Topic: Bitcoin - we have a problem. (Read 14598 times)

Not really. A year ago we had about as many major pools as today, and we've had these approaching-51% issues then too (It was BTCJam at the time). And the year before (I think slush came really close).

And 1 year on from the original post the network has become more centralised.

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/bitcoin-mining-pool-ghash-io-ddos-ed-response-51-attack/2014/06/15

For those who may be interested, p2pool just hardforked to settings that should work much better for ASICs that previously had issues.  If you are an adventurous Avalon, AM Blade, or BFL Single owner, I encourage you to give it a shot.  If you are more conservative about potentially losing a couple percent for day or aren't comfortable tweaking config files, you may want to wait for reports and guides to be developed.  If you do try it, please try it for at least a day.  After 24 hours, if your efficiency is 100% or better you will earn as much or more than a 0 fee pool that pays out transaction fees.  There are also guides for merged mining other coins if you are interested.

The problem is that most of us in this community that are technically competent don't use Windows and very few of us know how to develop for it.  If someone reading this does have such skills, a single install p2pool GUI integrated with a wallet for windows would be awesome.

The statement is meaningless. Currently, litecoin ASIC does not exist for the time being because of costly memory.  Currently, GPU is a form of ASIC.

If p2pool node software was integrated into the Bitcoin-qt client so it is only one download and as simple as installing the normal client and a simple set up procedure i.e. you only have to enter a username and password - it would make a massive difference to the take up. Also a new tab that displayed all the stats that you have to request through your web browser as well.

Similar to how the original client had the option to "Mine".

At the moment it is too disjointed and is only going to appeal to people that are technically competent.

That would be my suggestion to help build the user base quickly.

You see man that was a good well balanced response these are the kind of posts that I was looking for.

Thank you.

P2Pool has gone from 30 hours/block to 23.2 hours/block since I started actively attempting to dispel the myth that p2pool doesn't work for any ASICs (no rovchris, I'm not just picking on you).  I'm not going to say I am responsible for any of that, but that kind of gain can only be explained by ASICs.  Clearly the situation is more complex than "p2pool doesn't work with ASICs".  Instead of shutting down the solution, you should ask yourself why you are looking for a problem.  P2Pool works for many ASICs, and is being actively improved so it will hopefully work well for the higher latency hardware.  If we don't quite capture the entire hardware market with this update progress will continue.  The problem is well understood and will be solved.  You can continue to look for other solutions to pool centralization, and I encourage p2pool competition.  However, I don't appreciate it when people needlessly lock potential doors for others.  If you want to say p2pool is hard to set up, fine.  If you want to say p2pool requires more robust hardware, fine.  But please refrain from slowing the growth of p2pool by spreading rumors.  I hope this makes my position clear.  I do not suggest anyone use p2pool with certain ASICs if you want a plug and play solution.  Many will require a bit of fiddling.  However, if you can set up p2pool, you can probably figure out the tweaks you need with a little bit of searching.  P2Pool will take some time to grow and to be refined but it will soon cover most if not all ASICs.

if they can stop btc then it aint the US gov..  it is then the NWO

BTC is poised to pave the road but we should just hope that entities such as the US gov don't intervene and drive it underground

that is such a reach..  btc with all its popularity is still a long way from having daily users and you assume that these few adopters would rather go to other coins because of some tiny transaction fees that are still way lower than any fiat, credit, etc systems?

You are just looking at it from a miner side with no real care about 'users'...  classic pump and dumper

lol at 'other viable cryptocurrencies'..  that is a looong way away and only if btc paves the road

No, I expect people to not make claims they can't back up with actual experience.  Your claim is patently false and I can prove it because I AM RUNNING ASICs ON P2POOL, AND SO ARE OTHERS.  I don't ask you or anyone else to believe me or the other posters.  I am merely asking you to stop making claims based on rumors because I happen to know are not true.  But, you'd rather be thick headed and point at quotes from a company who has been 2 weeks from shipping for over a year and who's engineers dramatically underestimated critical requirements, such as power usage.  Sorry, but I'll take my personal experience over BFL's "engineers" any day.  Again, I don't ask you to do the same.  I'm just asking that you stop spreading rumors you have not verified.

Interesting thread. Not meaning to go OT, but in the context of solving these issues (or at least having a more refined alternative), what is everyone's opinion on Proof of Stake (as implemented in PPCoin, namely), as well as PPCoin's mint-rate adjustment algorithm as compared to Bitcoin (i.e. where PPC relies on difficulty, not time/block height)?

Seems like PPC would have a lot to gain on both fronts if this difficulty/centralization scenario plays out. It's looking like (at least to me) that Bitcoin POW energy efficiency will progressively become more and more of an issue. On one end you have the move to ASICs (and more efficient ASICs) which have reduced energy demands over GPUs and CPUs at a per-watt level, but on the other, if you are POW-only, like Bitcoin, the only real direction you can move in for increased network security is more hashrate. That hashrate will only stick around if there is profit to be made, either through minting operations (relying on this ASIC armsrace) or transaction fees (which may scare away users in the face of other viable cryptocurrencies).

I have noticed this POW centralization effect lately and it is a bit concerning to me. With PPC, given that it's still SHA256, I don't see how it would become less decentralized from a POW perspective than BTC, but at least your network security wouldn't depend 100% on POW hashpower.

But isn't that, then, just a moving average, all weighted the same. So an instant drop in hashing power, which is the question I think, would only affect the average slightly. If the latest, perhaps few, had more weight in the moving average, the "response" would be faster, I should think? This, in some analogous sense, is what a Kalman filter does.

I am looking at GetNextWorkRequired() in main.cpp and without comments, I will have to study it for some time to figure out how it is setting the difficulty, but it seems to be just the difference in time of the last 2016 blocks against the two week norm, limited to 1/4 if less and 4 times if more, with equal weighting of all blocks.

I like the idea of adjusting the difficulty more often than ~two weeks, though, as a start.

Ron

The Kalman filter was used in a fortran program, compiled to run on a 1Mhz 16 bit minicomputer, with 4K of rom, that was the first collision avoidance computer that lived on oil tankers, about 1977. It (the filter) was used in the satellite navigation autopilot s/w that plotted the course and steered the ship. Not well I might add. I just installed and serviced them.

Ron

Yet you expect people to take your word that BFL products work properly on p2pool which is none other than posted on a forum. What gives you more authority than the manufacturer who stated that there is a problem.

I conveniently edited out everything except the once sentence I was referring to.

Your assumption was that you took information posted on the forum as fact without verifying it.  Learn 2 Internet.  Forums are not a valid reference.

I see you conveniently edited out the link that was there pointing to a thread discussing the issue. Showing that it was not my assumption but based on information posted in this forum.

BFL has no interest in getting to work.  If it isn't plug in play, they will say "no it won't work" and then get back to something that makes them money.

People who do have an interest in getting it to work have been able to do so.  Why you feel like beating a dead horse I am unsure.  I have seen every post you have tried to offer as "proof".  Sorry, but you are wrong.  No please quit telling people incorrect things, or at least HINT that you might not know instead of saying things like this:

I don't understand why you are taking issue with me over this? -  I read a post by a BFL engineer that said they would have a problem with P2pool and somehow I am suppose to know that is not the case.

Generally when a manufacturer says something about their own products which would be detrimental to selling them why would you not believe them and consider it fact, a BFL engineer has far more authority on this matter than anyone else.

He may have been incorrect though so why do they not remove or update that post? Other people will see it and assume it to be the case as well and they are far more likely to listen to someone that works for the BFL than random people saying it does work.

Why you feel the need to be condescending about it I am unsure.