Topic: The power of the pool. (Read 8566 times)

OK, I think it's a bit more clear. Variance is insane if you delve this deep. My brain doesn't enjoy comprehending this stuff. Now I don't understand why pools have score based or pplns systems if they don't change anything, nor do I understand how pool hopping could be profitable. You don't need to respond, this is something I should research myself if I truly want to understand.

Now I don't understand why pools have score based or pplns systems if they don't change anything, ...

nor do I understand how pool hopping could be profitable. You don't need to respond, this is something I should research myself if I truly want to understand.

Now I see. Does that hold true if one of the pools you are hopping between has a greater chance of decaying your shares before finding a block? For example, if the shares decay in 12 hours and the average time to find a block is over a day? (I believe this was the case when he was mining at P2Pool.)

His argument, as posted in this thread, wouldn't apply. In the original P2Pool thread though, he was complaining about being a part time miner, which is a different scenario altogether.

I'm not sure I understand. If you mine at a pool that has decaying shares, and you stop, there is a chance you will not be paid for those shares at all. Which is the point. I would say that is a penalty. I believe at slush's pool it happens very fast (maybe they don't decay, but become worthless, and perhaps this has changed, I haven't mined at slush's in quite some time). With P2Pool it can take 24 hours, I think.

Well block is 50 BTC so 0.2*50 = 10 BTC.  10 BTC per block.

P2Pool can scale just fine. Once it gets to a point where the variance for P2Pool shares are too high for small miners, we can start a second P2Pool. There is also talk of small P2Pools that connect to larger P2Pools to address this, although I don't know how viable this is.

Why would one switch between pools? If all pools were hop proof, there would be no reason for anyone to switch. Your argument also applies to any pool that has share decay. Slush for example. You do understand these rules are put in place to deter hopping, which is harmful to the constant miners?

You talk great Holliday!

Plus, with P2Pool subsidy and its PPLNS scheme, maybe, the P2Pool can be as profitable as some 120% PPS schemes popping around...

BTW, how much needs to be donated to P2Pool subsidy to make it a "+120% like"?

Cheers!
Thiago

You don't understand why I choose to mine at a pool where I keep my vote, pay no fee, and do not have to trust in any individual other than myself? Plus it helps decentralization of the network! I doubt there is much I can say to convince you then, but here I go anyway.

P2Pool can scale just fine. Once it gets to a point where the variance for P2Pool shares are too high for small miners, we can start a second P2Pool. There is also talk of small P2Pools that connect to larger P2Pools to address this, although I don't know how viable this is.

You had a bad experience mining at P2Pool partially because it was still maturing, and partially due to a misunderstanding of how the shares work. Forrestv has been improving the software constantly since then, and the time frame for share decay has been increased. It's silly to blame the pool when you failed to read the manual. It was obvious from the first few pages of the thread that shares decayed.

Why would one switch between pools? If all pools were hop proof, there would be no reason for anyone to switch. Your argument also applies to any pool that has share decay. Slush for example. You do understand these rules are put in place to deter hopping, which is harmful to the constant miners?

PPS is great if you want to mine a few hours, but it doesn't make sense for continuous miners because of how much you less you earn over time. Unless you like earning less for your work.

What you consider the "only solution" is a non-solution. People do not spread their mining power voluntarily.

P2Pool isn't the "only" solution, but it is part of the solution. P2Pool has been growing steadily and I've been more than profitable there, earning more in the month after I joined than I did in the month previous at a traditional pool, even considering a few slight increases in difficulty. Of course, the extra subsidies that have been rolling in for over a month now have been a fantastic boost!

Of course it can and if it ever got too large it could be split into multiple p2pools.  There is no reason that 100% of network "coudn't" run off p2pool.


This is false.  The p2pool client doesn't remember shares between restarts but you get paid off SUBMITTED shares.  Once submitted you could stop mining and destroy your rig you will still get paid when next block is found (on any shares still in share chain).  It is actually impossible to prevent payment for valid shares.


Well based on the numerous false claims you made I think the issue lies with you and not p2pool.


So the solution is small pools but as you pointed out that won't happen so the solution is something which won't happen.

I really do not understand why you think p2pool is the solution
This idea not really made for huge mining power or at least as far as i know long from ready for handle such a thing.

For the miners who switch between pools its absolute a fail because it does not keep your mined shares....

My experience with this so called p2pool has been not very good and costly.

