Next step could be asking mtgox if they're receiving BTC from the blocks mined by MM...
spiccioli
Is that really a road we want to go down? BadBear, 90K USD/week can be sold on mtgox only, every other exchange can not handle such a high volume, so either we are concerned and we want to find out who he is or we can close this thread right now. spiccioli you really want mtgox to tell publicly about their customers and to act like a bitcoin police? for me this would be a reason to leave bitcoin completely. but i dont have a big problem with this miner anyway... its just interesting |
|
|
|
please calm down a little... -f fee is a percentage which will be kept by your bitcoind (default = 0) --give-author is a percentage which will be sent to forrestv (default=0.5) and he really deserves it. a simple run_pypool.py --help says: --give-author DONATION_PERCENTAGE donate this percentage of work to author of p2pool (default: 0.5) are there really people which don't do --help before they start a command line program? btw:  damn |
|
|
|
|
please add mine
Nürnberg::Germany::pool.k1024.de:80::0::LTC::k1024::flower1024
|
|
|
|
|
it looks like it is made for kids ,)
so CH: you finally admit sc is nothing for a real business....
|
|
|
|
On a similar note, does anyone know if MtGox owns any mining hardware or contracts?
they pay for eligius' server so eligius includes their feeless transactions |
|
|
|
This issue could be resolved somewhere in this thread but I sure as hell cant find it, I apologize if it's there:
I would like to setup gpumax and my rigs in a fashion where, they work at gpumax whenever public work is available and to work in P2pool when it is not.
I know how to set them up in fashion where the rigs would try mining at gpumax at first and if it fails then swap to P2pool for X shares... after which try back at gpumax (rinse and repeat)
I think (am not sure) that I however am not able to set up a worker at gpumax without specifying a "failover" pool. Is this possible ? If it isnt could you make it possible? (seems like a very small tweak). Is there something im not taking in to account ?
+1 |
|
|
|
Color me surprised. I was starting to expect this would just fade away.  Bet: .25BTC from 1errG9KCenY4wSCjJppZtMcKoxyqDEvzv # generated: 296 Payout: 2x bet, .5BTC Cheers! thanks  |
|
|
|
Trust DeathAndTaxes actually knows what he is talking about +1 +1 i can think for myself, but thank you EDIT: typo |
|
|
|
Trust he won't change the rules and hurt you like he did in the past.
Trust he won't halt the chain like he did in the past.
Trust he has given others the private keys.
Trust he would attempt a DDOS on unaproved trust nodes by creating a duplicate he controls (he still has the private keys).
Trust he has given the other trust nodes (which may not exist) >51% of trust coins.
Trust he will allow real/native enforcer nodes and not change the code to keep control of the network.
Trust trust trust. Hell if I trusted the federal reserve, VISA, Paypal, and BankOfAmerica I wouldn't need Bitcoin.
+1 |
|
|
|
Withhelding winning shares is pointless, they can't be used to make blocks or whatelse.
Disruption? Nothing would change. Each p2pool user run it's own p2pool client, there aren't servers that can be overloaded or whatelse.
Well not pointless. It is a potential economic attack. Say a major pool saw p2pool as a threat. They could dump significant hashpower at the pool and withhold blocks. This would make p2pool seems "continually unlucky" and if the unlucky streak continued enough less savy users would start to doubt the protocol and possibly return to conventional pools. I doubt any pool is doing this and p2pool isn't special, they could do the same thing to any small conventional pool. The good news is that as p2pool gets larger the "cost" to have any meaningful affect of reward also grows. if a pool uses the hashing power from its miners its detectable. every miner who found a block should check if his pool shows it.. if not -> he may be cheated... but i guess that there are not many miners out there who do this regulary. so its not a big risk for the pool itself. |
|
|
|
Is it planned for p2pool to support Merged Mining (Bitcoind + Namecoin, like BTC Guild does) in the near future?
Merged Mining is supported but it is not pooled...means its an even bigger variance - i guess you will not like that. just use --merged http://user:pass@ip:portyou can use the --merged parameter for as many chains (that support mm) as you wish (e.g. if you want to do devcoin also just use a second --merge pointing to devcoind) |
|
|
|
So you are afraid of ghosts. Since you can't give a specific complaint, this is what it boils down to.
Seriously, Holliday, why do you take this so personal!? Maybe you should take a ... Holiday? Because I've been trying to promote network decentralization for ten months. We finally have a pool that can help accomplish it and you make a post, with no evidence, suggesting something is wrong with P2Pool, when it's simply variance. So, show me evidence it's more than variance. At least make a lucid argument other than, "nasty (cryptographic) stuff". I take it personally because I think Bitcoin can change the world for the better, yes I'm a fanatic optimist. I think it requires a healthy network to grow. I think a healthy network is something other than the network we see today for several reasons. I think P2Pool can have a large impact on that and change it for the better. +++++1 |
|
|
|
why not? its the only usage i could imagine... i dont see any other reason (except for 51%attack, but i dont believe they are big enough yet) |
|
|
|
Your project will be a fork of the current P2Pool software?
