[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool

[in2tactics]

Block....

Did P2Pool just mine empty block?

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930

Whoops!

[1714197007]

1714197007

[1714197007]

1714197007

[1714197007]

1714197007

[1714197007]

1714197007

[in2tactics]

Check the times of the blocks:

Code:

2016-04-15 02:57:19.832312 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000052e336f67c1b0d339d5e7423595c60f169cd17bd24e5306  height=407354  log2_work=84.48832
  tx=122495865  date=2016-04-15 02:57:07 progress=1.000000  cache=4.7MiB(5564tx)
2016-04-15 03:21:13.214595 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930  height=407355  log2_work=84.48836
1  tx=122495866  date=2016-04-15 03:20:49 progress=1.000000  cache=51.3MiB(16114tx)

Doesn't look like it was immediately after a new block...

So, what do you think happened?

[-ck]

Check the times of the blocks:

Code:

2016-04-15 02:57:19.832312 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000052e336f67c1b0d339d5e7423595c60f169cd17bd24e5306  height=407354  log2_work=84.48832
  tx=122495865  date=2016-04-15 02:57:07 progress=1.000000  cache=4.7MiB(5564tx)
2016-04-15 03:21:13.214595 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930  height=407355  log2_work=84.48836
1  tx=122495866  date=2016-04-15 03:20:49 progress=1.000000  cache=51.3MiB(16114tx)

Doesn't look like it was immediately after a new block...

So, what do you think happened?

Someone configured their coin daemon that feeds their p2pool instance to do so.

[donatebitcointome]

Block....

Did P2Pool just mine empty block?

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930

When P2Pool learns that there's a new block, it mines empty blocks until bitcoind gives it a block template.

The alternative to doing this would be to mine orphaned blocks rather than empty ones. :/

Check the times of the blocks:

Code:

2016-04-15 02:57:19.832312 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000052e336f67c1b0d339d5e7423595c60f169cd17bd24e5306  height=407354  log2_work=84.48832
  tx=122495865  date=2016-04-15 02:57:07 progress=1.000000  cache=4.7MiB(5564tx)
2016-04-15 03:21:13.214595 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930  height=407355  log2_work=84.48836
1  tx=122495866  date=2016-04-15 03:20:49 progress=1.000000  cache=51.3MiB(16114tx)

Doesn't look like it was immediately after a new block...

ok sorry if I judge it wrongly lol.. I thought that if a block contain no transaction, it called empty block.

If its not immediately after a new block, it's not empty block? I'm really confuse lol. anyone kind enough to explain it to me

[kano]

Block....

Did P2Pool just mine empty block?

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930

When P2Pool learns that there's a new block, it mines empty blocks until bitcoind gives it a block template.

The alternative to doing this would be to mine orphaned blocks rather than empty ones. :/

Blame bad coding not bitcoin.

Do it right like we do on ckpool and never mine empty blocks ...

[-ck]

ok sorry if I judge it wrongly lol.. I thought that if a block contain no transaction, it called empty block.

If its not immediately after a new block, it's not empty block? I'm really confuse lol. anyone kind enough to explain it to me

No you got it right the first time. The rest of the discussion was trying to ascertain why it was an empty block.

[windpath]

Block....

Did P2Pool just mine empty block?

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930

When P2Pool learns that there's a new block, it mines empty blocks until bitcoind gives it a block template.

The alternative to doing this would be to mine orphaned blocks rather than empty ones. :/

Blame bad coding not bitcoin.

Do it right like we do on ckpool and never mine empty blocks ...

Jeze Kano, if it bothers you so much why don't you contribute to the open source code base of the only decentralized pool rather then promoting your own centralized solution in our thread AGAIN...

Better yet, why not grow a real sack and attack the real problem pools mining empty blocks like antpool?

What's your hate on p2pool all about anyway? Or is it just your not so subtle form of gurrilla marketing?

[kano]

Block....

Did P2Pool just mine empty block?

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930

When P2Pool learns that there's a new block, it mines empty blocks until bitcoind gives it a block template.

The alternative to doing this would be to mine orphaned blocks rather than empty ones. :/

Blame bad coding not bitcoin.

Do it right like we do on ckpool and never mine empty blocks ...

Jeze Kano, if it bothers you so much why don't you contribute to the open source code base of the only decentralized pool rather then promoting your own centralized solution in our thread AGAIN...

Better yet, why not grow a real sack and attack the real problem pools mining empty blocks like antpool?

