Topic: NastyPoP vs Standard P2Pool - page 4. (Read 17708 times)

That may be, but with the default bitcoind rules that transaction will probably not go through any pool unless you push it to a service that accepts non-standard transactions.

Port 3334 was switched to default p2pool so there is no need to do anything now, but you should probably use port 9332 as a failover just as a good mining practice.

The charts show addresses more than once because the ckpool and p2pool hashes are counted separately.  That means as miners switched ports, their username would then be duplicated.  If you checked while it was happening, you could see that one of the usernames had a "ckp" in front of it, showing that it was mining on the ckpool frontend.  I suspect the reason for your shortpay, without being able to look at the logs (nonnakip would have to help with that) is that ckpool was crashing frequently.  A lot of the miners that were on port 3334 without setting a failover of port 9332 were negatively effected by that.  As I said, I don't have access to see exactly how much downtime you saw as a result of the instability, but it was a major factor last week.  I would definitely recommend that a failover pool always be set for any miner, but it is especially important now while NastyPool works to overcome scalability and stabilization issues.  

I'm not trying to say bad things about ckpool either.  I think it works as a great frontend and am really happy with it while it's operating.



Maybe.  We're part of a crazy bunch that think people should be able to spend dust, or else it shouldn't exist.  I think the core developers haven't paid enough attention to that issue yet.  In any event, it will get resolved.  I just wanted people to know there is no loss and nothing went wrong with the sending of the payment.

Probably because you're trying to pay dust payments as well.

I linked the payout transaction in my post.  You're absolutely right that it's a mystery.  I also read your post in the pool thread stating that Nonnakip would be sending out the payments again this coming Friday if they hadn't confirmed by then, so no worries about that.

My primary concern is the discrepancy between what the charts on the site state vs what the payout transaction has.  The charts show miner addresses more than once, each with a value of expected BTC payout.  The payout transaction, however, only has one of those values.  Could you explain that, please?  The reason I'm asking is that during the past week p2pool was over 100% luck, finding more blocks that it should have.  My standard p2pool payouts reflect that; however, my payments in the NastyPoP payout transaction are far below expectations.  As I mentioned, I made nearly double with standard p2pool payouts as I did with NastyPoP.

When you wrote, "using the 9332 port will eliminate..." are you suggesting that people should go back to using stratum+tcp://nastyfans.org:9332 -u WALLETADDRESS-PoP -p x for the NastyPoP payouts?

Thanks for any clarifications.

The payouts went out, but aren't being confirmed by the network for some reason.  This isn't related to the frontend, but some other mystery.  Here's the transaction that is waiting to confirm: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/c46bd16596240f6b41a10ceb968389c3921214cbff27d6cbe6d987f51bab9c99

The conversion to the new frontend went fine as well.  The issue is that ckpool is currently extremely buggy.  I'm beginning to question if ckpool is ready for primetime yet though.  Using the 9332 port will eliminate any issues relating to ckpool until a stable version can be released (even port 3334 is now standard p2pool until ckpool can stabilize), and if last week's distribution isn't confirmed by this week, the coins will be double spent to ensure they are added to this week's distribution.

As you can see, I have not provided results for the week 1/16 - 1/23.  There were some pretty significant connection issues with Nonnakip's new implementation of ckpool on top of the p2pool framework.  Unfortunately, those issues are still persisting as you can see from this screenshot:



Combine this with the fact that no payouts were received for last week and I am unable to provide any kind of meaningful test results.  Please note, you can see that a payout was attempted by looking here: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/c46bd16596240f6b41a10ceb968389c3921214cbff27d6cbe6d987f51bab9c99

Unfortunately, with the changeover to the new NastyPoP system, payouts seem to have gotten confused.  Looking at the payout distribution charts at https://nastyfans.org/nastypool/nastypop_ticker I can see my miner's address listed twice.  The attempted payout matches one of those values (0.02006569 BTC) but there is no mention of the other value.  If we go solely on the attempted value, we'll find that it is significantly lower than what I made on the standard nasty p2pool payout (0.03989456BTC).  The expected payouts for this past week were 0.0352BTC.  P2Pool itself was pretty lucky during these 7 days, so I'm shocked to see such a huge disparity (nearly twice as much) between what I made on the standard payout vs what is reported for the NastyPoP method.

It's quite apparent that something went pretty wrong last week, both with the conversion to the new front end and with the payouts themselves.  The issues still persist today.  I hope Nonnakip is able to get this sorted.

