Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 12:43:08 AM *
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 ... 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] 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2028678 times)
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 09:32:00 PM
 #10781

I've set up a private pool solution for a reasonably large miner using a combination of p2pool and ckpool technology. You should all see a decent increase in the overall pool size over the next 24-48 hours.
This hasher is now online. His hashrate should be obvious, right at the top of the list. Barring changes in plans, and provided the hardware continues to hash well, it should be remaining on this pool.

Now the interesting thing with this is, because I have connected the hardware via ckproxy instead of as 100 connections directly to the p2pool client, p2pool sees it as one client, which means that this miner's share target is more than 10 times larger than that for other miners. By doing this, even though I've dumped a large hashrate onto the pool, it won't substantially increase the target share rate for the smaller miners. This means smaller miners can benefit from the increased p2pool hashrate decreasing their variance without their share target increasing that much which normally increases their variance the same amount. If more larger miners did something similar on p2pool, it might keep the smaller miners. The large miner benefits from his p2pool client scaling where it otherwise couldn't and the smaller miners get to stay and benefit from his presence. While it's not a "fix" for the overall design, it might give p2pool some breathing space, allowing ever larger miners to join. That said, "small" these days is not really that small... Perhaps p2pool will actually end up being nothing but big miners (though that is what most of the network is now), provided their hardware is compatible :p

Interesting. So, if I were using 10+ ants on my node - do you think I'd be better off using your ckproxy?

Great work again ck - nice one  Smiley

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
1480725788
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480725788

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480725788
Reply with quote  #2

1480725788
Report to moderator
1480725788
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480725788

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480725788
Reply with quote  #2

1480725788
Report to moderator
1480725788
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480725788

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480725788
Reply with quote  #2

1480725788
Report to moderator
Creating a Bitcoin client that fully implements the network protocol is extremely difficult. Bitcoin-Qt is the only known safe implementation of a full node. Some other projects attempt to compete, but it is not recommended to use such software for anything serious. (Lightweight clients like Electrum and MultiBit are OK.)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480725788
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480725788

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480725788
Reply with quote  #2

1480725788
Report to moderator
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 09:52:53 PM
 #10782

I've set up a private pool solution for a reasonably large miner using a combination of p2pool and ckpool technology. You should all see a decent increase in the overall pool size over the next 24-48 hours.
This hasher is now online. His hashrate should be obvious, right at the top of the list. Barring changes in plans, and provided the hardware continues to hash well, it should be remaining on this pool.

Now the interesting thing with this is, because I have connected the hardware via ckproxy instead of as 100 connections directly to the p2pool client, p2pool sees it as one client, which means that this miner's share target is more than 10 times larger than that for other miners. By doing this, even though I've dumped a large hashrate onto the pool, it won't substantially increase the target share rate for the smaller miners. This means smaller miners can benefit from the increased p2pool hashrate decreasing their variance without their share target increasing that much which normally increases their variance the same amount. If more larger miners did something similar on p2pool, it might keep the smaller miners. The large miner benefits from his p2pool client scaling where it otherwise couldn't and the smaller miners get to stay and benefit from his presence. While it's not a "fix" for the overall design, it might give p2pool some breathing space, allowing ever larger miners to join. That said, "small" these days is not really that small... Perhaps p2pool will actually end up being nothing but big miners (though that is what most of the network is now), provided their hardware is compatible :p

I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on?  Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2014, 10:06:01 PM
 #10783

I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on?  Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:11:20 PM
 #10784

...python makes me nauseous.

Re-write it in C then!!  Smiley Wink

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
stevegee58
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 783



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:11:29 PM
 #10785

I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous.

Me too until recently but Python is simply too big to ignore.  I needed on my resume to stay marketable so I held my nose and dove in.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:16:07 PM
 #10786

I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on?  Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous.

Local pseudo share difficulty is based upon hash rate on that node.

Alt share chain difficulty is based upon the entire pool hash rate. 

And of course, the pool hash rate isn't really known.  It's surmised based upon the number of shares found in the alt chain over a fixed period of time (I don't know what that value is).  The target is one share every 30 seconds pool wide.

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:24:01 PM
 #10787

Well, if you believe the BitmainWarranty account, and can stomach the screenshot where they "tested" for only a minute, then the S4 works with p2pool: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=796839.msg9075999#msg9075999.

This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already.....

Bitmain are going to point an S4 at my node for 10 minutes shortly apparently, so we'll see....... Wink

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2014, 10:31:50 PM
 #10788

I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on?  Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous.

Local pseudo share difficulty is based upon hash rate on that node.

Alt share chain difficulty is based upon the entire pool hash rate. 

And of course, the pool hash rate isn't really known.  It's surmised based upon the number of shares found in the alt chain over a fixed period of time (I don't know what that value is).  The target is one share every 30 seconds pool wide.
Ah but do you see how your answer means the latter then and not the overall hashrate? This huge miner is contributing only one share every half hour to the entire p2pool chain, which is the same amount of shares a miner 1/10th the size contributes.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:37:15 PM
 #10789

I thought this "high share difficulty for one miner" logic only applied to the one node the miner is on?  Alt share chain difficulty is still alt chain share difficulty.
Well you tell me since I'm new to the p2pool code. Is alt share chain difficulty based on trying to keep the number of shares contributed to altchain constant or is it based on overall hashrate of the pool? I'd have to dig into the code to figure it out and python makes me nauseous.

Local pseudo share difficulty is based upon hash rate on that node.

Alt share chain difficulty is based upon the entire pool hash rate. 

