|
So far, in addition to my address, I see shares from these addresses:
1Q68UdKBYgBVy7h4gAAXcipaoBPeoJZrXQ
1yrraLgmRZ1fbgtz2BSVXcWVrJnH785QZ
If you have tried mining on my pool and you are not on the list, please let me know ASAP. Now that I have testers I will try to make some time tomorrow to work on some stat reporting.
|
|
|
|
No luck, just getting paid for last week. It's an average.
But yippee! And good because I just left to slush because of stupid jalapeno.
How long would our share time need to be extended to in order to make p2pool work well with BFL hardware? |
|
|
|
Cool, I'll check it out. I'm in Australia. I was thinking of a separate pool per continent, or multiple per continent maybe, rather than one worldwide pool. I guess that's what you mean by localised. I've got no experience with Ruby, so I might rework in Python, then it can plug directly into p2pool work.py and there's no need for running it on a separate port. I've already started on a Django schema for the database side of things. No need for AWS here, I run a hosting company  Cool. It's pretty simple so far, and if you make it possible to just patch p2pool that is awesome. I'm not particularly tied to my code, my objective is primarily to help make p2pool accessible to miners of any size. Feel free to play around with it and ask questions since the code is a bit dense in places. If you redo it in python, feel free to post that here. I'm not a ninja like with ruby, but I do have a bit of python experience. |
|
|
|
This looks like a good idea, I was thinking about implementing something very similar on my p2pool node. What continent are you on? Might be worth pooling (pun intended!) resources.
Interesting.... If we could develop a network of trusted operators we could offer low latency from anywhere in the world. Actually pooling everything together brings up trust issues between the various operators unless we use a single modified p2pool instance that does the logging, but then we don't have low latency from everywhere. However, since each pool only needs to be big enough to find enough p2pool shares, I think smaller, localized pools are the way to go. More important is overall hashpower for p2pool. N. America, btw. If you want to spin up your own proxy for your p2pool node the code is here: https://github.com/yrral86/proxy-p2pool1. Spin up an aws instance near you 2. Install git via package manager 3. Install ruby via rvm (this will take some time) 4. gem install json em-proxy 5. git clone https://github.com/yrral86/proxy-p2pool6. cd proxy-p2pool 7. In proxy.rb, modify pool address on line 8 and p2pool.address on line 38 8. ruby proxy.rb 9. Point your miners at aws_address:9339 10. Submitted shares will be logged to shares.log (just a csv for now, I'll likely back it with a real db eventually) 11. You're on your own for payouts. When I get some time I will put together some scripts for parsing the shares.log file. Pull requests and bug reports are of course welcome. |
|
|
|
Take the crossfire bridge off unless you use it for gaming. It hurts your hashrate.
i did some testing and doesn't get lower, always 550kh/s are u sure it hurts the hashrate? No, it doesn't affect hashrate. Most people who say so have never actually done any testing for themselves. I have done testing, and it did effect hashrate on my cards. I don't have them anymore, so I can't give details other than they were 5870s. |
|
|
|
They haven't got enough hashing power to maintain 30%. BFL hash about 400 Th/s incoming, AM's got 200 Th/s incoming taking it total to 250 Th/s, Avalon will have 250 Th/s, BitFury has 200 Th/s incoming and KnC has 200 Th/s incoming from the 500 pre-orders. That's about 1300 Th/s between them and AM will only have 250 Th/s of that. That's 19.23%. By the end of the year, AM will account for about 10-15% of the network share.