Not a problem.  I figured it was some growing pains putting Con's pool on a p2pool backbone.  I have faith they'll sort it out.  I just wanted to mention and display the connection issues when I saw them as they may have an effect on this week's test results... Not to mention bring it to your attention

As you can see there were some issues with the ckpool frontend.  nonnakip has been slapping bandages on it while the issues get worked out and ckolivas is aware and actively addressing the issue with the ckpool software, but it is probably a good idea for miners to have the regular p2pool port set as a failover in the meantime.  I guess it's important to remember that NastyPool is still in beta with many features still being actively developed.

Quick update... I noticed the S3 I had pointed at my own p2pool node has gone down.  Unfortunately, I'm away from home this week traveling for work and I do not have remote access to my miners.  I really should set that up .

Anyway, I will not be including numbers for that miner in this upcoming Friday's results.  I will have only 2 on the test: the miner on NastyPoP (which, I switched over to the new protocol on Sunday) and the miner on the standard p2pool payout.

Speaking of the new protocol (ckpool on port 3334 using p2pool as a backend), I've noticed very inconsistent hash rate, with a number of times connectivity has been lost altogether.  I'm guessing it's growing pains as nonnakip just brought this online recently.  Hopefully things settle down shortly.  We'll see what impact, if any, this has come Friday.

Here is a screenshot of the hash rate graphs from nastyfans.org showing my two miners:



Here's another miner using the NastyPoP method:



As you can see, the miners using NastyPoP show some pretty erratic hash rates and loss of connectivity, whereas my miner on the standard p2pool payout is straight across the board.

Another week in the books, and it's a win across the board for the NastyPoP payouts.  The miners on the standard p2pool payout suffered some pretty bad luck finding shares and missed a number of payouts because of it.  The miner on NastyPoP was paid out for every single block.  P2Pool itself did abysmally this past week with a 7 day luck value of only 62.25%.  That, combined with my miners finding fewer than expected shares led to the following results:

My standard p2pool node - 0.00419189BTC
OgNasty's standard p2pool node - 0.01805329BTC
NastyPoP p2pool - 0.02152612BTC
Expected - 0.0367BTC
P2Pool 7 day luck - 62.25%

There we have it folks - the first time in this test that the NastyPoP method resilience to variance wins the day.  OP has been updated with this week's results.

Another week down, and this week we see for the first time NastyPoP's variance reduction payouts winning out over standard p2pool for one of my miners.  The miner on my node had just plain awful luck at the beginning of the week.  It had no shares on the chain and missed payments for 5 of the blocks p2pool found.  My miner on the NastyPoP node was paid for every found block.  I'm very happy we've now seen this, and the payout results reflect the fact that my miner missed those 5 blocks.  So... here are the results for my miners for the week:

My standard p2pool node - 0.024337627BTC
OgNasty's standard p2pool node - 0.06870469BTC
NastyPoP p2pool - 0.04531921BTC
Expected - 0.0381BTC
P2Pool 7 day luck - 152.23%

Look very closely at the difference in the payouts between my two miners on standard p2pool payouts.  They are both S3s.  They are both clocked at 218.75 to get 440GH/s.  They're both running on the same EVGA 1300 G2.  Yet, the S3 on my node only made 0.024337627, while my S3 on nastyfans.org made 0.06870469.  That's the variance that p2pool miners see, and what the NastyPoP system normalizes.

P2Pool, in general this week beat expected earnings.  My miners on nastyfans (both the regular and the NastyPoP) followed that trend and beat out expected earnings.

OP has been updated with this week's results.

A US server is something that is currently being worked on.  We have the hosting and equipment but nonnakip has some development work to do before that is a reality.  This thread actually inspired a much more thorough look at the NastyPool node to see why we saw such shortcomings compared with jonnybravo's node.  While some of it can be written off as latency, there are certainly other factors at play here that have been identified and are being resolved.  Positive changes are on the horizon that will help both the Standard & NastyPoP payouts made by NastyPool.  I think the disconnect evidenced by jonnybravo's results is going to have a positive impact, and I am thankful to him for that.

Great thread, jonnybravo0311! Thanks for all the work you've done, and the statistics. Very interesting.

Might switch 5 undervolted S1s I have contributing heat my mother's house over to nastyPOP. Seems like they would be perfect candidates! Only thing that bugs me a bit is the highish 108ms average ping from her place. Too bad there isn't an east coast NA server.

