[OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 144.

jl2012

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1111

Quote from: bulanula on June 17, 2012, 03:22:34 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 03:14:07 PM

Quote from: bulanula on June 17, 2012, 03:07:52 PM

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design Tongue

Yeah. I still think this is a problem. Are the developers acknowledging this or not ?

This is causing more orphans and more stales for everyone mining Cry

Unless the tx fee is so high which could compensate the orphans, miner will start to reject tx like what Eligius doing. Eligius is simply putting the burden on other miners and increase their orphan rate.

Although I agree SD is abusing the network, a successful BTC network should be able to handle 1000x of current volume. If SD is a stress test, the network is failed. It means the network cannot grow further.

Without changing the current infrastructure, there are 3 options: 1. Miners will allow only a limited number of tx in a block, but this may leave some tx never confirmed and BTC is dead; 2. Increase the tx fee by 10x or even 100x; 3. A revised tx fee formula to punish people using coins with <3 confirmation.

All these solutions, however, would be short-term. If more people use BTC (which most of us want to see), the same problem will emerge again. If this could not be solved, this will be a major bottleneck of the whole system.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Bad luck alone cannot explain the results of late. It's statistically absurd, reminds me of the Dilbert comic about the random number generator always saying 7,7,7,7,7...

coinft

full member

Activity: 187

Merit: 100

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 03:14:07 PM

Quote from: bulanula on June 17, 2012, 03:07:52 PM

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design Tongue

My guess is this is not true. As many valid blocks get mined as planned. We get orphans in addition, because we are not informed about some valid blocks fast enough. Without the orphans less hashing power would be wasted, the difficulty would be higher, and exactly the same amount of blocks would be mined in total.

This assumes all pools and miners have the same problem.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 03:14:07 PM

Quote from: bulanula on June 17, 2012, 03:07:52 PM

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design Tongue

Yeah. I still think this is a problem. Are the developers acknowledging this or not ?

This is causing more orphans and more stales for everyone mining Cry

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1416

aka tonikt

Quote from: bulanula on June 17, 2012, 03:07:52 PM

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

Oh, I wouldn't quite agree with this statement.
It does still work - just causing an incredible increase of the number of orphaned blocks.
Sort of a reward deprecation from the 50 BTC to.. something less, which was not planned in the initial design Tongue

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 03:06:38 PM

Quote from: bulanula on June 17, 2012, 03:03:57 PM

Are you guys basically saying that because of evorhees and his shitty gambling service all miners are getting 10% less income for some strange reason ?

Personally, I am not saying that this is the reason.
I'm not saying that from the data I got the number of orphaned blocks mined out by Eligius went up from ~1% in the past months to over 12% in June.
Why - it's not up to me to figure it out.

Yeah. After thinking about it, it seems that SatoshiDice actually proves Satoshi failed with his ideas as BTC cannot possibly scale.

But the mining income dropping is not fun Undecided

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1416

aka tonikt

Quote from: bulanula on June 17, 2012, 03:03:57 PM

Are you guys basically saying that because of evorhees and his shitty gambling service all miners are getting 10% less income for some strange reason ?

Personally, I am not saying that this is the reason.
I'm only saying that from the data I got the number of orphaned blocks mined out by Eligius went up from ~1% in the past months to over 12% in June.
Why - it's not up to me to figure it out.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 02:14:34 PM

Quote from: Clipse on June 17, 2012, 02:11:49 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 01:57:59 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 17, 2012, 12:30:29 PM

Try looking through http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/7/blocks/

If all the mined blocks are there - then you must be right like hell.
http://pastebin.com/mb14R9nR

Code:

0% of orphaned blocks in January
1.0% in February
1.4% in March
0% in April
2.3% in May (though first one on the 13th)
12.7% in June

Jeez, effectively in June alone all miners would be -12.7% gauranteed on expected returns. That is definitely good enough to point to recent bloating of blockchain thats affecting other pools aswell.

Yeap. Now I understand why the difficulty is going up so slowly, despite of all the recent FPGA investments all around the world...

Are you guys basically saying that because of evorhees and his shitty gambling service all miners are getting 10% less income for some strange reason ?

