Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 12:55:08 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 [511] 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2034632 times)
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


Mine at Jonny's Pool


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2014, 11:53:19 AM
 #10201

Thanks JB, so it's not just me then. I'll investigate further........

Edit: I notice forrestv made a change to the p2poool repo ( Shocked!) 7 days ago, increased maximum worker difficulty 1000x, that wouldn't be the cause......would it?

Edit2: Tried running namecoin on rav3n_pl fork with the same results, so it's not a p2pool issue. Had to close the namecoin wallet as it was eating cpu as well. Oh well, that'll have to stay off then.......... Tongue Very strange.
There have been some huge blocks recently aggregating a mass of tiny inputs. This seems to lead to getauxblock taking a very long time. We are looking into it but it might take a while.

BTW: As far as I know Namecoin mining reward variance is very high with P2P. We would be happy to support any plans to improve this, maybe with a bounty.

The reason the variance is so high is because each node that is merge-mining is effectively trying to solo mine the blocks for the coins (NMC, DVC, etc).

It would be nice if the entire hashing power of the pool, or at least the hashing power of the nodes that are merge-mining, could be applied rather than individual nodes attempting to solve the blocks.

Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow!  Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets!  No SPV cheats.  No empty blocks.
1481374508
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374508

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374508
Reply with quote  #2

1481374508
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481374508
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481374508

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481374508
Reply with quote  #2

1481374508
Report to moderator
bitcoinbearhk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 01:52:53 PM
 #10202

OK so I have given up using my Terraminer IV for p2pool ... it's just 20% less effective due to unknown reason.

I have pointed my Antminer S3s to my node, no problem, hashing good... Perhaps I will just stick with S3 with p2pool, and Cointerra with traditional pools.


Now I wish to setup merge mining.  Can someone please point me to any guide for Namecoin merge mining setup for Windows 7???  Thanks.
Duce
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 155


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 02:30:52 PM
 #10203

OK so I have given up using my Terraminer IV for p2pool ... it's just 20% less effective due to unknown reason.

I have pointed my Antminer S3s to my node, no problem, hashing good... Perhaps I will just stick with S3 with p2pool, and Cointerra with traditional pools.


Now I wish to setup merge mining.  Can someone please point me to any guide for Namecoin merge mining setup for Windows 7???  Thanks.
Please look at the previous post.
wlz2011
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 71


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 02:33:09 PM
 #10204





Eligius  9.5PH/S

P2pool  2.40PH/S

Very nice
bryonp
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 04:30:14 PM
 #10205

Looks like 3 blocks on the 19th so far?? my Node is only showing the first one.
What would cause it to not show me the last 2 blocks?
I am on line, and hashing away, I have active connections?

Thanks for any answers.....

Bryon
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2014, 05:01:14 PM
 #10206

Looks like 3 blocks on the 19th so far?? my Node is only showing the first one.
What would cause it to not show me the last 2 blocks?
I am on line, and hashing away, I have active connections?

Thanks for any answers.....

Bryon

Stale p2pool shares that meet bitcoin difficulty are still submitted and will not show up in p2pool's standard interface.

You can see all p2pool found blocks here: http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.php

bryonp
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 05:12:01 PM
 #10207

Looks like 3 blocks on the 19th so far?? my Node is only showing the first one.
What would cause it to not show me the last 2 blocks?
I am on line, and hashing away, I have active connections?

Thanks for any answers.....

Bryon

Stale p2pool shares that meet bitcoin difficulty are still submitted and will not show up in p2pool's standard interface.

You can see all p2pool found blocks here: http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.php


Thanks as always, I kinda knew that but just thought it was more of an issue with me and not everyone like that.....
Thanks. You always start thinking that your own node is screwing up.........
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


Mine at Jonny's Pool


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2014, 07:06:16 PM
 #10208

OK so I have given up using my Terraminer IV for p2pool ... it's just 20% less effective due to unknown reason.

I have pointed my Antminer S3s to my node, no problem, hashing good... Perhaps I will just stick with S3 with p2pool, and Cointerra with traditional pools.


Now I wish to setup merge mining.  Can someone please point me to any guide for Namecoin merge mining setup for Windows 7???  Thanks.
Sorry to hear that your Terraminer doesn't work with p2pool and suffers the same kind of performance degradation as the S2 does.  I know it's a long shot, but you might want to open a support ticket with them (I KNOW it's a long shot... lol).

Setting up merged-mining is pretty easy.  First, download and install the wallet (or you can use the *coind) of a supported coin (NMC, IXC, I0C, DVC, HUC, FSC... any I missed?) and get it all synced up.  Second, edit your coin's configuration file.  For example, here's my NMC one (changed the user and password):
Code:
server=1
daemon=1
listen=1
rpcuser=SOMEUSER
rpcpassword=SOMEPASSWORD
rpcport=7333
rpcallowip=10.0.1.*
Please use different values for user and password - these are just examples.  Also, for the rpcallowip, use a range that makes sense for you.  My local network is 10.0.1.*.  Yours might be 192.168.1.*.  Of course, you could always just put in * if you don't want to restrict it.

