Topic: why isn't p2pool more popular than it is? - page 2. (Read 6934 times)

I agree completely, but do you see my point? Someone who doesn't understand it will obviously go with the pool who's luck "appeared" to be good. It's a very natural thing to do, and an easy mistake to make.

(great info you do by the the way).

tl;dr: unless you have some way of assessing luck, don't worry about it. It's unlikely to ever be abnormal, and if you think it is let me know and I'll usually be able to give you an idea of how unusual the unlucky streak is.


I understand why you think that the graphs are showing something they aren't. There are ways to provide a "luck chart" that is menaingful even if you don't understand "luck", for example:



Shares per round / difficulty is a measure of luck - the higher it is, the less was earned and luck is worse. I think the p2Pool luck charts are 1/(Shares per round / difficulty)*100 to make it a bit more intuitive.

On the chart, the jagged line is the cumulative mean of (Shares per round / difficulty). As long as the line is in the shaded area, the shares per round / difficulty is within a 95% confidence interval for the data, and luck is in the expected range.

I'm not going to post an up to date chart right now, but the line is certainly in the shaded area.

As for


There are lots of pools with luck tending up or down. It's normal for pools as long as it's in an appropriate range. It's something you just have to accept about mining - luck will go up and down, and very rarely will it be outside of a normal range.

Another chart:



The dots are a measure of the weekly average luck. Higher dots are worse luck, lower dots are better luck. BitcoinPool for example has had abysmal luck. p2Pools luck doesn't look unusual.

LOL!!  Nomnom.....that's a first for me...

Organofcorti,

You are very knowledgeable in the the bitcoin field, I know that. I have read many of your posts and learned a great deal from you, the work you put into the community is second to none - I bow to your bitcoin wisdom.

However, if somebody with less knowledge/experience than you, or I for that matter, were researching which pool to join and came across that luck graph - they would definitely have second thoughts about joining that pool - rightly or wrongly and for what ever reason. Maybe calling it a "luck" graph is a little misleading to some people, but not me. I understand it completely, and am not sure what made you presume I didn't. Given the choice between a pool who's "luck" was steady/rising and a pool who's "luck" was on a 60 day permanent decline - and still falling - what pool would the average potential miner choose do you think? My answer was from a general point of view, not mine and mine alone, as the question was a general question.

I'm sorry if my answer has offended anyone, that was never my intention. Graphs are there to provide information, aid research, help people decide what pools to join and aid in eliminating problems. If you believe everything is hunky dory with that graph, that's fine, but I can assure you that many more people will be put off by it, rightly or wrongly. That was my point.

So, I stand by my answer.

He's not a troll. He even said so.

dont feed the trolls

If you don't understand "pool luck" and you don't want to learn about it, please stop mentioning it.

Spiccioli,

I don't think you understand me. I am a fan of P2pool, and I too have been mining there since 2012 up until very recently. I am simply answering a good question with what I believe to be a reasonable answer, while also making it clear that I have a lot to learn. I don't see how the luck chart link can be described as FUD at all, it's a link that is viewable for everyone to see. Also, it's common knowledge that the stale/reject rate it significantly higher on P2pool than most other pools. This alone puts many people off mining there. I am not in the business of posting FUD for no reason, only facts and giving my honest opinion to a very good question.

Nobody wants P2pool to be successful more than me, believe me.

PatMan,

please stop spreading FUD here and there!

p2pool luck is OK, it is called variance, I've been mining on p2pool since january 2012, there have been longer unlucky periods and even longer lucky ones.

I do agree that it takes a little more work to setup and babysit it that it takes for other pools... but that's the fun of it!

You're effectively mining solo when mining on p2pool... and like the whole bitcoin thing, with great power comes great responsability!

spiccioli.

Thanks for the 1st link, i really didn't know about that stuff till now.

Question:     Why isn't p2pool more popular than it is?

Answer:    1) http://p2pool.info/luck/

               2) Rejects, stales, DOA rate.

               3) Loads of tech stuff I don't understand, but my guess is there's something amiss with the code.

How bizarre...

Nice beginning thanks for the warm feelings... As you may have noticed I replied to Kano who complained about not having received any reply to this kind of problems, not your system in particular. The purpose of my post was just to tell that not everyone experience this kind of problems and stipulate on probable causes based on the specifics of my setup. Solving your problems might or might not be possible using what I wrote.


I suggested that the bitcoind version matters too. Stable releases are far slower than the current development tree.


I don't know about the rest of the network just that my efficiency hovers around 105% vs the network and that I earn more than I would on a 100%PPS pool distributing transaction fees by ~5%. Currently I'm at 2.6% DOA and 106.6% efficiency.
I don't know what the problems are with your setup but given your first sentence I'm not willing to take the time reading your previous posts. I'll let you find out for yourself.

ofc, it could be solved by giving the lucky person that 'solves' the block the entirety of the transaction fees.  then (nearly) everyone has incentive to include everything they can get.

most pools are colo /dedicated servers on robust networks,  so including transactions isnt as big a deal (because all the other pools will receive your block quickly as well)

if you don't know about my system, you probably shouldnt be commenting at all.

mine is run off of a RAM drive, and even on 200kb blocks, it rarely goes above .15s on the 'GetBlockTemplate Latency' ...

alas, that's not what's causing my shares with 200kb of transactions to become orphans

did you notice this recent run of blocks we had?  overall orphan/DOA rate down to 8%?  coincidence, im sure.

It's bitcoind. The option reflects the protocol: as long as a block is valid it can be generated. Blocks without transactions are valid, removing the option would only lead to a fork if mining empty blocks is more profitable.

The only way to make the situation better is to remove the incentive of ignoring transactions by making it nearly free (or even profitable) to include transactions in mined blocks. The last p2pool hard fork was designed to help in this respect (transactions are pre-forwarded in the P2Pool network to minimize the block publishing latency when one is found: orphans should be less frequent than on most pools this way). I'm not even sure that the parameters I posted are optimal (as long as I don't believe I hurt the network I'm not motivated to test new values though).

Seems like forrestv needs to remove that option to restrict block size.

Unless it's a bitcoind thing.  Either way, the author should remove that option.

M

Yes, I was just explaining the background behind "transaction fees are required" (in the long term). In theory, we should have some time left with free-of-charge transactions. In practice, DoS attacks like SatoshiDice (which don't help Bitcoin adoption) are abusing the network and current fee rules to crowd out more legitimate transactions (which makes Bitcoin adoption more difficult, since now people need fees before we've reached critical mass).

Don't know about your setups but on my system with a bitcoind from git HEAD and its data on SSD:
leads to an average latency of 0.05s for p2pool<->bitcoind and very low stales. Maybe people with high stales that only go away with blockmaxsize=0 are using a slow version of bitcoind or a slow disk.
If I understand my parameters well, I limit a block to 100kB (1/5 of the max and about the current average block size if I'm not mistaken), reserve a small place for old 0-fee transactions that aren't yet included in a block and ask for 0.0005 BTC to include a TX right-away. These are the recommended value I stumbled upon when configuring p2pool some time ago. I haven't tested other values since then so if you think it's not contributing enough, please advise and I'll report any change.

I tried to point this out in the p2pool thread but only got silly replies ... so I gave up.

I guess that is yet another answer to the question this thread asks ...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1423255

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1423312

Which is a shame, as mining is about verifying transactions for the bitcoin network.