Screw SatoshiDice ! Someone better stop DDOSing the damn pools and start DDOSing the service ! ( I don't condone DDOS but I need my damn INCOME SatoshiVice )

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1416

aka tonikt

Quote from: Clipse on June 17, 2012, 02:11:49 PM

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 01:57:59 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 17, 2012, 12:30:29 PM

Try looking through http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/7/blocks/

If all the mined blocks are there - then you must be right like hell.
http://pastebin.com/mb14R9nR

Code:

0% of orphaned blocks in January
1.0% in February
1.4% in March
0% in April
2.3% in May (though first one on the 13th)
12.7% in June

Jeez, effectively in June alone all miners would be -12.7% gauranteed on expected returns. That is definitely good enough to point to recent bloating of blockchain thats affecting other pools aswell.

Yeap. Now I understand why the difficulty is going up so slowly, despite of all the recent FPGA investments all around the world...

Clipse

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 502

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 01:57:59 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 17, 2012, 12:30:29 PM

Try looking through http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/7/blocks/

If all the mined blocks are there - then you must be right like hell.
http://pastebin.com/mb14R9nR

Code:

0% of orphaned blocks in January
1.0% in February
1.4% in March
0% in April
2.3% in May (though first one on the 13th)
12.7% in June

Jeez, effectively in June alone all miners would be -12.7% gauranteed on expected returns. That is definitely good enough to point to recent bloating of blockchain thats affecting other pools aswell.

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1416

aka tonikt

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 17, 2012, 12:30:29 PM

Try looking through http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/7/blocks/

If all the mined blocks are there - then you must be right like hell.
http://pastebin.com/mb14R9nR

Code:

0% of orphaned blocks in January
1.0% in February
1.4% in March
0% in April
2.3% in May (though first one on the 13th)
12.7% in June

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 12:26:01 PM

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 17, 2012, 11:50:30 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on June 17, 2012, 11:25:55 AM

Interestingly there's not such a clear correlation between average Tx per block and the increase in orphans produced.

There's no way to get enough orphan data for good statistics. Just reading through the ones blockchain.info has seen, though, suggests a clear bias toward smaller blocks IMO.

So are you saying that Eligius doesn't have a list of all the blocks (or their hashes) we mined in the pool, regardless of them getting orphaned or not?

Eligius-Ra's bitcoind in theory contains that data, but I'm not aware of any way to get it. If the coinbaser completed on the new block (which it almost always should) there should be a file in the JSON API directory. But even with the high orphanage rate we've been getting, Eligius doesn't have enough orphans to be statistically significant.

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 12:26:01 PM

Anyway, if you do have such a list, then please just publish it and I promise to draw a graph - checking which of them got orphaned and how the percentage has changed in time.
Only then we can see if something really got screwed up in the network - or is it only a bad luck.

Try looking through http://eligius.st/~luke-jr/raw/7/blocks/

piotr_n

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1416

aka tonikt

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 17, 2012, 11:50:30 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on June 17, 2012, 11:25:55 AM

Interestingly there's not such a clear correlation between average Tx per block and the increase in orphans produced.

There's no way to get enough orphan data for good statistics. Just reading through the ones blockchain.info has seen, though, suggests a clear bias toward smaller blocks IMO.

So are you saying that Eligius doesn't have a list of all the blocks (or their hashes) we mined in the pool, regardless of them getting orphaned or not?
It's kind of hard to believe... it sounds like Bitcoinica backups being stored in the same cloud as the server itself... Tongue

Anyway, if you do have such a list, then please just publish it and I promise to draw a graph - checking which of them got orphaned and how the percentage has changed in time.
Only then we can see if something really got screwed up in the network - or is it only a bad luck. Only numbers don't lie

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: muyuu on June 17, 2012, 11:14:22 AM

So it was SatoshiDice. I was wondering what had changed to make mining profits so noticeably worse despite difficulty being in previously experienced ranges.

Dice is abusing the network, but it isn't the root of the problem; the real problem is that Satoshi's design aimed at making the actual transaction processing have near zero cost has failed, and all the assumptions built on that premise collapse.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 17, 2012, 11:19:58 AM

Luke is guessing it is SatoshiDice, it might just be a run of bad luck.

Or it might be a side effect of Eligius accepting non-standard transactions.

