How does giving a chip more work not create more heat? Even if all the heat is from running idle at clock speed, I could see a custom scenario where you could send api calls to the miners to adjust their clock based on whether they're getting real or fake work. What percentage of work is real versus fake?
You aren't giving the chip more work. The miner solves difficulty 1 shares. The miner has no idea whatsoever if the work is "real" or "fake". It just knows it has work to do. |
|
|
|
I'm still trying to understand the pseudo shares. If they're just busy work to make stats look good, and I don't care about what my stats look like, do I need them at all? Seems like the busy work would generate unnecessary heat for my miners? What happens if I set the pseudo share difficulty to some really high number? How can I see what real work my miners are doing?
As OgNasty stated, the pseudo shares don't have any value except to make your stats look nicer. They aren't adding work to your miner, since your miner is solving difficulty 1 hashes anyway. The best place to see the actual work your miners are doing is on the miner itself. The only suffering is by the node you're mining on since if you set the pseudo difficulty too low, you flood the node with useless data. You can also set your share difficulty via the "/" parameter. That actually does do something, as long as you set it to a value higher than the current share difficulty of p2pool. Unless you're running a couple hundred terra hash, you probably don't want to bother with that one either. |
|
|
|
Speaking of merged mining, I merge mine namecoin. I know there are many other coins out there that can be merged mined such as Devcoins, IXcoins and I0coins; however, is the money they bring in even make it worth the time to set them up?
The setup time is pretty minimal. Download and install the wallet, sync the blockchain and edit the p2pool startup. As for the other merged coins values... pretty much worthless. For example, if you hit a block of DVC (5000 coins) you might see 0.0004 BTC for the lot of them. IXC mining is done, so even if you hit a block, you don't get any coins for it. At this point, and somebody please add any I've missed, here are coins you can merge mine and my thoughts: - NMC - block of 50 will get you about 0.12BTC. Pretty much the only coin worth merging.
- DVC - block of 5000 will get you about 0.0004BTC. About worthless.
- IXC - no more minted coins as mining is done
- I0C - maybe 0.000016 per coin? 1.5 coins per found block currently.
- FSC - coin has been dead in the water for months. I've got like 2.5 million of them... anyone want to buy?
 - HUC - I don't merge mine these as the client is a resource hog. Anyone currently mining them?
Hope this helps you make your decision. |
|
|
|
Hello, just found out about Bitcoin (surprise, surprise), and I am now wondering how I can start mining by my own or in pools. I have no idea what I am doing at the moment and would like to invest in these beauties. I have a fairly decent laptop at my disposal, and free energy  Ever notice we get these posters over and over then poof and they are gone. It's because they all have this idea they're going to just leave their laptops/desktops on all the time and magically make money. Then they hear the truth and realize there's no such thing as a free lunch, so they disappear |
|
|
|
This seems like a good thread to post my genesis vs gaw comparisons. I signed up with both of them 4-5 days ago around the same time. I bought a 2 MH with Genesis and a 1 MH with GAW to compare them before I spent some real money. Genesis is giving me around 8 cents a day and ive got a total of 40 cents from them in this time. I expected this.
GAW has been far worse. FAR WORSE. in the 4-5 days I have been with them I have 2 cents total. Not only that but the fees from GAW are eating away ALL of my profits. check these GAW payouts
BTC Payout
0.00020793 BTC
Maintenance Fee
-0.00020792 BTC
That is a huge problem. fees are taking the profits. I did not signup for that and I dont expect GAW to get any better. While genesis payments have decreased a tad they are still way better. I have not tried any other cloud mining companies yet. I was going to try a few more but after my experience with GAW i just dont know.
I'm still here. Been busy with life. I'll update the OP when I get a chance, but the main point of the thread was to serve as a warning rather than an advertisement for various cloud sites. Anybody who has interest in buying these services is probably reading the last couple of pages of the thread anyways. It is smart to start very small to see how much you can get. Cheap Ghs, safe company and low maintenance fees is the winning combination but if the company is well established you will get higher prices That is why you gotta try www.cloudmining.website (0.001 BTC/Ghs), www.cloudminer.io (0.0014 BTC/Ghs), www.hashie.io (4.59 USD/Ghs) etc. where u can actually have some profit. Lower price with higher risks sometimes means a better chance to ROI. Cloudminer is very new but going strong; hashie is interesting if the price of BTC rises I'm not sure whether OP checks this thread anymore. I think, these new 3 are to be included in OP's list... Well there we have it ladies and gentleman the person who started this post has checked in. I do see they did not say anything just kinda posted so we would see them here. I have not checked the 1st page to see if they updated the list of good cloud mining sites and the ones weeded out to be scams DrG actually did post a reply, but he did it in the middle of the post he quoted. Here's his post: I'm still here. Been busy with life. I'll update the OP when I get a chance, but the main point of the thread was to serve as a warning rather than an advertisement for various cloud sites. Anybody who has interest in buying these services is probably reading the last couple of pages of the thread anyways.
It is smart to start very small to see how much you can get. Cheap Ghs, safe company and low maintenance fees is the winning combination but if the company is well established you will get higher prices
|
|
|
|
Well, we can start to see the changes they're making. Bitmain's github p2pool repository has been updated with AntPool stuff. Check it out here: https://github.com/bitmaintech/p2pool.gitI haven't gone through their contributions yet, nor will I have time to prior to next weekend. Who wants to do a comparison between forrest's and this fork? For example, the very first thing I noticed was a new directory called dbservice, which contains an __init__.py and sql.py. It looks to me like they're doing exactly what I speculated they were - throwing a traditional type pool on top of the p2pool backbone. This certainly allows them to control payouts, including the non-payment of transaction fees to workers. Let's take an example. Somebody puts this pool into play and there are a bunch of workers attached to it, totaling 100TH/s. For the sake of argument, let's say that this 100TH/s earns 1.1 BTC per block. I'm making up numbers, and I do realize that it would not be static as I have described, but for this example, look past that . The pool's hot wallet now has 1.1 BTC. Let's say that the 0.1 is set aside as transaction fees. Now, there's 1 BTC available to payout the workers. Your typical PPLNS payment algorithms come into play, and the miners are all assigned some portion of the 1 BTC. This is very similar to a traditional pool. There's a database involved storing workers, their hash rate, the number of shares, etc. Yes, I realize I have left out a ton of details, but I think you can get the gist of it. What I'm really interested in, and unfortunately don't have the time to investigate, is how Bitmain's changes to the p2pool code will play out. Will they be enough to force a fork? Does this become a competitor to the original p2pool, or a complement to it? The advantage I've thought of with this setup is that pool operators now don't need to get enough hashing power together to be able to solve a block on their own, but rather can use the p2pool backbone and contribute there. In this way, I can see decreased variance to the smaller miners, and if I squint my eyes and hold my breath while looking at it upside down, I can see the decentralization, too  . |
|
|
|
Assuming you meant U2 and not S2 Point them to solo pool and try your luck at the lottery. 96GH/s isn't awful... just straight mining BTC on a typical pool you would expect to earn 0.001219 BTC a day. You could also try some of the multi-pools so you get a bit of variety. |
|
|
|
The entire point of this exercise was to say that simply increasing the hash rate of the p2pool network is NOT the solution to p2pool's problems. In fact, just blindly adding hash rate will probably have the exact opposite effect you're hoping to achieve. If you want people to mine p2pool and promote the decentralization, you need to make p2pool an attractive option to them. High variance is not a very good selling point.
You're missing the point of this. Antpool (p2pmode) gets rid of the variance problem for anyone using Antpool in p2pool mode. Yes it makes it more difficult for everyone else temporarily but its a necessary step in order to fix the problem. With the open sourced code, anyone else is free to open their own p2pool pool. With a few of these set up, every p2pool miner can move to a p2pool based pool. P2pool overall hashrate goes up so it gets more market share and individual miners get the benefits associated with pooled hash rate. No more variance. I don't believe I'm missing the point at all. I speculated earlier in this thread on how to achieve a solution for the variance problem - by throwing a typical PPLNS pool on top of the p2pool backbone. Yes, this certainly helps the small miner; however, it does absolutely nothing for the decentralization issue. In fact, it does exactly the opposite. Not only that, but it makes it that much harder for the user of the standard p2pool framework because the network takes on the additional load of the miners using Bitmain's p2pool setup. One of the beauties of p2pool as it stands now is the ability for a user to move from node to node and continue to mine. For example, I have my own local node that I run on my laptop and a VPS node that I use when I'm traveling for work. I turn off my laptop and my miners seamlessly move onto the new node. I can have any number of backup nodes configured and move between them at will. The underlying problem is expounded precisely because of the ability for me to move from node to node. My shares are broadcast to every other node. Everybody knows everything about everyone. That's decentralization at its finest. Take down one node, and move the miners to another without interruption or concern. The p2pool network continues on, as do your miners. To accomplish this feat of decentralization p2pool relies upon the share chain. However, as I pointed out, the price you pay for this is variance. Because the share chain is nothing more than a simple incarnation of a SHA-256 coin, the more hash rate you have, the higher the difficulty of the share becomes. How does Bitmain solve this problem? I suppose time will tell and the code will show, and I'm looking forward to seeing what the folks at Bitmain have done. Believe me, I'm one of the believers in p2pool. I've spent many hours going through the code, posting in the forums and of course mining on it. My post above was made to show that simply throwing hash at p2pool does not address the problems inherent in the system, but rather makes them more visibly prominent. |
|
|
|
Expected time to find a block is: Network Difficulty * 2^32 / hashrate = time in seconds to find a block
Not sure why you've done something different... Hashrate as in gh/s? Because the number of days to mine a block seems wayyyy too big... http://jsfiddle.net/a6a3ca0f/10/Sorry... let me break it down for you: Network Difficulty = current bitcoin network difficulty target (39603666252) 2^32 = difficulty 1 share hashrate = hashes per second (1 GH/s would be 1000000000) Example of how long it would take to find a block for somebody with 1TH/s: 39603666252 * 2^32 / 1000000000000 = 170096451.35
170096451.35 seconds = 1968.7 days = 5.39 years You use the same formula to calculate expected earnings per day... You can expect your 1TH/s to earn 0.01269874 BTC a day. |
|
|
|
Expected time to find a block is: Network Difficulty * 2^32 / hashrate = time in seconds to find a block
Not sure why you've done something different... |
|
|
|
I don't think they've fully grasped the whole p2pool idea from what I've read so far from Bitmain - but I'm sure it'll all come out when they upload it to git - if they ever do. It will either make them or break them I think. Oh, bought the SP20's by the way.....nice i've never had any problems with any of the SP-Tech rigs, they mine on ANY mining method with 0 rejected shares and perform particularly well with p2pool and DGM. I alternate my hash between p2pool and DGM, for variance. Can't wait for my SP20 to arrive next week  Jealous of you both. I've got 9 S3s running here and haven't been able to justify replacing them with SP20s. I WANT to do it because I love the SP-Tech gear, from the build quality of the units to the stability and rock-solid performance. But the S3s have already paid for themselves and are mining pure profit at this point. Makes it hard to pull the trigger. |
|
|
|
Don't forget that even if they end up being just one node in any p2pool network - be it the existing one or a new one, they will be far more than 51% of that network meaning it's as good as a centralised pool.
Like I said, they're paying homage to the idea of decentralisation because clients are demanding it so it makes for good marketing on their part. While them contributing to p2pool is most welcome, I see no sign of any of the alleged decentralisation.
Hi ckolivas, Yes p2p.antpool.com is only a node of p2pool network, but it brings more hashrate to the p2pool network. As mentioned in the announcement, we think we need to add hashrate to p2pool network first, to make the output more stable, then lots of p2pool nodes will show up. Finally, there will be a denctralized p2pool network. If you have not fixed the variance problem for smaller miners all you will achieve by dumping a bunch of hashrate on p2pool is to drive out the smaller miners, many of which are using your equipment. Exactly this. While I commend your vision of promoting decentralization, the biggest single flaw in p2pool as it currently exists is that of variance. Please understand that in your typical pool, the more hash rate you dump on the pool, the less variance is experienced by miners. Exactly the opposite happens in p2pool because of the nature of the underlying share chain. If you suddenly double, triple, quadruple the overall pool hash rate, you make it that much more difficult for individual miners to find shares. Let me share some maths with you to help explain things. First, let's take a look at the current p2pool situation (as of right now): Share Difficulty (D) = 15348570.54
Miner hashrate (h) = 1000000000000 (1 TH/s)
D * 2^32 / hashrate = expected number of seconds to find a share
15348570.54 * 2^32 / 1000000000000 = 65921.61
So, right now a miner with 1TH/s of hashing power should expect to find a share every 18.3 hours or so. Let's see what happens when the overall pool's hash rate jumps to 10 PH/s. First, we need to calculate the difficulty of finding a share: D * 2^32 / 10000000000000000 = 30
D = 69849193.09616088867188
The share difficulty has now jumped up to near 70 million. Plug that back into the equation for our miner with 1 TH/s: 69849193.1 * 2^32 / 1000000000000 = 300000
Now that miner would expect to find a share just about every 3.5 days. Therein lies the problem. That poor miner with 1 TH/s went from expecting to find a share every 18 hours to near 3.5 days. Sure, overall you'd expect the pool itself to be finding more blocks, but that individual miner is going to be missing out on quite a few of them. As you increase the hash rate of the pool, the share difficulty increases to compensate. The more the share difficulty increases, the harder it becomes for a miner to find a share. Why? Because finding a share is effectively solo mining a coin. Let's play a game and assume for a second that the ENTIRE bitcoin network switched over and started mining on p2pool. How does our poor miner with 1 TH/s fare then? Let's find out: Share Difficulty = 39603666252 / 20 = 1980183312.6
1980183312.6 * 2^32 / 1000000000000 = 8504822.58
It would take on average 98.4 days for the 1 TH/s miner to find a share. The entire point of this exercise was to say that simply increasing the hash rate of the p2pool network is NOT the solution to p2pool's problems. In fact, just blindly adding hash rate will probably have the exact opposite effect you're hoping to achieve. If you want people to mine p2pool and promote the decentralization, you need to make p2pool an attractive option to them. High variance is not a very good selling point. |
|
|
|
Well, the node's been up for less than half an hour. So much for their "extensive testing" claims. Standard p2pool default front end. Only thing different is they've exposed port 3333 instead of the typical 9332. |
|
|
|
Now you just place a typical PPLNS framework on top of your node. People register with a user name. When they connect with that name, since it's not a BTC address, their hash rate gets added to the node's default address. Now you have all of this hashing power on one address that is contributing to the share chain. As soon as a block is found, that address is paid. Then, you just divvy out the payment to the miners based on a standard PPLNS system.
That does nothing to solve the lost work due to the short p2pool share time. No, it doesn't, and I didn't state that this would address it. All I stated was how you could put a traditional PPLNS payout framework on top of a p2pool backend. The frequent restarts... now there's a problem that needs solving, and I'm not sure Bitmain has pulled it off. Will certainly need to see what they're attempting if/when they actually do drop their source code in github. |
|
|
|
I've read through the tidbits Bitmain has provided in their announcement. I just don't see it. What they've done: - Kept it in Python - guess it was easier than re-writing in C
- Provided a vardiff - um... that was done a long time ago
- Somehow solved the frequent restarts - yeah... sure. That's code magic I'd like to see.
- Addressing the "small miner variance" - I posited on how they accomplished that in the announcement thread
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I can see how to pull off the "regular" pool on top of p2pool. When p2pool mining, you must supply your BTC wallet address, and it must be valid. If it isn't, your hash rate is directed towards the node's payout wallet. Try it some time. Start up your own node and connect to it with a user name of anything BUT a BTC address.
Now you just place a typical PPLNS framework on top of your node. People register with a user name. When they connect with that name, since it's not a BTC address, their hash rate gets added to the node's default address. Now you have all of this hashing power on one address that is contributing to the share chain. As soon as a block is found, that address is paid. Then, you just divvy out the payment to the miners based on a standard PPLNS system.
So... I can see how it can be done, but it adds a centralized feeling to an inherently decentralized protocol. In other words, for this magic to work, you simply cannot move from node to node as you can with a regular p2pool node. The new node you move to / register with has no knowledge of any work you personally have contributed on another node. Basically what I've described as a possible approach does nothing more than give people the ability to setup and run their own traditional pools using the p2pool network as a backend framework. Sure, it solves the "small miner" issue, but at what cost?
|
|
|
|
|
I must admit I'm very confused by this announcement. The source code in github is not modified at all, it's just a straight copy. We have newbie accounts posting claiming to be Bitmain representatives and pool engineers, yet they don't seem aware that p2pool.info has been dead in the water for a very long time and that it doesn't actually provide mining services. I've seen no increase in hash rate on the standard p2pool network which would account for this supposed testing they've been doing over the past month.
So, how about some explanations, Bitmain? What exactly are you providing in your upcoming p2pool network that is better than what is currently available? Are you providing a competing product to the existing p2pool or are you planning to work in conjunction with it? If you are truly offering something new, how can I setup my own node? Have you solved some of p2pool's shortcomings, like the increased variance with increased hash rate of the pool, or written the software in something a bit more useful like C so it can properly handle threading?
Look, I have purchased your products and still run them, but your track record of late has been less than stellar. The S3s came in under specced and it wasn't until the S3+ that you even got close to what they originally were supposed to be. The firmware has been using an ancient version of ckolivas' software until recently. The S4 launch was pretty much a disaster with PSUs flaming out and broken firmware. Don't even get PatMan started on the S2 firmware's p2pool compatibility and how long THAT took to appear.
You claim to promote decentralization. Put your money where your mouth is. Show us this as-of-yet unseen commitment, because at this point all that I can see are a few massive data farms in China pushing quite a large number of PHs on your own private AntPool. That sure seems quite contrary to your supposed commitment to decentralization.
|
|
|
|
Its the network propagation time... Some quick back of the napkin math using blockchains times puts block 329,431's luck at 47,368.42% 180,136.66% (see edit) To put that in prospective our previous record luck (since I have been recording data) is block 313,299 (July 31) at 12,519.64%, that block took about 9:30... Block 313,299: http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.php?blockoffset=213Edit: Ok, here is the math...Expected seconds to block = Difficulty * 2**32 / hashrate Current bitcoin difficulty = 39,603,666,252 P2Pool Hashrate at time block found = 3,147.55 TH/s = 3,147,550,000,000,000 H/s 39,603,666,252 * 2**32 / 3,147,550,000,000,000 = 54,040.9 expected seconds to block Luck % = Expected Time / Actual Time * 100 (54,041 / 30) * 100 = 180,136.66% I'd love for someone to check the math.... Using the blockchain, you get {
"height" : 329431,
"hash" : "0000000000000000019bf01c784eb86ce651a072f667da0ec1b71e53b2f2c517",
"time" : 1415637083,
"main_chain" : true
},
{
"height" : 329430,
"hash" : "000000000000000002b8cd492e2428d4f95047a591c89975e63a474c8d3b7c21",
"time" : 1415636970,
"main_chain" : true
},
329431 found Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:31:23 GMT 329430 found Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:29:30 GMT Just shy of two minutes apart (113 seconds). Plugging those numbers in you get a luck percentage of 47823.81. |
|
|
|
|
I want to link my Bitcointalk name with BTCJam's. Verification code: 5d192405-424c-4f83-96e2-eca101555617
|
|
|
|
Hey everyone, I'm just putting this out there to see if anyone might be interested in purchasing an unlocked 64G Space Gray iPhone 5s. It was on AT&T, but they have unlocked it, so you can put in whatever SIM you want. I upgraded to a Space Gray iPhone 6 Plus 128G and don't have much use for the 5s any longer. The phone has been in an Apple case the entire time I've had it, and there isn't a scratch, ding, dent, scrape on it. It's on iOS 8.1 and ready to go. These are selling on eBay for over $400, but I'm willing to cut the community a deal and sell it for 1.05 BTC (the 0.05 BTC would cover the shipping). I'm only going to sell to a US buyer because I don't want to deal with the hassle of customs and international shipping. I will only use a trusted escrow service, and the buyer will pay any associated fees. I'm also posting this on hashtalk and if I don't get enough interest or serious offers, will also be throwing it up on eBay.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