And of course, the pool hash rate isn't really known.  It's surmised based upon the number of shares found in the alt chain over a fixed period of time (I don't know what that value is).  The target is one share every 30 seconds pool wide.
Ah but do you see how your answer means the latter then and not the overall hashrate? This huge miner is contributing only one share every half hour to the entire p2pool chain, which is the same amount of shares a miner 1/10th the size contributes.

So you mean the share difficulty for the worker is 10x alt chain difficulty, ie, right now about 86million instead of 8.6 million?

If that's true, then yes, it should work as you said, not adversely affect the alt share difficulty.

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2014, 10:39:42 PM
 #10790

Interesting. So, if I were using 10+ ants on my node - do you think I'd be better off using your ckproxy?

Great work again ck - nice one  Smiley
In terms of keeping your local p2pool client running as low overhead as possible, combining miners through the proxy helps. In terms of (possibly, assuming my interpretation is right) helping minimise p2pool's variance for small miners to keep them on board, it would only come into effect if your hashrate is > 5% of the overall pool hashrate.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2014, 10:41:08 PM
 #10791

So you mean the share difficulty for the worker is 10x alt chain difficulty, ie, right now about 86million instead of 8.6 million?

If that's true, then yes, it should work as you said, not adversely affect the alt share difficulty.
Yes.
Code:
2014-10-05 18:40:00.095528 New work for worker! Share difficulty: 136297626.452028 Total block value: 25.000000 BTC including 0 transactions
In fact I've seen it go as high as 240million.

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:48:01 PM
 #10792

...python makes me nauseous.

Re-write it in C then!!  Smiley Wink

You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:50:23 PM
 #10793

...python makes me nauseous.

Re-write it in C then!!  Smiley Wink

You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?

M

Yes. But it will make it faster & there's more people who are familiar with C/++ who can hopefully help code a solution for it......... Wink

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:50:34 PM
 #10794

Interesting. So, if I were using 10+ ants on my node - do you think I'd be better off using your ckproxy?

Great work again ck - nice one  Smiley
In terms of keeping your local p2pool client running as low overhead as possible, combining miners through the proxy helps. In terms of (possibly, assuming my interpretation is right) helping minimise p2pool's variance for small miners to keep them on board, it would only come into effect if your hashrate is > 5% of the overall pool hashrate.

I do that when mining remotely, p2pool or not.  Locally I don't like using a proxy because it hides my workers.

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 10:52:22 PM
 #10795

...python makes me nauseous.

Re-write it in C then!!  Smiley Wink

You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?

M

Yes. But it will make it faster & there's more people who are familiar with C/++ who can hopefully help code a solution for it......... Wink

It doesn't need to be faster.  It's the 30 second restart that Antminers have a problem with.  (All of them, although the S2 is by far the worst.)  I've watched the work flow through my proxy (that I created), and I can see the rejects come after the work restart, and the Ants are still using old jobids.

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2014, 10:52:41 PM
 #10796

...python makes me nauseous.

Re-write it in C then!!  Smiley Wink

You realize that won't solve the fundamental scaling issue, right?
That's correct.

As I said last time this same request came up, there are 2 scaling issues. One is the client itself, which rewriting it in c will help, and the other is the scaling of the overall pool size, which will not be helped. No point spending 1000 hours coding on the former unless you have a solution for the latter (yes that's how long it would take me to rewrite p2pool in c).

Primary developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
Pooled mine at kano.is, solo mine at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
PatMan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


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


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2014, 11:18:02 PM
 #10797

Well, if you believe the BitmainWarranty account, and can stomach the screenshot where they "tested" for only a minute, then the S4 works with p2pool: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=796839.msg9075999#msg9075999.

This. It's hardly an example of how it performs with p2pool is it.....& who is this user BitmainWarranty? I'll wait until I see some solid, hard evidence before making my mind up I think, although I've seen enough complaints about the S4's to pretty much come to a conclusion already.....

Bitmain are going to point an S4 at my node for 10 minutes shortly apparently, so we'll see....... Wink

How's it working out - did they do it yet?

"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/
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 11:27:14 PM
 #10798

How's it working out - did they do it yet?

Nothing yet......


It doesn't need to be faster.


Faster would just be a bonus by-product of being in C/++, it certainly won't do any harm. Having more coders able to play with it is the main advantage though..... Wink

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 11:38:52 PM
 #10799


It doesn't need to be faster.


Faster would just be a bonus by-product of being in C/++, it certainly won't do any harm. Having more coders able to play with it is the main advantage though..... Wink

I don't think it'd be worth the trouble.  If you understand the principle behind how p2pool works, and its short comings, the best bet is to start from scratch with a new design that addresses the flaws in p2pool.

M

MMinerMonitor author, monitor/auto/schedule reboots/alerts/remote/MobileMiner for Ants and Spondoolies! Latest (5.2). MPoolMonitor author, monitor stats/workers for most pools, global BTC stats (current/nxt diff/USD val/hashrate/calc)! Latest (v4.2) 
Buyer beware of Bitmain hardware and services.
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 11:40:16 PM
 #10800


It doesn't need to be faster.


Faster would just be a bonus by-product of being in C/++, it certainly won't do any harm. Having more coders able to play with it is the main advantage though..... Wink

I don't think it'd be worth the trouble.  If you understand the principle behind how p2pool works, and its short comings, the best bet is to start from scratch with a new design that addresses the flaws in p2pool.

M

Exactly. Been saying this for over a year.......

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 ... 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!