right now I do not have a project but I would be willing to start one. It would be stronger to be totally unique however a clone I think would be better than nothing. I am open to ideas from people smarter than myself:) i would prefer if sombody with money could convince ck (author of cgminer) to invent a smart-mining protocol. as soon as pools starting support for this it would solve ALL problems regarding big pools. i think this is much more needed than another p2pool. Can you explain in more detail what you are talking about? the big plus about p2pool is that all miners build the block itself. it is not decided by forrestv - its the miners. the only problem with big pools is that they decide which block (means transactions and features like bip16/bip17) to mine. smart mining just means: the pool does only handle the payout and share counting, but does NOT decide about the block contents. this means a pool is not able to attack bitcoin - even if it has 90% of hashing power. and the miners still have their "votes" (votes as in this bip decision thing) if all pools would use smart mining we dont have to fear 51% attack from a hacked pool any more. of course the risk of cheating pool ops or stolen pool wallets will remain (stolen pool wallet risk could be circumvented as well, but thats up to the pool) - but the biggest issue for bitcoin itself is the 51% attack. i know that eligius/luke-jr is working on something like that and bitpenny has a working implementation. BUT: it seems that the bitpenny protocol cannot be used with other pools (dont know why; just heard that in a chat) and i dont know if that what luke-jr will do fits the average joe. if cgminer gets a smart-mining client (as an addition) i am very sure that many pools will support its protocol. sorry my english is not that good to explain it in more detail. but if you are really interested about that ask gmaxwell, gavin or luke-jr (all three a bitcoin devs). i am sure they would love you to support that idea (smart-mining was first mentioned by gavin (afaik); i am just trying to push this idea - because i really love it) |
|
|
|
Your project will be a fork of the current P2Pool software?
right now I do not have a project but I would be willing to start one. It would be stronger to be totally unique however a clone I think would be better than nothing. I am open to ideas from people smarter than myself:) i would prefer if sombody with money could convince ck (author of cgminer) to invent a smart-mining protocol. as soon as pools starting support for this it would solve ALL problems regarding big pools. i think this is much more needed than another p2pool. |
|
|
|
- It is decentralized as it consists of multiple miners connected in a p2p fashion. Thus making it democratic as well.
I'm excited about p2pool as well. But I don't see what makes it democratic. The software is written by forrestv. We don't vote for software features. p2pool is very much controlled by forrestv. I think this is important to understand. At the same time it's important to understand that democracy is not necessary in the context of computer software. If we don't like that p2pool is run by forrestv, we quit. We are free to leave p2pool at any time, and so it becomes a non-issue that it's controlled by a single person. Our choice to leave at any time keeps the author in check, since he is well aware of this fact. This, not democracy, is the power of open source software. the democratic part is that you run your own bitcoind and decide yourself which transactions to mine. example: bip16 / bip17 gavin and luke-jr where both talking to pool ops to support their bips. with p2pool. all they can do is supply a patched bitcoind and EVERY miner decides for himself.... |
|
|
|
|
why dont you step up and implement smart-mining (just means that your miners decide on the block to build; bot you)?
i would happily join your pool if so... because there would be no risk in attacking bitcoin then...
|
|
|
|
2- O P2Pool CAN and SHOULD have more than 51% of the hashpower! That's it! If P2Pool owns, for example, 80%~100% of the hashpower, we will be much more safe!!!; 100% of the hashpower by single software solution is not a very good idea. Some bug or exploit can lead to a disaster. Yes, it sounds good, but 100% is not healthy for ANY single entity. i would love if you implement smart-mining within your pool. (means that your miners are building the block which they mine). i know eligius is working on something like that. i dont have a problem with big smart-mining-pools but i would stay at p2pool just because of its coolness-factor  |
|
|
|
The pool has been growing over the time period you've listed.
What does that have to do it? One block found is one block found. If the pool size is 1, 10 or 1000. The statistics (and maybe more) is simply wrong. do you know what average means? and as holiday said: 5 blocks a day: if you see that would you still say: wrong statistics? as you are arguing about p2pool block finding rate p2pool size does matter. it only finds every 0.42days a block because of its size. if it is smaller the number raises... EDIT: corrected an error EDIT: maybe its just a misunderstanding. the average block-find-time is not for old blocks. it just tells you how often to expect blocks. |
|
|
|
The pool where donations were going was hacked and I'm considering moving all my shares to p2pool as well now. I have grave concerns about centralising work to pools and increasingly see p2pool - or something like it - as the solution for bitcoin's future strength, going back to its decentralised nature as its strength. This means I won't realistically have a way of accepting small hashrate contributions donations with --donation that I can reasonably support. So after much angst I have decided that I will be deprecating the donations feature in upcoming versions and go back to the previous donation model of as-and-when you feel like it.
I thank those who have used the --donation feature greatly till now. It averaged around 400Mh/s over that time and at least kept me "mining" while my own mining rig was dead for over a month.
I recommend people disable --donation now and restart their miners for I don't know what will happen to hashes going to the pool during this instability (it is going offline for 24+ hours likely).
+1 for choosing p2pool! i never used --donation anyways but had send you some btc some month ago. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