Now, when you fire up your p2pool node you just add the values.  Here's the snippet from my startup showing NMC:
Code:
./run_p2pool.py --merged http://SOMEUSER:SOMEPASSWORD@10.0.1.14:7333 ...
10.0.1.14 is the IP address of the machine where you put the NMC wallet.

That's it... you're merge mining BTC and NMC.

Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow!  Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets!  No SPV cheats.  No empty blocks.
kgb2mining
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 07:07:21 PM
 #10209

Just wanted to chime back in on the Cointerra discussion, I've been a bit busy since yesterday.

I can confirm in my tests that the Cointerras do indeed hash at about a 20% loss on p2pool.  I switched my miners back over to BTCGuild to test it, and bingo, I went from 1.2-1.3 TH/s on p2pool to the full 1.6TH/s on BTCGuild.  So, right now the Cointerras have been left back on BTCGuild to mine there.

I can also confirm that fiddling with the difficulty and pseudo-share settings as I did made no improvement, and in some cases actually degraded performance.  I tried ranges from /512 through /2048 with combinations of +512 through +2048 as well.

FYI, I'm not going to do any more testing as I've just put the Cointerras up for sale.  Going to stick with my S1/S3's since they are running beautifully and I want to stick with P2Pool.

bitcoinbearhk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 07:39:24 PM
 #10210

Cool thanks guys.

Is 1.7% DOA a reasonable number?  wondering if I should take step to improve it or just keep it as is.
bryonp
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 77


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 07:45:08 PM
 #10211

OK so I have given up using my Terraminer IV for p2pool ... it's just 20% less effective due to unknown reason.

I have pointed my Antminer S3s to my node, no problem, hashing good... Perhaps I will just stick with S3 with p2pool, and Cointerra with traditional pools.


Now I wish to setup merge mining.  Can someone please point me to any guide for Namecoin merge mining setup for Windows 7???  Thanks.
Sorry to hear that your Terraminer doesn't work with p2pool and suffers the same kind of performance degradation as the S2 does.  I know it's a long shot, but you might want to open a support ticket with them (I KNOW it's a long shot... lol).

Setting up merged-mining is pretty easy.  First, download and install the wallet (or you can use the *coind) of a supported coin (NMC, IXC, I0C, DVC, HUC, FSC... any I missed?) and get it all synced up.  Second, edit your coin's configuration file.  For example, here's my NMC one (changed the user and password):
Code:
server=1
daemon=1
listen=1
rpcuser=SOMEUSER
rpcpassword=SOMEPASSWORD
rpcport=7333
rpcallowip=10.0.1.*
Please use different values for user and password - these are just examples.  Also, for the rpcallowip, use a range that makes sense for you.  My local network is 10.0.1.*.  Yours might be 192.168.1.*.  Of course, you could always just put in * if you don't want to restrict it.

Now, when you fire up your p2pool node you just add the values.  Here's the snippet from my startup showing NMC:
Code:
./run_p2pool.py --merged http://SOMEUSER:SOMEPASSWORD@10.0.1.14:7333 ...
10.0.1.14 is the IP address of the machine where you put the NMC wallet.

That's it... you're merge mining BTC and NMC.

Can anyone suggest what is a good additional coin (profitable) to merge with p2pool???
I would assume, that as you are working on BTC you can make additional funds?
kgb2mining
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 07:48:29 PM
 #10212

Cool thanks guys.

Is 1.7% DOA a reasonable number?  wondering if I should take step to improve it or just keep it as is.
1.7% is very reasonable, and downright good.  I average between 2-4% DOA on my node.  The global DOA rate is usually in the low-to-mid teens.
PatMan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


Watch out for the "Neg-Rep-Dogie-Police".....


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2014, 07:49:53 PM
 #10213


Can anyone suggest what is a good additional coin (profitable) to merge with p2pool???
I would assume, that as you are working on BTC you can make additional funds?


What's profitable today, might not be next week - so I mine them all, just in case...... Wink

BTC, DVC, IXC, I0C, GRP, HUC, FSC &, until yesterday NMC - which happens to be the most lucrative atm....... Tongue

"When one person is deluded it is called insanity - when many people are deluded it is called religion" - Robert M. Pirsig.  I don't want your coins, I want change.
Amazon UK BTC payment service - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=301229.0 - with FREE delivery!
http://www.ae911truth.org/ - http://rethink911.org/ - http://rememberbuilding7.org/
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2014, 08:27:48 PM
 #10214

Thanks guys,

I updated the p2pool wiki and added a list of hardware with confirmed issues:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool#Interoperability_table

jonnybravo0311
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


Mine at Jonny's Pool


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2014, 08:39:07 PM
 #10215

Thanks guys,

I updated the p2pool wiki and added a list of hardware with confirmed issues:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool#Interoperability_table
I swear there were reports of the KNC Neptune having issues with p2pool as well...

