I realize that p2pool's intention is to treat each node as a single miner, and p2pool isn't intended to operate as a pseduo public pool. So as I look in the code, I see how the 1.67% cap is applied to the node (not individual connected miners) and that makes total sense in the context that a node is a single operation (an individual or group using p2pool with all of their own hardware as a replacement for solo mining). However, to better support miners that want to use a public node for whatever reason I think it'd be good if that could be handled in a way that will, in effect, simulate the same result as if they were running a p2pool node of their own instead. Maybe as a command line option that is off by default so any changes make zero difference to existing operations. Basically this comes down to making the share target for a miner (by which I mean a person or group with 1 or more physical mining devices) based on that miner, and the 1.67% cap on that miner. Not on the node as whole. The key code in get_work currently is: if desired_share_target is None:
desired_share_target = 2**256-1
local_hash_rate = self._estimate_local_hash_rate()
if local_hash_rate is not None:
desired_share_target = min(desired_share_target,
bitcoin_data.average_attempts_to_target(local_hash_rate * self.node.net.SHARE_PERIOD / 0.0167))
# limit to 1.67% of pool shares by modulating share difficulty
However, we wouldn't want to just change the local_hash_rate to be the miner whose new work is being assigned (the physical mining device with a connection to the pool). That would defeat the purpose of things like the 1.67% cap. What if, instead, it was based on the estimated hash rate of the destination payment address? So if I have 4 antminers all mining to ADDR_X, the target share rate is based on their combined speed. But someone else connecting their two antminers with ADDR_Y will have a lower target share rate. ADDR_X and ADDR_Y are both having the 1.67% cap applied individually, etc. Someone operating a node now with dozens of pieces of equipment all paying to the same address would see zero change even if they did toggle this on. Individual miners on a public node would see reduced variance in their own shares, since pool hash rate is taken out of the equation. They could do this by hand now with ADDR/1 (or say /.000001 for scrypt), but I think handling it automatically makes more sense (and keeps vardiff alive for miners that are maybe bigger than justifies using ADDR/1). The way I view this is that if ADDR_X and ADDR_Y were running their own nodes instead of connecting to a public node, their target share rates would be based on only their own hash rates anyway. The 1.67% would be applied to each of them individually (instead of all combined in the public node). By adjusting their target share rates only to their own speeds, it simulates them running their own nodes. Thoughts? TLDR: A small miner connecting to a busy public node has much higher variance than running a node of their own. This is an interesting discussion, please let us know the results. P2pool is important for bitcoin and making it accessible to more people is important. This type of change helps public pools - and that helps bitcoin and p2pool. Let's face it, many people won't set up their own p2pool node, they want easy and compared to pools that require registration, p2pool is easy. Decreasing variance (since people are impatient and don't care about the math) could be helpful too. |
|
|
|
|
Anything that offers 5% per month raises a red flag. That is doubling your money in about 14 months. They could be legit, but the site doesn't say how they are generating these returns so I would be very cautious.
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool idea. It will increase security noticeably. I'll be interested in giving it a spin.
|
|
|
|
Why did Satoshi disappear completely? He could have stayed on the forums and could reply to our questions on bitcoin.
He should just return. Please. Thank you.
He doesn't want to be a target like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden etc. ;-) |
|
|
|
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article44324.htmlPerhaps this article is a bit redundant but I had not seen this exact quote in the artcle anywhere else yet: Just this week, the lawyer who drafted the proposal for the Bitcoin ETF, Kathleen H. Moriarty, a partner at Chicago-based law firm Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, told Bloomberg News that the process is "progressing nicely and [approval] might occur at the end of 2014." Thought this might cheer us up with the drop in price this week.  If we can hold on until the end of 2014 all will be well. It would be nice if it were sooner, but given he had said "probably 2015" before, the end of 2014 is a step forward. The quote alone was worth posting it! |
|
|
|
|
Don't forget about p2pool. You get many of the benefits of pool mining while helping to protect from a 51% attack. And you should end up with more coins because of lower fees.
|
|
|
|
do you know any page where can you quickly determine which pool is the most profitable right now? If not would you be interested in such tool?
Most profitable pool? Or, do you want to know the most profitable coin to mine? I mean most profitable pool. I need to quicky find which pool does the most BTC/MH/Day right now, for last 3 hours, etc..  As bitcoin mining is a random process, what you are looking is indeed the most luckiest pool... And over time the "luck" will even out, so you should look for pools with the lowest fees, pools that are best connected, and pools that share fees. (And of course a pool that helps prevent 51% attacks). |
|
|
|
For bitcoins sure is not a good idea
Hi - I'm brand new here, and brand new to mining. RE: Mining bitcoin via GPU not being a good idea - is this because of the difficulty curve that I read about, which adjusts as more bitcoin are mined, and as technology advances? Thanks! GPU mining for bitcoin no longer makes sense. The power per hash is large compared to ASICs and the speed is slow. And it is only getting worse. |
|
|
|
|
Look at p2pool. The fees are usually 1-6% lower than the other pools, so you make more. Likewise there is no account setup and earnings are paid instantly so you don't have to worry about a pool being hacked. The variance is higher, but over time you are better off.
|
|
|
|
5870 BTC bought.
Biggest recorded buy yet (unless they've made a typo, they've made one before).