What's your hate on p2pool all about anyway? Or is it just your not so subtle form of gurrilla marketing?

You don't like the truth? ... oh well.

P2pool is written in a language that I can only describe as trash.
Not interested in going near it at all.

It's design is also flawed.

Lulz - you don't like that I'm part of the team that provides the free opensource software that more miners on the bitcoin network use than any other software, or that the ckpool software that -ck and I write is fully free opensource also?
Oh well, go bitch to someone who cares.

Or is it that you don't like that fact that we have NEVER mined an empty block? ... unlike p2pool.

forrestv has above stated that his software mines empty blocks on purpose.

Yes I run a centralised mining pool ... that doesn't mine empty blocks ... unlike p2pool.

Meanwhile people like you try to centralise p2pool by creating nodes that you get people to mine to, rather than getting people to mine to their own decentralised nodes.
There's 'centralised' p2pool nodes ... which is not all that different to saying there's lots of 'centralised' mining pools out there.

[in2tactics]

Check the times of the blocks:

Code:

2016-04-15 02:57:19.832312 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000052e336f67c1b0d339d5e7423595c60f169cd17bd24e5306  height=407354  log2_work=84.48832
  tx=122495865  date=2016-04-15 02:57:07 progress=1.000000  cache=4.7MiB(5564tx)
2016-04-15 03:21:13.214595 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930  height=407355  log2_work=84.48836
1  tx=122495866  date=2016-04-15 03:20:49 progress=1.000000  cache=51.3MiB(16114tx)

Doesn't look like it was immediately after a new block...

So, what do you think happened?

Someone configured their coin daemon that feeds their p2pool instance to do so.

@-ck  That is a problem. I am not sure how you could enforce this at the node to node level based on how the p2pool software and the coin daemon interact.

P2pool is written in a language that I can only describe as trash.
Not interested in going near it at all.

@kano  Speaking of languages, why on earth is Bitcoin written in C++? I thought C would have been the first and better choice.

[Carlton Banks]

why on earth is Bitcoin written in C++? I thought C would have been the first and better choice.

Hard lol at "better" and "worse" programming languages. Presumably all code for all devices would be "better" if it was written in machine code?

[in2tactics]

why on earth is Bitcoin written in C++? I thought C would have been the first and better choice.

Hard lol at "better" and "worse" programming languages. Presumably all code for all devices would be "better" if it was written in machine code?

That goes without saying. However, I would think a program as large as Bitcoin would be pretty hard to exclusively code in assembly. Add to that, the number of programmers that code in assembly is also quite small.

[kano]

P2pool is written in a language that I can only describe as trash.
Not interested in going near it at all.

@kano  Speaking of languages, why on earth is Bitcoin written in C++? I thought C would have been the first and better choice.

Well there's 2 issues when programming:
1) Performance
2) Maintainability

Assembly fails badly on 2) so no one in their right mind would write anything but a tiny project using it.

C++ is for those who require a language that forces them to be object oriented (though many don't understand object orientation)
Object orientation is to simplify coding and concepts to supposedly simplify understanding and maintenance but rarely succeeds in doing that.
In of itself, object orientation isn't a bad thing, it's quite the opposite, but it also leads to slow code due to massive bloat.

C has a steep learning cure for anyone who is only familiar with simple languages and script languages.
A pointer is something that many fail to fully understand.
On the other hand, the language specification is so simple that it's not difficult to write a C compiler.
Also, since the language itself is not very far from machine code in concept, it leads to very fast compiled code.
But people can write bad and slow code in any language
Very few at all understand how to successfully performance tune code. Most projects, like Bitcoin, don't even care.

[in2tactics]

Most projects, like Bitcoin, don't even care.

That is what I thought you were going to say. 

[lightfoot]

Kano, you're being a bit of a jerk here: Luck is luck, and you know the numbers: Your pool has a .9% fee, therefore someone mining there will make .9% less than mining on P2pool. (edit: mining p2pool without a fee. p2pool ops can charge fees)

You are welcome to say that your pool has had a lucky streak, but please do not make the error of misleading people that just because your (or any other) pool has had a good run of luck that this means one whit of anything in terms of future performance.

Luck is luck, and the luck fairy picks blocks at random. People fall for selective bias all the time (remember the good streaks, forget the bad ones) but reality exists.

[smooth]

Kano, you're being a bit of a jerk here: Luck is luck, and you know the numbers: Your pool has a .9% fee, therefore someone mining there will make .9% less than mining on P2pool. (edit: mining p2pool without a fee. p2pool ops can charge fees)

That assumes they are equally efficient. Efficiencies can sneak in on both sides so it is hard to say really.

