Read through this entire thread and didn't really any mention of setting up P2Pool with GUIMiner... If I downloaded P2Pool from the original post, setup the bitcoin.conf file inside my appdata/bitcoin folder, am I pretty much good to go? The username / pass match up with the ones I entered in the bitcon.conf:  Also had a receive address show up in my bitcoin wallet as "p2pool". That was done automatically somewhere during this process? What flags did you use on run_p2pool.py? If you didn't specify a pay address (with -a) then it makes one for you. The username/password in your miner are NOT the used to access bitcoind. The username can either be a payment address or any arbitrary name. If you set the password to the password displayed during p2pool startup, you can track your miner on http://localhost:9332/graphs/ |
|
|
|
You're pointing the hashing power at P2Pool and eating the loss for the good of Bitcoin.  Awesome!  No, But that is a long term goal. I want to make and support a p2p pool. I however do not have the skill to set it up. I will fund it. Anyone know how to do it? p2pool.stitthappens.com:8336 no fees It's pretty easy to setup. Install bitcoind with server=1 in the conf Install a couple packages with apt Git checkout the project Open a screen cd to the project and ./run_p2pool.py <bunch of params> |
|
|
|
Looks Like my package got delivered this morning. I'll be having Maple Tea Tonight!
How was the tea? I'm thinking of ordering some |
|
|
|
|
Keep up the great work.
Reading through this is much easier than trying to read through the Satoshi client although there aren't too many comments (yet (hopefully)).
|
|
|
|
|
Have you found any cool vulnerabilities with this?
|
|
|
|
Just a question: did you use my pre-swig'd .cxx and .py files that I gave to splatster? Or did you actually get swig running in OSX along with everything else?
Nope, I didn't use them, every step is documented http://pastebin.com/K9NYsKRDUsing macports was a really terrible idea (it takes ages to download and compile QT). Installing prebuilt QT and building SIP and PyQT from scratch takes just a few minutes. I'll have to try this out on my Mac and on an ubuntu VM. Side note: I've been really liking homebrew over macports. Although it is just as slow at compiling QT. |
|
|
|
|
What OS do you use to develop armory? I'm wanting to install it and using the same OS as you will probably make it easier since everything will be the same version.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't get how this causes a worse split than the other BIPs since they all require the majority of miners to update. Doesn't the BIP 17 stealing bot essentially means implementing that proposal requires everyone to update, too?
|
|
|
|
Can I get 400 when I prove you BOTH are?!  |
|
|
|
Just to toss something on to the fire, BIP 22 ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0022) is something I proposed as a potential answer to all of the prior BIPs on the multisig subject. It is one that I proposed way back when. What this proposal does NOT come with, is an army of argument. I am fully willing to take a back seat, I have NO desire to derail Gavin's efforts, and despite my proposal, I am still fully behind BIP 16. I believe it is a completely viable proposal that addresses all the major concerns from Turing completeness, ugliness, stealing bots, and new unpredictable use cases. But unless I see a swarm of people reading the proposal and saying "Hey, you're right, I agree" - the proposal should be seen as nothing more than entertainment. I fully support Gavin and will not argue in favor of my proposal to the detriment of Gavin's current efforts. I actually like BIP22. If we are going to have to do something considered hackish, I think I like having a subset of script codes inside the main set the best. I really don't like the serialization in BIP 16. This is probably best talked about in another topic. |
|
|
|
I'm enjoying this video. I still don't which BIP I like though  That serialized script in the script for BIP 16 makes me sad. |
|
|
|
The first part of the output from p2pool execution is exactly similar to your output. The second part looks like this: http://pastebin.com/NVst55VWIt seems to be running fine. After a while cgminer is unable to access run_p2pool. I checked bitcoind by accessing it at port 8332. Bitcoind is working fine. That looks normal... Though it might be still downloading shares. Try running cgminer in debug mode (-D option) and checking if you see any errors saying "p2pool is downloading shares". Have you let P2Pool run for a while? How long does P2pool usually take to download the shares? Initially, cgminer actually is able to communicate with run_p2pool.exe. Only after a while, it complains about problems while communicating. Anyway, I will let it run for a while just to see if that solves the problem. You might have answered this, but what's your hash rate? Remember that it takes longer to find shares on p2pool compared to a traditional pool, so you have to be patient |
|
|
|
I just moved my main miner over to p2pool and it's running great. Just as a backup, I am trying to install p2pool on another system. It seems to be running, but I am getting a lot of failures. I get this over and over. 2012-01-30 23:53:24.088756 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-01-30 23:53:24.088990 > Failure: twisted.internet.error.ConnectionRefusedError: Connection was refused by other side: 111: Connection refused.