You are absolutely right... as long as we assume every other player meets their targets and AM decides to not make any more hardware after their current batch arrives. Good luck with your assumptions. |
|
|
|
How do you guys keep your latency so low? My "Bitcoind GetBlockTemplate Latency" hovers around ~200ms even though my google ping is a pretty steady ~22ms. My machine is running nothing other than p2pool/bitcoind. My efficiency right now looks OK, but in past times orphans have jumped up a bunch.  GetBlockTemplate all takes place on your machine... no network involved. If I had to guess, I'd say old bitcoind (as bitpop suggested), slow disks, or not enough memory. If you are all up to date and don't want to upgrade your hardware, feel free to give my p2pool pool a try. It is a new type of mining pool backed by a p2pool instance that is currently running at 115% efficiency (with a sample of 595 shares). Basically, it pools shares from multiple users and submits them to p2pool under the same address. It tracks the original address tied to each share and then I pay out proportionally whenever p2pool finds a share. This allows for lower variance for smaller miners and will hopefully bring more hashpower to p2pool. I don't have publicly available stats yet, but I'm working on it. See this thread for more details: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=234841.0There are of course other public p2pool instances if you have enough hashpower and prefer the more direct route. My software is very new, and while it has been stable so far I can't make any guarantees. Anyone willing to help test would be very much appreciated. |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I'm not sure you get my drift. I'm doing this project for many reasons, some of them being: because I think it's a challenge, it will be fun, it will benefit mine & everyone involved knowledge & understanding of Bitcoin & p2p networking, because I want it to be better, because I believe it will benefit Bitcoin & mining, because I want to & because I can. This project is not about putting any pool out of business, it is about joining them in business with healthy competition which benefits Bitcoin & miners alike. It will be in competition with all pools, not just p2pool - all pools. I started this thread to gather ideas & suggestions from the community, completely open & transparent to everyone who would like to get involved, it is not a "why" or "what for" thread - if anything it's a "why the hell not" thread, and the people who I'm interested in hearing from & possibly working with are the "why the hell not" type of crowd, plenty of them on this forum. I want to start from afresh & build it from the ground up because that is what I choose to do, in the knowledge that it has been 100% developed by the guys behind it - I don't believe I need a justification or reason to do this. On the contrary, it would take or need to be an exceptional reason for me NOT to do this. Again, I wish you the best of luck with what you are trying to do, I hope it works for you. Of course, you are always welcome to give some positive input any time in the future if you wish. I'm open to everything - hence this thread. Peace  I get that, I just don't see any ideas or suggestions here.... just talk about needing such ideas/suggestions. And all of my ideas are bad in your opinion because I don't want to reinvent the wheel. Anyway, I'm going to go back to being productive. Best of luck to you two. Hopefully you can find some other people to join in your conversation who are more enthusiastic about duplicating effort. |
|
|
|
It's called trying to inflate the actual performance of your product and/or design knowledge. If your product is good, quote firm numbers based on hard, verifiable FACTS rather than allude to 'improvements' to a mathematical process which has data dependencies which cannot be changed or improved.
The academics who wrote the paper quoted are experts in their field - Dadda has an adder type named after him - and designed a method of reducing delay paths on an actual asic. They did'nt change or say they could change an algorithm. KNC claim to have an 'improved' algorithm, and that is just plain rubbish. Ask any mathematician.
Any respectable company would not make such ridiculous claims, if KNC have indeed used the methods from this paper in their design,then they should acknowledge it. Hence my annoyance.
Incidentally, Dadda and co. got their SHA256 engine to run at 'a clock speed of well over 1Ghz' on a 130nm process.
I'm a mathematician and I think you are splitting hairs. It may not be acceptable in a mathematical journal, but in common usage it is acceptable to me to label an improved algorithm implementation as simply an improved algorithm. Most people don't know the difference and it conveys the idea that they have some special sauce that makes theirs better than a naive implementation. |
|
|
|
HI there, here is my little honest Mining Farm haha. Look at my farm, my farm is amazing, give it a try uhmmmmm, look at my farm, my farm is amazing, give it a try,uhmmmmm it's sounds like i'm crazy....hahahaha jokes apart here are the photos and one prints of my little honest farm ;d my imageshack.us algum http://imageshack.us/g/1/10198579/As u can see on the last photo, with gpuz and all stuff,if look at WU: its says ~900, its cause i only run the programa to show u guys this ;d i was playing BF3 MP before  U can also see that my GPU MEM is underclocked, what? ya, what matters is the ratio of mem/clock, doesn't has to be overclocking memory, only highest coreClock will improve kh/s, mem can be underclocked as well as sha256 BUT, need same sweet spot as for overclocking memories. i can't pass ~550kh/s cause XFX is not good, and i kinda have some....well oc scarry tha crap out of me, in less then 2 months i fried my HD6850 cause of oc...so i don't wanna push it more, not for now at least, but hey, with underclock is better for me and the card so i like it.... keep in mind that what matter is ratio, and high CORE clock, mem clocks kinda just have to be there(u get what i mean). Take the crossfire bridge off unless you use it for gaming. It hurts your hashrate. |
|
|
|
Really? Only 1 BTC a month? Just how good are you?
Lets see I have a imaginary wallet of around 200 BTC somewhere, would it be worth it to purchase your advice if I were a swing trader?