Agree that luck is luck. IMO the luck on p2pool is marginally acceptable even at the current hash rate for people who aren't impatient cry babies, but its getting close to the point where it isn't really viable unfortunately.

[kano]

Kano, you're being a bit of a jerk here: Luck is luck, and you know the numbers: Your pool has a .9% fee, therefore someone mining there will make .9% less than mining on P2pool. (edit: mining p2pool without a fee. p2pool ops can charge fees)

You are welcome to say that your pool has had a lucky streak, but please do not make the error of misleading people that just because your (or any other) pool has had a good run of luck that this means one whit of anything in terms of future performance.

Luck is luck, and the luck fairy picks blocks at random. People fall for selective bias all the time (remember the good streaks, forget the bad ones) but reality exists.

I've no idea why you posted a completely unrelated comment about what I've posted.

There is no luck involved in code that produces empty blocks on purpose.
P2pool is coded to produce empty blocks on every block change.

Where exactly did I make any comment recently at all about p2pool luck?
You did, not me.

[Carlton Banks]

why on earth is Bitcoin written in C++? I thought C would have been the first and better choice.

Hard lol at "better" and "worse" programming languages. Presumably all code for all devices would be "better" if it was written in machine code?

That goes without saying.

No it doesn't, I was being sarcastic.

There are no "better" and "worse" programming languages in the abstract, only good choices for specific cases. And so Kano's comment about python being a "crappy" language was not correct to begin with, he just doesn't use it for his serious work because he works on software that needs something lower-level. And that he has a massive superiority/inferiority complex (although this doesn't change the fact that I love him dearly )

[in2tactics]

That goes without saying.

No it doesn't, I was being sarcastic.

Your sarcasm was not lost on me; however, it does go without saying. It is well known that higher level programming languages have a tendency to add their own little nuances that when compiled to machine language can contribute to less optimal code. The effects can be negligible or they can be significant. It all depends on the programmer's mastery and understanding of the used language in order to minimize the potential effects.

There are no "better" and "worse" programming languages in the abstract, only good choices for specific cases.

I do generally agree with your statement and as kano pointed out "maintainability" is a major factor especially when dealing with larger and more complex programs. Do not confuse me with those individuals that ride the python hate train. I happen to like python personally and I use it frequently.

[Carlton Banks]

So you're saying you agree with everything I say, yet you still maintain your position? Right


Forget maintainability, how about the type/level of expertise that it takes to use the language competently to begin with? It takes genuine comprehension of broadly non-abstract concepts (like pointers), as well as that of abstract concepts like template functions or lambda logical operations. You could train perhaps 10 people to write good Java in the time it takes to train 1 person to write good C++.

How about the readability of the code? Fortran or Cobol are the only tools you can use for certain jobs, and they're difficult to read for a stranger to those languages.

What about development time? If you're writing software without fail-safe requirements, do you really need to spend the time/money on using a low-level language? You could end up spending 90% of that time/money looking for memory leaks.


So, come on now. You can't reconcile "some languages are better than others, absolutely" with "well, some are better suited to a given development context, others to a different context". That's what I call contradicting oneself.

[in2tactics]

So you're saying you agree with everything I say, yet you still maintain your position? Right

I said, "I do generally agree with your statement" and that is definitely not the same thing as agreeing with everything you say.

Forget maintainability, how about the type/level of expertise that it takes to use the language competently to begin with? It takes genuine comprehension of broadly non-abstract concepts (like pointers), as well as that of abstract concepts like template functions or lambda logical operations. You could train perhaps 10 people to write good Java in the time it takes to train 1 person to write good C++.

How about the readability of the code? Fortran or Cobol are the only tools you can use for certain jobs, and they're difficult to read for a stranger to those languages.

What about development time? If you're writing software without fail-safe requirements, do you really need to spend the time/money on using a low-level language? You could end up spending 90% of that time/money looking for memory leaks.

So, come on now. You can't reconcile "some languages are better than others, absolutely" with "well, some are better suited to a given development context, others to a different context". That's what I call contradicting oneself.

I think you are missing the intent of my original inquiry about Bitcoin and C++. It was never intended to be an analysis of the languages used or not used, but an analysis of the individuals and their choice of a particular language over another. Additionally, I only implied ASM was better than other languages, absolutely. That statement was made in the specific context of "potential for most optimal code at run time" and I thought you would have understood that based on the sarcasm in your original reply.