2012-01-30 23:53:25.091631 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-01-30 23:53:25.091863 > Failure: twisted.internet.error.ConnectionRefusedError: Connection was refused by other side: 111: Connection refused.
2012-01-30 23:53:26.094514 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-01-30 23:53:26.094820 > Failure: twisted.internet.error.ConnectionRefusedError: Connection was refused by other side: 111: Connection refused.
2012-01-30 23:53:27.097429 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-01-30 23:53:27.097661 > Failure: twisted.internet.error.ConnectionRefusedError: Connection was refused by other side: 111: Connection refused.
2012-01-30 23:53:29.547980 Processing 1001 shares from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:9334...
2012-01-30 23:53:29.859644 Requesting parent share c79e70a4 from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:9334
2012-01-30 23:53:29.860808 ... done processing 1001 shares. New: 1001 Have: 3006/~17280
2012-01-30 23:53:29.873999 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-01-30 23:54:13.473540 Processing 1001 shares from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:9334...
2012-01-30 23:54:40.850463 Requesting parent share 1c063c3c from XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX:9333
2012-01-30 23:54:40.851541 ... done processing 1001 shares. New: 1001 Have: 9016/~17280
2012-01-30 23:54:40.929094 Pool: 160GH/s in 9016 shares (375/9016 verified) Recent: 0.14% >218MH/s Shares: 0 (0 orphan, 0 dead) Peers: 4 (0 incoming)
Any ideas? I'm running the current git head (5f49537) EDIT: Ahaa! Namecoin wasn't running and I had it set to merge mine. That error message could have been more helpful though. |
|
|
|
Does bitcoind have to be caught up downloading the block chain before starting P2Pool?
Yes Is there a convenient way to ensure this happens unattended? I'm not currently on p2pool. I currently have my (linux) mining rig configured to run a script on boot that automatically gets cgminer going pointed at the right pools. So, if the power goes out while I'm away, and then comes back on, everything (in theory), just fires right back up again. So, if I were to switch to p2pool, I'd need some way of automatically launching bitcoind (I guess), monitoring it to see when it's caught up, and then launching the p2pool client. Or, better yet, to make things easier on everyone, it would be nice if the p2pool client managed that itself so that one could launch it right away and it would monitor bitcoind and not start actually mining until the time was right. But, not knowing what goes on between bitciond and p2pool, I admit that that might not be technically feasible. I think its fine to launch p2pool even while bitcoind is out of date. Your shares will be rejected until it gets up to date, but once its up to date it should start working fine. |
|
|
|
Ok, dumb this down for me. The bitcoins have to come from somewhere. Even if Deepbit had 100% monopoly on the mining, as a hypothetical Bitcoin user, why do I care?
The fears are largely unjustified, and more a fear of anyone having 100% control than specifically Deepbit. With a large portion of the hashing power, the network is yours. You could only accept transactions with a fee and ignore all others. This means most transactions would be forever at 0/unconfirmed. Even if there are still others mining, you could ignore their blocks and only build on your own. As long as you maintain the majority of hashing power, you will be able to control the longest chain. Transactions can never be stolen or redirected, but they can be stopped and even reversed (if they aren't too deep in the block chain). |
|
|
|
The best way to bring decentralization to the network is just to mine for yourself. I don't know what I think about so much control of the network going to so few.
That's the idea behind p2pool, solo mining with pooled reward. Unless you have a 100Ghash farm hiding in your garage to reduce the variance??? Variance... whatever. You get paid once every 2 months a lump sum or a little bit every day. Why does it matter except to satisfy the monkey brain. If you do have a garage farm that can get a block ever other day, reducing variance is really pointless. Money now is better than money later IMO. I can invest money now. In 2 months, who knows what investment opportunities will be gone or if I'll have even solved a block. Variance matters. |
|
|
|
I'll also add namecoin setup if I have time.
That would be a must since profitability is what make it or break it for heavy miners. Count me in to support your work. Namecoin is worth only about 1.2% extra revenue. It is a nice luxury but I would hardly call it make or break. I don't personally care about the namecoin revenue. I mine namecoin because I want a distributed DNS to succeed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
