Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 01:58:21 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Any pool want to buy difficulty 2 shares??  (Read 2083 times)
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 01:45:19 AM
 #1

It would halve the pool network traffic and halve likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.

I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?

Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares have gone onto the network.

1481464701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464701
Reply with quote  #2

1481464701
Report to moderator
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. Header-only clients like MultiBit trust that the majority of mining power is honest for the purposes of enforcing network rules such as the 21 million BTC limit. Full clients do not trust miners in this way.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481464701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464701
Reply with quote  #2

1481464701
Report to moderator
1481464701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464701
Reply with quote  #2

1481464701
Report to moderator
1481464701
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481464701

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481464701
Reply with quote  #2

1481464701
Report to moderator
xenon481
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 01:47:58 AM
 #2

network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.

Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr
1bitc0inplz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
June 01, 2011, 01:51:38 AM
 #3

Wouldn't a pool want all it's workings on the same difficulty? I cannot imagine the headache of trying to score a round when some workers are solving difficulty n while others are on difficulty 1.

Although, in spirite, if a pool did just say difficulty 2 (or whatever other number) was what they were going with it would decrease network IO... but, for slower miners it might create the (false) perception that that particular pool was less worthwhile than a pool using difficult of 1, based solely on the median time between shares.

Mine @ http://pool.bitp.it - No fees, virtually 0 stales, what's not to love!
Chat with us @ #bitp.it on irc.freenode.net
Learn more about our pool @ http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12181.0
eleuthria
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


BTC Guild Owner


View Profile WWW
June 01, 2011, 01:54:00 AM
 #4

I've been considering swapping BTC Guild to a higher difficulty of shares to reduce the work being sent to/from miners, as well as lowering the amount of requests going between pushpool, bitcoind, and MySQL.  My only concern at this point is for CPU miners, who are already submitting shares so rarely that a difficulty of 2 could mean they don't even complete a share before some rounds end.

R.I.P. BTC Guild, 2011 - 2015.
BTC Guild Forum Thread
martok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:01:46 AM
 #5


It would half the pool network traffic and half likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.

I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?

Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
If you're big enough, sure. I can make a per-user change.
1bitc0inplz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:03:44 AM
 #6

One problem I see with this is that most of the miners that I've looked at their source code, are hardcoded to find shares at a difficulty of 1... regardless of what the pool specifies.

Mine @ http://pool.bitp.it - No fees, virtually 0 stales, what's not to love!
Chat with us @ #bitp.it on irc.freenode.net
Learn more about our pool @ http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12181.0
xenon481
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:04:47 AM
 #7

network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.

Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.

How do you figure that? More difficulty is because of more miners (most who are on pools now) sending difficulty 1 shares over the network ... how can there not be an increase in diff. 1 shares on the network ... can you not count?

Bring on-line twice as many miners pointed at the same pool as you are using now and tell me your network traffic of diff. 1 shares didn't double ... I dare you.

Some of you guys are abstracting yourselves into irrelevancy ... just go and count the numbers going across your screen, sheesh.

Network Hashing Power directly correlates to the number of difficulty>1 shares found. Network Difficulty does not. An increase in Network Difficulty does not necessarily mean that more difficulty>1 shares will be found as it is possible that the Network Hashing Power drops after the difficulty increase.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr
martok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:08:36 AM
 #8

One problem I see with this is that most of the miners that I've looked at their source code, are hardcoded to find shares at a difficulty of 1... regardless of what the pool specifies.

Really? I used to solo with poclbm which connects to a local bitcoind instance at whatever difficulty of the day and it works fine. If miners assumed difficulty==1, they would not be suitable for soloing.
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:12:04 AM
 #9

At some point, this is going to become necessary.

We will have to invent meta-pools for CPU miners to join.  The meta-pool can accept difficulty 1 shares from miners, and the miners can earn meta-shares in the meta-pool.  Then the meta-pool submits any hashes that meet the next level of criteria to the real pool, which issues shares to the meta-pool.  When the real pool pays out, the meta-pool can pay down to the miners.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
xenon481
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:12:26 AM
 #10

One problem I see with this is that most of the miners that I've looked at their source code, are hardcoded to find shares at a difficulty of 1... regardless of what the pool specifies.

Really? I used to solo with poclbm which connects to a local bitcoind instance at whatever difficulty of the day and it works fine. If miners assumed difficulty==1, they would not be suitable for soloing.

I know that Phoenix kernels assume difficulty==1, but the base program itself checks the real difficulty before sending it on.

I think that some people have modified their version of poclbm to assume difficulty==1, but I don't think that the base code does that.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:13:15 AM
 #11


It would half the pool network traffic and half likelihood for comms crashes leading to lock-ups on miners side.

I can't see why the pools do not do this for bigger miners, it benefits the pools in bandwidth costs and other overheads also?