Also, you can add the SP10 as hardware the works properly with p2pool.  I'm not sure of the SP30 because I don't own one Wink

Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow!  Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets!  No SPV cheats.  No empty blocks.
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile WWW
August 19, 2014, 09:11:35 PM
 #10216

Thanks guys,

I updated the p2pool wiki and added a list of hardware with confirmed issues:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool#Interoperability_table
I swear there were reports of the KNC Neptune having issues with p2pool as well...

Also, you can add the SP10 as hardware the works properly with p2pool.  I'm not sure of the SP30 because I don't own one Wink

Thanks, added SP10, will ask in the spondoolies thread about 30.

kgb2mining
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
August 19, 2014, 09:13:55 PM
 #10217

Ok, so now some questions about peering, in general.

Should you specify your own list of peers?
If so, how many should you consider putting in your config?  Can there ever be too many?
How do you know the performance of your peers, now and historically, to make sure it's good?
Would it help the community to establish a set of well-resourced hosts to act as "root peers", in the same fashion as root nameservers?

So, here's the explanation of my thinking.

If I understand it correctly, the key here is how fast the share information enters the p2p chain, right?  Whomever wins the "share war" gets their place in the chain and their reward, while the ones that get beat out get an orphan.

That being the case, logic should dictate that if your node is well resourced (CPU, RAM, etc), and you have good bandwith, you should be able to get your info to and fro quickly into the overall network, and thusly win that war more consistently.  If you're a small node or not connected well, you'd lose.  That to me seems yet another thing in favor of the larger miners and operations which could be another barrier to adoption and use.

The question then becomes - who are you talking to in the chain, and how fast are they spreading the info to the other nodes for you?

For the larger nodes running open mining for anyone to connect to, this probably isn't a huge concern.  But for those running their own node at home, or us behind firewalls where we can't open up, who you're peering with may indeed have an affect on their stales/DOAs/Orphans, right?

I currently have 6 peers that bitcoind "found" when it started.  I'm behind a firewall and not open inbound.  Doesn't seem to be hurting me having only those 6 peers with none inbound, I have about a 10% share "loss" and my efficiency averages above 100%.  But, is that the case across the board, and if not, can it be made better?

Or, as usual, am I just overly concerned about nothing that really requires that concern?  Smiley
bitcoinbearhk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76


View Profile
August 20, 2014, 01:49:06 AM
 #10218

Mining for 13 hours at 5.2TH/s, expected time to share 2.0hrs....

Actual share obtained so far:  1 total (1 ophaned, 0 good) ......


Pure bad luck or setup issue???  Huh

Seriously, should have got 6 shares under the "expected" scenario.
squashpile
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 125


View Profile WWW
August 20, 2014, 02:06:46 AM
 #10219

That's tough to take, but probably bad luck. What are your node stats? I have nothing close to your HR, but I have gone two days @ 1.1 TH/s without a share recently. Bad luck and then from the 16th to 17th did 8-9 days of mining on P2pool. The best day. It made up for it all.
You running on windows on linux?
Got any screen output? Any P2Pool errors?

I have been having some Bitcoind crashing issues lately. I'm trying to work on those now. Pretty sure it's memory related. I hope.


Mining for 13 hours at 5.2TH/s, expected time to share 2.0hrs....

Actual share obtained so far:  1 total (1 ophaned, 0 good) ......


Pure bad luck or setup issue???  Huh

Seriously, should have got 6 shares under the "expected" scenario.

SquashPool - 0% Fee - Dedicated P2Pool VPS - Atlanta, GA - SSD - Gig uplink
bitcoinbearhk
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76


View Profile
August 20, 2014, 02:12:37 AM
 #10220

That's tough to take, but probably bad luck. What are your node stats? I have nothing close to your HR, but I have gone two days @ 1.1 TH/s without a share recently. Bad luck and then from the 16th to 17th did 8-9 days of mining on P2pool. The best day. It made up for it all.
You running on windows on linux?
Got any screen output? Any P2Pool errors?

I have been having some Bitcoind crashing issues lately. I'm trying to work on those now. Pretty sure it's memory related. I hope.


Mining for 13 hours at 5.2TH/s, expected time to share 2.0hrs....

Actual share obtained so far:  1 total (1 ophaned, 0 good) ......


Pure bad luck or setup issue???  Huh

Seriously, should have got 6 shares under the "expected" scenario.

P2Pool BTC

Graphs

Version: 13.4

Pool rate: 2.00PH/s (12% DOA+orphan) Share difficulty: 8820000

Node uptime: 13.5 hours Peers: 6 out, 0 in

Local rate: 5.31TH/s (1.2% DOA) Expected time to share: 2.0 hours

Shares: 1 total (1 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%

Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.00823785 BTC to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.0665 BTC per block.

Current block value: 25.05109951 BTC Expected time to block: 14.2 hours

 Cry
Pages: « 1 ... 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 [511] 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 ... 744 »
  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!