The only solution is spread mining power over more pools, but as you can see people like the huge pools more then the smaller ones
Smaller pools hardly get more hash power because people want a steady income.
But its the chicken and the egg problem small pools can not produce steady income unless they get more miners todo so.

Some people are genuinely concerned about the health of the network. That's why people like forrestv made the effort to code P2Pool! Usually if you are sceptical, the best solution is to inform yourself about the situation so you can make a proper judgement! It seems you didn't bother to check what P2Pool is at all before making your decision. 

So, what exactly is one of those 'major developments' that is threatening to bitcoin right now? Why are you spreading such fears? Oh, I see .... hmmm who is winning other than the network which seems to be so insecure at the moment? I get the feeling though there are valid concerns about the risk, the story isn't new at all. What's different now to put it on the agenda compared to one year ago? P2pool wants capitalize out of those fear. That's what's new. People could simply switch to smaller pools if they saw necessary. Honestly, it looks like spam to me. Or do you want to tell me p2pool has 0% fees?

Let me guess, p2pool is so altruistic it uses the fees to make the network securer. I'm not going to switch to anywhere unless to some TOR pool service that is DDOSing proof in the future. And I'm not buying into the guilty conscience you want to give people who are not switching. Also, it's not gonna work anyway. Fear has never been a sound long term business strategy.

Thank you for clearing that up. I'm just very sceptical if people are trying to push me to do anything. So, no fee? Why isn't everyone doing it? Will it work with Windows and a gui/aoclbf? Honestly, I think it'd still be better if pool owners decide on technical stuff, they probably have far better judgment than the average Joe.

A couple of misconceptions:

1) Smaller pools are less desirable than larger pools due to variance.  This results in largest 3 or 4 pools always having 50%, 60%, 70% of hashing power.  For every person who moves to a small pool another person moves back to large pool because the variance can be brutal.  BTW I have been at a small pool for months now.

2) Technology like p2pool and hybrid pools (imagine deepbit but the miners generate their own block header) are secure.  It doesn't matter if someday p2pool was 100% of hashing power there is nothing to control, attack, or manipulate.

3) p2pool has no fee, they also pay out all transactions fees so it is impossible in the long run to earn more anywhere else.  Right now some members who believe in decentralization are paying a bonus (think reverse fee) so the total reward (block reward + transaction fees + bonus) is more like 105% of solo. 

4) p2pool can't be DDOS because it isn't a single server.  One would need to DDOS every single node.  In this respect p2pool is no more DDOS able than solo miners.

So, what exactly is one of those 'major developments' that is threatening to bitcoin right now? Why are you spreading such fears? Oh, I see .... hmmm who is winning other than the network which seems to be so insecure at the moment? I get the feeling though there are valid concerns about the risk, the story isn't new at all. What's different now to put it on the agenda compared to one year ago? P2pool wants capitalize out of those fear. That's what's new. People could simply switch to smaller pools if they saw necessary. Honestly, it looks like spam to me. Or do you want to tell me p2pool has 0% fees?

Let me guess, p2pool is so altruistic it uses the fees to make the network securer. I'm not going to switch to anywhere unless to some TOR pool service that is DDOSing proof in the future. And I'm not buying into the guilty conscience you want to give people who are not switching. Also, it's not gonna work anyway. Fear has never been a sound long term business strategy.

I think it's fine that there are pools and the pool operators make decisions on what they vote, not everyone needs to use p2pool. But we definitely should have a lot of pools and more than anything, aware miners who do change their pool if the pool operator of their current pool is making a bad decision regarding his vote on Bitcoin development.

The current situation is very unhealthy where the top 3 pools have over 50% of hashing power and most of their users are totally ignorant and unaware of the major developments that are being proposed to Bitcoin right now. They should be more aware and understand that they have voting power that matters.

The real problem here is that miners are being assigned to vote on protocol changes in the first place. This I think is not how Bitcoin was designed to work, and sets a very dangerous precedent. Decisions should be made by majority of users weighted by their economic power. If you break compatibility and convince the typical users, the exchanges and other big players to switch, then it doesn't matter what the majority of miners have to say, they'll have to switch if they don't want their mined coins to be worthless.

This is a special case of the more general problem that someone with a certain share of the hashrate doesn't have his incentives as strongly aligned with the well-being of Bitcoin as someone who has a similar share in the entire economy, simply because going forward mining is supposed to be only a small part of the economy.