In the time I spent as a subscriber his only bitcoin advice was keep holding and buy the dips. That said, if you want to trade other markets he does have some insight there. However, I won't be resubscribing at 1BTC/month since I don't have enough fiat to make it worth it. |
|
|
|
But this is how the free market works and we can't even exercise that here, it is up to the consumers to do research before and if we are giving them more options to look into, I don't see the harm.
Think of a sales/auction thread like someone's store. You wouldn't go into someone else's store to try and gain customers and that store wouldn't let you advertise there. So stay out. The thread starter can make it a self-moderated thread. Problem solved. |
|
|
|
i still dont understand why you cant add funds to gox acct using visa, mastercard or other major credit card.
Fraud rates would require them to set a 50% fee, and they still might lose. |
|
|
|
Let me be clear. I'm not here to replace p2pool. I believe that most of the problems people have with p2pool are possible to overcome without changing the fundamental design. My posts are to help you guys understand the technicalities of what you are attempting to do.
I can't see how you're going to do that if you are going to keep the mine-on-top-of-longest-chain system. If you're going to do a new p2p pool, I think the fundamental design should be changed. But feel free to convince me otherwise In order to keep everyone happy from big miners to small, we need a tiered system. This is actually what I am working towards with my proxy project, but you seem to want to throw out everything already built and start from scratch rather than work incrementally towards a system that suits everyone. Yes, I want the lower tiers to eventually be decentralized, but I need to work out the kinks in just proxying to an unmodified p2pool for now. Ultimately, we need to allow multiple addresses to take credit for p2pool shares rather than a single address per share. Once this is in place, we can have second tier pools that submit p2pool shares that pay out based on their easier share chain. A centralized proxy is just a first step towards this vision and will help us understand a part of the target system that is achievable today. Then there is the issue of BFL ASICs. Once we have a tiered system, we will be able to lengthen the share time on p2pool to something acceptable for all hardware and the second tier pools can provide easier shares and lower variance.
How do you intend to do it without a proof of work chain? You have to have a way of reliably measuring the work of the various pool contributors. All I've seen is complaints about p2pool and no new ideas other than the one I came up with, which seems to be a non-starter anyway. Let me be clear. I'm not here to replace p2pool. I believe that most of the problems people have with p2pool are possible to overcome without changing the fundamental design. My posts are to help you guys understand the technicalities of what you are attempting to do.
I can't see how you're going to do that if you are going to keep the mine-on-top-of-longest-chain system. If you're going to do a new p2p pool, I think the fundamental design should be changed. But feel free to convince me otherwise I'm sure nobody wants to replace any pool, I just want to make a fully functional & efficient p2p pooling system. History shows that pools come and go - if a pool shuts down it is not because of other pools - it is because it was unable to provide it's miners with a good service that can compete with other pools. Ultimately, it is miners who decide weather a pool operates or not, not other pools. Sure, development is not going to be an easy task, I made that clear at the start, but it's also not as hard as many people believe it to be if it's done properly with the right programmer/coder. On a personal note, if I were a coder and was asked to develop such software, I would certainly want to develop it myself from the ground up rather than try and rectify someone else's programming with patches, workarounds and proxies. But that's just me. I've grown up with the open source ethos. It's about community and building on the work of others. Reinventing the wheel seems pointless to me. Perhaps you are right that a better system can be built from the ground up. But I can't see it. What I do see is a clear path from what is working today to what we want in the future. So again, I ask you to lay out a path from 0 to your goal. I've already laid out one from p2pool to your goal. |
|
|
|
I'm a little offended that I didn't make the list...  Who the fuck are you? |
|
|
|
Anyone care to speculate on how many trolls exist on bitcointalk now? Seriously it's like every time I read a thread now someone is posting rude, obscene, smart ass, are competitive product posts in other people's threads and items for sale posts.
Feel free to vent your frustrations here.
Welcome to a bitcoin bear market  . |
|
|
|
Only a flash crash or bad news can break the 100 pivot gravity.
Inb4 a newsless slow slide down. Inb4 rebound to $110 And thus a perfect illustration of the "gravity" Abandon speaks of. |
|
|
|
Anyone noticed the prices that physical casascius coins are still going for on ebay ... ?
Perhaps an indicator of the broader market?
Or maybe wishful thinking on my part.
I don't see any with bids |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