Could even have tiered accounts, difficulty 5, 10 for even bigger miners, it makes sense. What's the hang-up with difficulty 1 shares ... network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.
If you're big enough, sure. I can make a per-user change.

Great. How big is "big enough" and where do I sign up?

Edit I'm using poclbm raw so no problem with changing any mining code.

xenon481
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:19:09 AM
 #12

network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.

Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.

How do you figure that? More difficulty is because of more miners (most who are on pools now) sending difficulty 1 shares over the network ... how can there not be an increase in diff. 1 shares on the network ... can you not count?

Bring on-line twice as many miners pointed at the same pool as you are using now and tell me your network traffic of diff. 1 shares didn't double ... I dare you.

Some of you guys are abstracting yourselves into irrelevancy ... just go and count the numbers going across your screen, sheesh.

Network Hashing Power directly correlates to the number of difficulty>1 shares found. Network Difficulty does not. An increase in Network Difficulty does not necessarily mean that more difficulty>1 shares will be found as it is possible that the Network Hashing Power drops after the difficulty increase.

Now you are using semantics to get out of it .... I did NOT say how many are found I said how many go onto the network ... if you just want to argue I suggest you go somewhere else. FO.

This is an open source community and open source derives its quality from everybody coming together to correct eachothers' mistakes. In order for such a process to work smoothly, people must check their egos at the door. You need to remove your emotions from your submissions and allow them to grow into the best that they can be.

I agree with the intent of your idea, I merely submitted a correction to one inaccuracy in your OP.

Tips Appreciated: 171TQ2wJg7bxj2q68VNibU75YZB22b7ZDr
martok
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140


View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:22:30 AM
 #13

Quote
Great. How big is "big enough" and where do I sign up?

Edit I'm using poclbm raw so no problem with changing any mining code.
A ghash or so. ONly because this would involve me writing some pushpool modifications. I don't think it'd be wise to implement pool wide just because users might confuse over half the shares but doing it on a per-worker basis wouldn't be hard.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:32:19 AM
 #14

network difficulty is now at 434,000 and every time it goes up it means more difficulty 1 shares go onto the network.

Network Difficulty has absolutely no effect upon how many difficulty>1 shares are found.

How do you figure that? More difficulty is because of more miners (most who are on pools now) sending difficulty 1 shares over the network ... how can there not be an increase in diff. 1 shares on the network ... can you not count?

Bring on-line twice as many miners pointed at the same pool as you are using now and tell me your network traffic of diff. 1 shares didn't double ... I dare you.

Some of you guys are abstracting yourselves into irrelevancy ... just go and count the numbers going across your screen, sheesh.

Network Hashing Power directly correlates to the number of difficulty>1 shares found. Network Difficulty does not. An increase in Network Difficulty does not necessarily mean that more difficulty>1 shares will be found as it is possible that the Network Hashing Power drops after the difficulty increase.

Now you are using semantics to get out of it .... I did NOT say how many are found I said how many go onto the network ... if you just want to argue I suggest you go somewhere else. FO.

This is an open source community and open source derives its quality from everybody coming together to correct eachothers' mistakes. In order for such a process to work smoothly, people must check their egos at the door. You need to remove your emotions from your submissions and allow them to grow into the best that they can be.

I agree with the intent of your idea, I merely submitted a correction to one inaccuracy in your OP.

So you do want to argue semantics ... whatta piece of work ... point to my "inaccuracy" or apologise for derailing my thread with erroneous, nit-picky fuckwitting around.

marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
June 01, 2011, 02:49:34 AM
 #15

I've been considering swapping BTC Guild to a higher difficulty of shares to reduce the work being sent to/from miners, as well as lowering the amount of requests going between pushpool, bitcoind, and MySQL.  My only concern at this point is for CPU miners, who are already submitting shares so rarely that a difficulty of 2 could mean they don't even complete a share before some rounds end.

I think Meni Rosenfeld (Holy-fire) has some mathematics in the deepbit thread that proves missing out on short rounds in a pool does not change your variance ....

(I'm not sure how complete it was though)




Inaba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile WWW
June 03, 2011, 04:59:08 AM
 #16

What changes would need to be made to pushpool to implement a configurable difficulty response to the miners?

If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it.  There was never anything there in the first place.
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 05:03:12 AM
 #17

It would make more sense to fix the miners to accept whatever difficulty the pool requests rather than the other way around.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
June 03, 2011, 05:17:36 AM
 #18

It would make more sense to fix the miners to accept whatever difficulty the pool requests rather than the other way around.

Poclbm miners will already just work on whatever diff. is sent to them.

xf2_org
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 03, 2011, 05:40:06 AM
 #19


I have been encouraging any pool operator that will listen to raise their difficulty.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!