And second market is inaccessible to most people, when the twin's ETF goes live that is when bitcoin doubters will see what happens when demand meets fixed supply. Their attorney said last week (don't have the link) that it might be 2015 before the etf goes live, alas. Wall Street and other still have a lot more front running to do before bringing bitcoin to the masses. Just like with Facebook where they were able to buy share 5 years before the public. At least with bitcoin for once those willing to do things themselves can front run wall street for once. Great point, although I don't think it is Wall Street blocking this one, but Washington. As you say, the good thing is that you don't need Wall Street to buy in. |
|
|
|
5870 BTC bought.
Biggest recorded buy yet (unless they've made a typo, they've made one before).
And second market is inaccessible to most people, when the twin's ETF goes live that is when bitcoin doubters will see what happens when demand meets fixed supply. Their attorney said last week (don't have the link) that it might be 2015 before the etf goes live, alas. |
|
|
|
|
Mine with p2pool in the future so you don't have to worry about having someone else with your coins.
But as far as they go, did you give them a few days to respond? I'd be upset too. Remember though that if you don't have the private keys, 'your' coins are really just a ledger entry.
|
|
|
|
What is this "I-Phone" "Iphone" and "Ipad"? Lol  Are they competitors to the iPhone and iPad? All minding aside. I prefer to mobile web solutions to the apps for security reasons |
|
|
|
This is exactly right. And it is a positive for bitcoin. I registered (and later sold or developed and sold) a good number of domains in 1993-1994. Like buying a vacant lot in central London. The new TLDs are good because it increases the value of the .com/.net/.info/.org space because of confusion. Did they say ".guru" or ".brians" or ... You guys simply don't understand the billion dollar domain name industry...
110,000 people PER MONTH are typing in "Bitcoin Wallet" in to Google alone, not to mention how many people type in "BitcoinWallet.com" directly in their address bar. The current Pay-Per-Click suggested bid for one click is $1.60 and the competition is picking up, fast.
It is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation about Bitcoin without mentioning "Bitcoin Wallet".
I predicted this exactly, many months ago actually.
With nearly a decade of experience and more than $100 million worth of media as consultant, broker, developer, or licensor, I am fully qualified to tell you that $250k was not "expensive" but rather a very savvy investment to gain a timeless and global competitive advantage in the marketplace.
The sale is real.
In the next few weeks you will see media publications writing stories about this sale.
Every single "Bitcoin Wallet" company on the planet is competing with their website title tags, H1/h2 headers, meta data, and search marketing details (SEO/SEM) for the generic branding "Bitcoin Wallet". That is an undeniable and absolute FACT.
Here is some free education for you guys. And so, point being, the domain name was actually sold too cheap.
Two word - premium domain asset - sales examples:
AreaRugs.com - $405k
RunningShoes.com - $700k
DataCenter.com - $352k
RingTones.com - $750k
BoardGames.com - $450k
PartySupplies.com - $360k
ScreenSavers.com - $335k
MusicVideos.com - $250k
SportingGoods.com - $450k
CookingGames.com - $350k
ShoppingMall.com - $500k
TeamWork.com - $650k
YearBook.com - $237k
MathGames.com - $725k
DiamondRings.com - $228k
ReverseMortgages.com - $600k
PersonalLoans.com - $1mm
GiftBasket.com - $350k
StockPhoto.com - $250k
FreeWebsite.com - $500k
DownloadMusic.com - $242k
SkiResorts.com - $850k
LawFirm.com - $233k
AntiSpyware.com - $550k
FinancialAid.com - $480k
BlackJack.com - $460k
AsianPorn.com - $200k
DomainRegistration.com - $376k
WirelessPhone.com - $335k
ShoppingCart.com - $285k
CrosswordPuzzles.com - $210k
ChinaTours.com - $200k
TokyoHotels.com - $200k
|
|
|
|
Wow, just wow. This has lots of stolen bitcoins written all over it. I'm not spending $0.99 to point this out in itunes, hopefully the author will rethink this approach - unless his motives are impure. From the Website:
"Enter Your 12-Word Mnemonic [offline]
Enter the 12-word mnemonic that Electrum generated for you, feel free to do this part in Airplane Mode. Your 12-words are then encrypted using Military-Grade AES encryption, using the password you created, and your Public addresses are generated and stored. Your private keys are never stored or transmitted."
Your 12-word mnemonic IS the key to your private keys. Anyone can regenerate and steal your bitcoin from your 12-word mnemonic.
Sorry, but this sounds like literally giving all your bitcoin away. If your not an honest person, then you could be basically tricking people to render the security that Electrum offers moot. If you are an honest person then you need to find some way to prove it.
Unless I'm missing something- I'd need some solid proof you can't upload the 12-word mnemonic at some time in the future to your servers or something.
|
|
|
|
|
About the newbie section...
Really though it helps to be familiar with bitcoin and the way things like this are dealt with prior to suggesting something that significantly changes it. You should set up an alt-coin using these ideas and then see if the alt-coin or bitcoin becomes "mainstream" first. You know the outcome, so you'll be a hero and then you can tell those who said F-off that you were right. Let us know when this alt-coin is ready for mining.
|
|
|
|
|
It appears very close in time to the previous block so perhaps no transactions that met their criteria to be included in a block were available.
|
|
|
|
Thanks Barek. Now when all coins are mined, will that minimum fee potentially have to rise to compensate miners for their resources? The minimum fee would have to compensate miners for their costs in securing the network, but this will be around 2140 so it is pure speculation as to what fees will be then. |
|
|
|
Zerocash sounds like a "get rich quick" scheme.
It seems like the developers had a vision when they first announced zerocoin. Now it seems like they just want to get rich.
What is Zerocash? A new name they threw around for zerocoin. |
|
|
|
|
Count in satoshis so you have whole numbers. There have been countless discussions about this already. If you really want an explanation, they are easily accessible.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