As maintainer of NastyPool and implementer of NastyPoP I want to clear up some misconceptions here.

I start by saying thank you to jonnybravo0311. You are doing excellent work testing.

The NastyPoP payout method is very simple. PatMan mentions closed source. Here is the source:

• every Friday at 19:00 UTC count up the hashes generated by each NastyPoP miner since previous Friday at 19:00 UTC
• count 6-confirmation-BTC held by NastyPoP Bitcoin mining address
• distribute that BTC amount to NastyPoP miners based on proportion hashes

For long term mining this will yield the same payout as P2Pool.

Unless NastyPoP gets significant "marketshare", in the short term large miners will typically yield less payout and small miners will yield more payout as P2Pool.

So why would anyone mine on NastyPoP?

If you are a miner that does not receive regular P2Pool payouts it can be nice to mine P2Pool via NastyPoP and receive regular payouts. As SP20 and S5 miners flood the market this point should not be undervalued.

If you are a large miner NastyPoP can provide some extra safety. For example your water heater blows up and you must shut down your miner for a few days. With P2Pool that could be extra bad if P2Pool luck was very big during those few days. With NastyPoP the spurious P2Pool luck waves do not play such a role.

NastyPoP and NastyPool also offer other bonuses but I do not want this to be NastyPoP advertisement. I only want to clarify misconceptions.

Some reasons why a different P2Pool node shows different reject rates is because of merged mining. Until recently NastyPool merged mined Namecoin and Huntercoin. Particularly Huntercoin caused many extra work restarts for miners. And work restarts is the primary reason for rejects. Last week NastyPool stopped merged mining with Huntercoin so this should help that situation. Namecoin is still merged mined. This is how NastyPool funds itself.

I welcome this and any other NastyPoP tests. I think it would be particularly interesting to read a test from a miner that was using non-P2Pool and switched to NastyPoP for 2 weeks. Especially for a smaller miner that was using non-P2Pool previously.

The main goal of NastyPoP is not to convert P2Pool-miners to NastyPoP-miners. It is to convert non-P2Pool miners to P2Pool miners (via NastyPoP).

Another week in the books.  Let's take a look at the results.  Also note that this week there's a third miner in the tests.  I pointed one of my S3s to mine on nastyfans.org's standard p2pool payout.

My standard p2pool node - 0.03205607BTC
OgNasty's standard p2pool node - 0.03861873BTC
NastyPoP p2pool - 0.02812263BTC
Expected - 0.0388BTC

Surprisingly, the miner I have pointed to OgNasty's p2pool payouts fared the best this week.  I fully expected it to do worse than the other two because of the fact that the BTC address was completely new to p2pool, so ramping up some shares should have played a part.  Instead, it performed much higher than expectations.  I posted screenshots on 12/28 that showed the miner had found a higher than expected number of shares, which in turn translated into higher than expected payouts when blocks were found.

In general p2pool's luck was pretty awful this past week (coincidence.com shows 7 day luck of 73.17%), so it's not surprising every miner missed the expected payout mark for 440GH/s over 7 days.  The one that came closest was the new miner I added last Friday.

The OP is updated with the results.

That's a pretty cool way to distribute those funds.  Nicely done!

I just got everything all set back up and fired up the miner again.  Thanks for the well wishes on the water heater.  At least I caught it early and was home when it happened... boy that would have been an absolutely awful mess had I been away!

Sorry to hear that.

Starting next week NastyPoP payouts will start seeing a bonus from 250 NastyFans seats.

772 rejects with 6214 accepted .12% for 6 hrs now. 

Quick update... I've had to power down my miner on the standard p2pool payout for a few hours today... it's in the basement and my water heater just blew up, so I'm busy getting rid of the excess water and cleaning things up.  Once the new water heater has been installed, I'll fire it back up.  That's why you're going to see the drop in hash rate on the graphs (if you're looking).  The miner on the NastyPoP payout is upstairs on a different circuit, so it's still up and running.

I just came across this thread…..I got these results based in Las Vegas. I don’t know where OGs server is hosted but it is close to me. I am surrounded by 2 or 3 dcs. I can piss on one of dc wall from the roof.  I have pulled my hardware to try a new pool.  You guys need some test results now or can you wait until I get new hardware in a few days? I don’t want to take anything down from the pools I am mining at sorry.  The s3s that where here have been sold.