Does Eligius include transactions that have not been transmitted/relayed to the rest of the network? If so, it might be a side effect of that (and if that isn't a side effect now, it might be in the future if Eligius blocks take longer to verify as other nodes need to fetch transaction inputs from disk, instead of already having them in cache memory like transactions that ARE transmitted/relayed).

Bad luck is a normal part of mining, and almost certainly has its role at Eligius recently; but it's also certain that isn't the only thing going on. I did indeed check to be sure nobody was abusing non-standard transactions.

Quote from: organofcorti on June 17, 2012, 11:25:55 AM

Interestingly there's not such a clear correlation between average Tx per block and the increase in orphans produced.

There's no way to get enough orphan data for good statistics. Just reading through the ones blockchain.info has seen, though, suggests a clear bias toward smaller blocks IMO.

check_status

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician

Quote from: Gavin Andresen on June 17, 2012, 11:19:58 AM

Quote from: muyuu on June 17, 2012, 11:14:22 AM

So it was SatoshiDice. I was wondering what had changed to make mining profits so noticeably worse despite difficulty being in previously experienced ranges.

Luke is guessing it is SatoshiDice, it might just be a run of bad luck.

Or it might be a side effect of Eligius accepting non-standard transactions.

Does Eligius include transactions that have not been transmitted/relayed to the rest of the network? If so, it might be a side effect of that (and if that isn't a side effect now, it might be in the future if Eligius blocks take longer to verify as other nodes need to fetch transaction inputs from disk, instead of already having them in cache memory like transactions that ARE transmitted/relayed).

Is this something that would affect all pools or is this something that could be targeted at specific pools by timing?

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

At p2Pool, average orphaned blocks per day increased when average confirmation time started to increase. It's a very clear correlation. I haven't looked at other pools yet, though.

Interestingly there's not such a clear correlation between average Tx per block and the increase in orphans produced.

Gavin Andresen

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 2316

Chief Scientist

Quote from: muyuu on June 17, 2012, 11:14:22 AM

So it was SatoshiDice. I was wondering what had changed to make mining profits so noticeably worse despite difficulty being in previously experienced ranges.

Luke is guessing it is SatoshiDice, it might just be a run of bad luck.

Or it might be a side effect of Eligius accepting non-standard transactions.

Does Eligius include transactions that have not been transmitted/relayed to the rest of the network? If so, it might be a side effect of that (and if that isn't a side effect now, it might be in the future if Eligius blocks take longer to verify as other nodes need to fetch transaction inputs from disk, instead of already having them in cache memory like transactions that ARE transmitted/relayed).

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

So it was SatoshiDice. I was wondering what had changed to make mining profits so noticeably worse despite difficulty being in previously experienced ranges.

DeepBit

donator

Activity: 532

Merit: 501

We have cookies

Quote from: Luke-Jr on June 17, 2012, 08:51:47 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on June 17, 2012, 08:47:12 AM

The 'Status' column shows whether or not a block was orphaned. See if there's been an increase here, then check other pools, and let us know

No, it hasn't shown orphans at all for a while. I'm not sure a good way to see this info, considering most orphans are never seen by most of the network at all...

You can always check if the block was orphaned by using your block's hash information.

Luke-Jr

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1186

Quote from: organofcorti on June 17, 2012, 08:47:12 AM

Quote from: piotr_n on June 17, 2012, 08:39:14 AM

Quote from: coinft on June 17, 2012, 08:25:36 AM

The bad news, this looks to be a global scalability problem. Maybe we need smaller and more blocks, but that's very unlikely to change, and has its own problems. Or a tiered network with small nodes not verifying everything -- again with problems.

Before starting to cry, I would actually prefer to see some numbers - i.e. what was the percentage of orphaned blocks 3 months ago, comparing to what it has been for the last few weeks.

Great idea.

Eligius' block history is at: http://eligius.st/~artefact2/blocks/

The 'Status' column shows whether or not a block was orphaned. See if there's been an increase here, then check other pools, and let us know

No, it hasn't shown orphans at all for a while. I'm not sure a good way to see this info, considering most orphans are never seen by most of the network at all...

Topic: [OLD] Eligius: ASIC, no registration, no fee CPPSRB BTC + 105% PPS NMC, 877 # - page 144. (Read 458499 times)