
Great. How big is "big enough" and where do I sign up?
Edit I'm using poclbm raw so no problem with changing any mining code.
One problem I see with this is that most of the miners that I've looked at their source code, are hardcoded to find shares at a difficulty of 1... regardless of what the pool specifies.
Really? I used to solo with poclbm which connects to a local bitcoind instance at whatever difficulty of the day and it works fine. If miners assumed difficulty==1, they would not be suitable for soloing.
I know that Phoenix kernels assume difficulty==1, but the base program itself checks the real difficulty before sending it on.
I think that some people have modified their version of poclbm to assume difficulty==1, but I don't think that the base code does that.
At some point, this is going to become necessary.
We will have to invent meta-pools for CPU miners to join. The meta-pool can accept difficulty 1 shares from miners, and the miners can earn meta-shares in the meta-pool. Then the meta-pool submits any hashes that meet the next level of criteria to the real pool, which issues shares to the meta-pool. When the real pool pays out, the meta-pool can pay down to the miners.
We will have to invent meta-pools for CPU miners to join. The meta-pool can accept difficulty 1 shares from miners, and the miners can earn meta-shares in the meta-pool. Then the meta-pool submits any hashes that meet the next level of criteria to the real pool, which issues shares to the meta-pool. When the real pool pays out, the meta-pool can pay down to the miners.
One problem I see with this is that most of the miners that I've looked at their source code, are hardcoded to find shares at a difficulty of 1... regardless of what the pool specifies.
Really? I used to solo with poclbm which connects to a local bitcoind instance at whatever difficulty of the day and it works fine. If miners assumed difficulty==1, they would not be suitable for soloing.
network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.
How do you figure that? More difficulty is because of more miners (most who are on pools now) sending difficulty 1 shares over the network ... how can there not be an increase in diff. 1 shares on the network ... can you not count?
Bring on-line twice as many miners pointed at the same pool as you are using now and tell me your network traffic of diff. 1 shares didn't double ... I dare you.
Some of you guys are abstracting yourselves into irrelevancy ... just go and count the numbers going across your screen, sheesh.
Network Hashing Power directly correlates to the number of difficulty>1 shares found. Network Difficulty does not. An increase in Network Difficulty does not necessarily mean that more difficulty>1 shares will be found as it is possible that the Network Hashing Power drops after the difficulty increase.
One problem I see with this is that most of the miners that I've looked at their source code, are hardcoded to find shares at a difficulty of 1... regardless of what the pool specifies.
It would half the pool network traffic and half likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.
I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?
Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
I've been considering swapping BTC Guild to a higher difficulty of shares to reduce the work being sent to/from miners, as well as lowering the amount of requests going between pushpool, bitcoind, and MySQL. My only concern at this point is for CPU miners, who are already submitting shares so rarely that a difficulty of 2 could mean they don't even complete a share before some rounds end.
Wouldn't a pool want all it's workings on the same difficulty? I cannot imagine the headache of trying to score a round when some workers are solving difficulty n while others are on difficulty 1.
Although, in spirite, if a pool did just say difficulty 2 (or whatever other number) was what they were going with it would decrease network IO... but, for slower miners it might create the (false) perception that that particular pool was less worthwhile than a pool using difficult of 1, based solely on the median time between shares.
Although, in spirite, if a pool did just say difficulty 2 (or whatever other number) was what they were going with it would decrease network IO... but, for slower miners it might create the (false) perception that that particular pool was less worthwhile than a pool using difficult of 1, based solely on the median time between shares.
network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.
It would halve the pool network traffic and halve likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.
I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?
Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares have gone onto the network.
I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?
Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares have gone onto the network.
Jump to: