Kano, I just want to thank both you and ckolivas for all the work you've done to support the mining community and wish you the best of luck with your new pool launch. Congratulations on getting this off the ground and providing miners with a great pool option! Thought I'd bring this over from the other thread  |
|
|
|
|
If you want to mine Bitcoin, you want to buy ASIC hardware. Don't waste your time thinking about putting together a rig with multiple graphics cards - that ship sailed over a year ago.
|
|
|
|
And is not tell that max 3 blocks can be paid? As far I understand, every share is valid 8640 shares of time but up to 3 blocks found in mean time. So if we will found more than 1 block per day, and your power is not enough to get more than one share per 3 days you will not get payout from every block. No, it is not a hard limit of 3 blocks, it is 3 times the average work required to solve a block. In other words, if the average time to block is 8 hours, then your shares will fall off the payout after 24 hours. So, if p2pool happens to get lucky and solve 10 blocks in that 24 hour period, your share will be paid for all 10 blocks. |
|
|
|
See, there's this troubling little statement in the p2pool wiki about payouts: Each share contains a generation transaction that pays to the previous n shares, where n is the number of shares whose total work is equal to 3 times the average work required to solve a block, or 8640 (= 24 hours of shares), whichever is smaller. Payouts are weighted based on the amount of work each share took to solve, which is proportional to the p2pool difficulty at that time.
Obviously the 24 hour thing is incorrect since the share time was adjusted from the initial 10 seconds to the current 30 seconds. However, the bolded part is where I want to focus. If this was strictly and always 8640 shares, then all I would have to do is a simple loop in my code to the effect of: for each share from (current share height - 8640) to current share do:
get payout address from share
get share_payout from share
look for payout address in known address map
if payout address in map
address_total_payout += share_payout
else
add address to map
address_total_payout = share_payout
add map of addresses and payouts to coinbase
Unfortunately the payout code is a bit more complex than that. Here's the beginning of the generate_transaction code from p2pool: def generate_transaction(cls, tracker, share_data, block_target, desired_timestamp, desired_target, ref_merkle_link, desired_other_transaction_hashes_and_fees, net, known_txs=None, last_txout_nonce=0, base_subsidy=None):
previous_share = tracker.items[share_data['previous_share_hash']] if share_data['previous_share_hash'] is not None else None
height, last = tracker.get_height_and_last(share_data['previous_share_hash'])
assert height >= net.REAL_CHAIN_LENGTH or last is None
if height < net.TARGET_LOOKBEHIND:
pre_target3 = net.MAX_TARGET
else:
attempts_per_second = get_pool_attempts_per_second(tracker, share_data['previous_share_hash'], net.TARGET_LOOKBEHIND, min_work=True, integer=True)
pre_target = 2**256//(net.SHARE_PERIOD*attempts_per_second) - 1 if attempts_per_second else 2**256-1
pre_target2 = math.clip(pre_target, (previous_share.max_target*9//10, previous_share.max_target*11//10))
pre_target3 = math.clip(pre_target2, (net.MIN_TARGET, net.MAX_TARGET))
max_bits = bitcoin_data.FloatingInteger.from_target_upper_bound(pre_target3)
bits = bitcoin_data.FloatingInteger.from_target_upper_bound(math.clip(desired_target, (pre_target3//30, pre_target3)))
The real telling part of this method, however, is here: weights, total_weight, donation_weight = tracker.get_cumulative_weights(previous_share.share_data['previous_share_hash'] if previous_share is not None else None,
max(0, min(height, net.REAL_CHAIN_LENGTH) - 1),
65535*net.SPREAD*bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(block_target),
)
It certainly appears to support the statement in the wiki, that either 8640 shares, or the average work to solve 3 blocks worth of shares, are paid out (SPREAD = 3). You know what would be exceptionally helpful? Documented freaking code. How freaking hard is it for developers to write comments in their code? I yell at my developers all the time to comment their code. In fact, the first thing you should be writing are the comments. It just makes everything easier both for you as the developer to keep you focused, and for the people that later need to maintain it. |
|
|
|
|
Kano, I just want to thank both you and ckolivas for all the work you've done to support the mining community and wish you the best of luck with your new pool launch. Congratulations on getting this off the ground and providing miners with a great pool option!
|
|
|
|
I just pinged it successfully... it's got the default front end on it, and everything looks alright from a cursory glance. I can't point my miners to it, unfortunately, since I'm traveling for work.
Thanks jonnybravo0311. You'll have to set up remote admin for your miners so you can change them on a whim  I take my laptop with me, so having remote admin wouldn't be too helpful since I don't have a box at home to remote into. Of course, I suppose I could try setting up some funky port forwarding to expose all of my miners individually to the net, but I'd rather not  . |
|
|
|
Is the p2pool share difficulty node specific, or it's whole p2pool blockchain specific?
The pseudo share size is node specific. The "alt chain" share size (currently at 12.3 million) is p2pool wide. M So smaller miners should join smaller nodes or are they working on the 12.3 million share too? Everybody is trying to find a share of 12.3 million or higher so it can be added to the chain. It doesn't matter on which node you're mining, everybody's facing the same difficulty. You can manually set your own difficulty on your miners if you wish by appending / and + to your BTC address. Using the "+" sets your pseudo share difficulty. Using the "/" sets your actual share difficulty. If you don't put either value, the node assigns them for you based upon its own total hash rate. If you use "/" and set that value HIGHER than the actual share chain value, then when you do find a share, it will be weighted more than the default share. For example, I do not bother setting difficulty because I mine on my own node. Here are a couple examples from my node: 2014-09-19 10:07:52.415374 New work for worker! Difficulty: 891.314595 Share difficulty: 14340426.635364 Total block value: 25.024165 BTC including 145 transactions
2014-09-19 10:08:19.330168 New work for worker! Difficulty: 734.066695 Share difficulty: 14200589.602459 Total block value: 25.030165 BTC including 176 transactions
As you can see, the node is dynamically changing the values. If I were to manually set the pseudo-share difficulty, I'd see something like this: 2014-09-18 15:08:41.804703 New work for worker! Difficulty: 256.000000 Share difficulty: 15823712.661332 Total block value: 25.179847 BTC including 1176 transactions
In this example, I've configured my miner as "ADDRESS+256". If I were to do something like "ADDRESS/16000000+256" you'd see something like this: 2014-09-18 15:08:41.804703 New work for worker! Difficulty: 256.000000 Share difficulty: 16000000 Total block value: 25.179847 BTC including 1176 transactions
If I did something like "ADDRESS/1000+256", I'd see this: 2014-09-18 15:08:41.804703 New work for worker! Difficulty: 256.000000 Share difficulty: 15823712.661332 Total block value: 25.179847 BTC including 1176 transactions
As you can see, it's exactly the same as not using the "/" at all. Why? Because I set my difficulty to be less than the pool's minimum share difficulty, so the pool overrides my settings. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
How is mining profitable if the miners cost so much money , the electricity costs , computer usage and then is it hit or miss after spending all this money to buy the equipment to maybe hit a blockchain and make some BTC? i know it use to be real easy to mine with ajust a regular laptop untill there was alot more BTC in circulation and the algorythms got harder to solve?
You have the audacity to make your user name BTCBusinessman (which, you misspelled by the way, and I find that very telling), yet you have no idea how BTC works? Ahh... the beauty of irony. Potential profitability and return on investment discussions belong in the Mining Speculation forum - and there are a multitude of threads there already discussing it. You don't "hit a blockchain" and the "algorythms" didn't get harder to solve. Try actually reading this thread, and the myriad others that explain how mining works. Yeah I had a peek at your changes, I adore your last block and current round info which you added. I wouldn't mind trying your stuff prefer a beta tester.This is an excellent way to create a sound income for sure.
You sure you replied to the right thread? Your reply has nothing to do with the thread at all. I still think that the most interesting thing about this thread is that it was started by a 2011 account. While I find it unlikely, I suppose it is possible that someone has been involved in crypto-currencies for 3 years and might not truly understand how mining really works. Or, the more likely scenario: the account was bought. |
|
|
|
|
Depends on what kind of loan you're talking about here. Are you looking at venture capitalists to fund a large operation or just want to borrow a couple thousand bucks from someone so you can buy a miner? If the latter option, then absolutely, positively, DO NOT borrow money. That's pretty much the worst idea possible.
|
|
|
|
Oh, a preface... My rent includes electricity. So no matter how high, my rent doesn't change. I'm pretty sure your landlord will come knocking on your door if suddenly your electricity usage costs him a few hundred extra dollars a month. I was looking at SHA256 profitability on CoinWarz.
The problem with coinwarz is that it only gives you an instant snapshot of profitability in that moment in time. It's great to see what coin might be worth pointing some hash to right now, but it does not offer you any insight into the future. As philipma1957 pointed out, bitcoinwisdom provides a bit more information and can give you a better picture of your chances at making a positive ROI. It isn't perfect (for example, you can only assume a static difficulty increase percentage, and you can't factor in potential changes in BTC->fiat ratios), but it's a pretty good way to estimate things. |
|
|
|
|
I just pinged it successfully... it's got the default front end on it, and everything looks alright from a cursory glance. I can't point my miners to it, unfortunately, since I'm traveling for work.
|
|
|
|
Is it better to run your own node or use a public one? When using a pubic one does it matter which one you use? Also, with an S3+ do I need to change the diff?
As windpath stated, it's always recommended to run your own local node; however, it's not always possible to do so. There are plenty of publicly available nodes to which you can point your miners, windpath's certainly being one of the best in my opinion. It doesn't matter which node you end up using, but you should try to find one that has been up and running for a while, has a good ping time from your location and has a low number of dead/orphan shares. No, you don't need to change the diff using an S3+. The node on which you are mining will dynamically assign your miner a difficulty based upon the node's hash rate. If you look a few posts up, you'll see our Chinese friends have posted some screenshots of their settings. By the way, congrats to them on finding that block! |
|
|
|
I'm happy that resetting the modem/router works for ya.. But I tried as u suggested.. Still the pool is dead.. I tried using stratum+:// format and http:// both still read as DEAD.. Any ideas? Thanks!
If the part I bolded is not a typo, that's your problem. The URL for Slush's pool is stratum+tcp://stratum.bitcoin.cz:3333 |
|
|
|
|
Absolutely solo mine with them. As was pointed out, they cost virtually nothing to run, and if you hit... it's what I do. I've got 5 of them in a USB hub with an rPi controller mining on Con's solo pool.
|
|
|
|
NICE to see P2 POOL users attacking other pools and their owners and members both from their normal users names and hiding behind fake accounts just an example of the p2 pool users handy work can be found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=456463.0They even gone as far as attacking a legit world wide company today and an user that not even possible connected to the pool that a select few p2 pool users have been targeting for few weeks NOW..... Ps there is now a p2 pool scam thread LETS see if the users in question back off or keep going as it does not like good for the p2 pool set up in general and what it stands for to on one hand they want to split the hash rate up as much as they can to then attack start up pools etc with baseless fud campaigns that a select few are carrying out...... Atm that P2 pool scam thread is a open thread with no details in it. It up to the few bad apples in here what happens next if we go to town on the p2 pool or not The ball in the select few users hands that have been carrying out these actions to pull up and stop their baseless fud and lie campaigns and personal attacks of other pools owners and members or if we start going to town on the p2 pool and linking everything together in a scam post I am hoping personal it not the later as a past p2 pool user here but enough is enough. Have a nice day and we will see what the next 24 hours hold Just a footnote to the mods I will happily delete this post and the scam thread if the members of this pool agree to cut their crap and removes the baseless fud thread that we have reported a number of times now as well as the users in question and got no where.... Opening up a scam accusation thread against p2pool is absurd. You have a problem with some forum users who also happen to be active in the p2pool thread? Great. That's your deal, and there are plenty of avenues by which you can call out those users. P2Pool itself has nothing to do with any of that, and p2pool is in no way a scam. Did any of these users you're accusing of spreading "baseless fud and lie campaigns" actually steal coins from you? Did any of them promise you a service or product that they then failed to deliver? If yes, then by all means post a scam accusation against those users. If not, then get this crap out of the p2pool thread so those of us who aren't involved in this drama can actually continue to discuss things relevant to the pool. |
|
|
|
Hey Matt, I ran into a problem running the c++ client today. I did a git pull and rebuilt; however, when I started it up, I ran into this: miner@devildog:~/RelayNode/client$ ./relaynetworkclient public.us-east.relay.mattcorallo.com 127.0.0.1 8333
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::system_error'
what(): Enable multithreading to use std::thread: Operation not permitted
Aborted (core dumped)
I had to tweak the make.sh script as follows: g++ $DEFINES -std=c++11 -Wl,--no-as-needed -Wall -I. -I/usr/include ./client.cpp ./flaggedarrayset.cpp ./utils.cpp ./p2pclient.cpp ./crypto/sha2.cpp -o relaynetworkclient -pthread
Notice the inclusion of the "-Wl,--no-as-needed". There's apparently a known bug with gcc and Ubuntu: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-defaults/+bug/1228201. Anyway, if anyone is having an issue getting the c++ client running on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS, editing the make.sh script as I have above, and recompiling the client will solve your problems. |
|
|
|
I noticed mmpool are switching over to a p2pool back end - it will be interesting to see how they manage the merge mining payout problem......
Unlike typical p2pool nodes, they've already got the infrastructure in place to handle the payouts of merged-mined coins (PPS). I'm actually quite interested to see how they pull off using p2pool as the backend, instead of their current "traditional" DGM pool model. |
|
|
|
I guess since they fitted 10 cards inside a S2 they will now take the 10 cards in the S4 making it a monster of 4.5Th/s
clear speculation off-course!!!
If the S4 follows the pattern of the S2, it certainly won't be 4.5TH/s. Remember, the S2 underclocked/undervolted the BM1380 chips from the S1 to make that 1TH/s at 1100W - typical ratio of the chip was 2W/GH/s. If they hadn't, the S2 would have been a 1.8TH/s miner consuming 3600W. The speculation is that the S4 will indeed follow the same paradigm established by the S2. My thoughts on the specs are earlier in this thread, but to reiterate them here, I believe it will be around 2.2TH/s at about 1300W. If Bitmain wants to use the same PSU as the S2, then it'll probably be closer to 2TH/s at 1100W.Quoting myself ... looks like I was spot on. |
|
|
|
In regard to merge mining (and I apologize if I've missed it in this thread)...how do you pay found merge mined blocks back to your nodes miners? I see that some people manually convert merge mined coins to BTC and then do a "send many" back to p2pool but has anyone figure out something better? Someone forked proxy pool to accept a second coins payment address in the password field but every public site using it has since shut down. I am concerned that it may not be a viable solution.  You haven't missed it. There's absolutely no support for it, and in the current state of the code, there's no way to even do it. For example, let's say that I mine on node 1 for some time and find 3 shares. I move onto node 2. I find 5 more shares. I move back to node 1 again, and I find a share that solves a merged coin block. How does the node pay me? What about paying other miners who had previously been on the node, but for whatever reason have since moved off? Besides this, how do you know to which addresses to pay out the coins? There are a lot of changes that would be required to ever be able to handle paying out merged coins to miners in any way. Hey jonnybravo0311, I sent you a PM about p2pool merged mining etc. not sure you can answer. Feel free to post my question in thread here if you think any answers will help you may have.  thx MMNC Replied. Basically the answer is the same as I posted here. When you enable merged mining on your node, you are effectively solo mining the merged coins using the power of all the miners on your node. There is no provision there to payout the miners on your node any of the merged coins. In regard to merge mining (and I apologize if I've missed it in this thread)...how do you pay found merge mined blocks back to your nodes miners? I see that some people manually convert merge mined coins to BTC and then do a "send many" back to p2pool but has anyone figure out something better? Someone forked proxy pool to accept a second coins payment address in the password field but every public site using it has since shut down. I am concerned that it may not be a viable solution. You haven't missed it. There's absolutely no support for it, and in the current state of the code, there's no way to even do it. For example, let's say that I mine on node 1 for some time and find 3 shares. I move onto node 2. I find 5 more shares. I move back to node 1 again, and I find a share that solves a merged coin block. How does the node pay me? What about paying other miners who had previously been on the node, but for whatever reason have since moved off? Besides this, how do you know to which addresses to pay out the coins? There are a lot of changes that would be required to ever be able to handle paying out merged coins to miners in any way. Thanks jonnybravo0311. I had the thought of supporting merge mined coins by having p2pool use additional sharechains (auxShareChain). It would handle payments and combine the hashing power just like the main sharechain. Not a trivial task and beyond my time and skill level. There are a ton of changes that would need to be made to try and implement merged-mining payouts. |
|
|
|
In regard to merge mining (and I apologize if I've missed it in this thread)...how do you pay found merge mined blocks back to your nodes miners? I see that some people manually convert merge mined coins to BTC and then do a "send many" back to p2pool but has anyone figure out something better? Someone forked proxy pool to accept a second coins payment address in the password field but every public site using it has since shut down. I am concerned that it may not be a viable solution. You haven't missed it. There's absolutely no support for it, and in the current state of the code, there's no way to even do it. For example, let's say that I mine on node 1 for some time and find 3 shares. I move onto node 2. I find 5 more shares. I move back to node 1 again, and I find a share that solves a merged coin block. How does the node pay me? What about paying other miners who had previously been on the node, but for whatever reason have since moved off? Besides this, how do you know to which addresses to pay out the coins? There are a lot of changes that would be required to ever be able to handle paying out merged coins to miners in any way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
