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

[smooth]

Either way, I'm pretty sure you are incorrect

If you can specify how you think the system is flawed, I'm all ears. However, simply stating that you think it's flawed without going into any detail or even demonstrating that you understand the system is not very helpful.

I already explained that the expected value of the next hash attempt is lower if M is higher and if payouts are divided equally* between all accepted shares a depth N (M, a variable). This should be obvious given that the block reward is (approximately, ignoring tx fees) a constant and M is not, but apparently it is not obvious.

If I have misstated something in the above paragraph please let me know because it is still possible I misunderstand your proposal.

* assuming constant difficulty.

[1714201089]

1714201089

[1714201089]

1714201089

[1714201089]

1714201089

[1714201089]

1714201089

[1714201089]

1714201089

[1714201089]

1714201089

[jtoomim]

I already explained that the expected value of the next hash attempt is lower if M is higher and if payouts are divided equally* between all accepted shares a depth N (M, a variable).

As far as I can tell from what you've written, you're objecting that the amount of payout for you per peer's share decreases with the number of shares that go into the last N levels of the DAG. This is true, and is not a problem. What I'm not sure about is whether you're claiming that the sum of the expected payouts for you over all of the peers' shares in the last N levels will be lower if that number of shares decreases. If that's not your claim, then the only other claim that I think you might be making is that the sum of expected payouts is perturbed not by the static level of M/N, but by the rate of change of M/N. Is your objection one of those two? If so, which?

This should be obvious given that the block reward is (approximately, ignoring tx fees) a constant and M is not, but apparently it is not obvious.

The size of each block reward is a constant, but the expected number of block rewards per N levels is not. The number of block rewards per N levels is proportional to M.

[kano]

If the "expected reward" per 1 diff share falls over time since the last block, then it is hoppable.
If you understand why Prop is hoppable then the above statement should be obvious.

PPLNS has a 'relatively' constant N diff shares, thus the "expected value" of any 1 diff share at any particular time, after the previous block, does not change.
(this of course isn't true over a diff change, but that's out of the context of the issue being brought up)

I can't make head nor tail of your description, but the above is what's relevant, and I imagine is what smooth is saying.
If your payout system does indeed pay a 'relatively' constant N diff shares per block, then it at least doesn't have the obvious Prop issue.

[jtoomim]

If the "expected reward" per 1 diff share falls over time since the last block, then it is hoppable.

No, we're talking about expected reward given to you by someone else's share. This is a p2pool conversation, not a traditional pool conversation. You have a probability of other people rewarding you in the shares they find after you find your own share. If there are more peer shares that are supposed to reward you, then the size of the reward that each share would give you (should that share also be a block) will be less. The point I have been trying to make is that the expected reward you get for mining a 1-diff share is not dependent on the number of peer shares that your reward is distributed over.

If your payout system does indeed pay a 'relatively' constant N diff shares per block, then it at least doesn't have the obvious Prop issue.

My simulation for the naive PPLNS-on-DAG system gave about 1% typical variation in payouts when the number of shares per level of the DAG varied uniformly between 1 and 10. Note that the variation is not predictable: you can't guess how many shares per level will be mined in the future unless you're actively manipulating it (and large enough to do so). For the PPLKD system, your reward will be split over a constant amount of other people's work, so the variation due to changes in M should be basically 0%.

[kano]

...

If your payout system does indeed pay a 'relatively' constant N diff shares per block, then it at least doesn't have the obvious Prop issue.

My simulation for the naive PPLNS-on-DAG system gave about 1% typical variation in payouts when the number of shares per level of the DAG varied uniformly between 1 and 10. Note that the variation is not predictable: you can't guess how many shares per level will be mined in the future unless you're actively manipulating it (and large enough to do so). For the PPLKD system, your reward will be split over a constant amount of other people's work, so the variation due to changes in M should be basically 0%.

You mean big enough like you currently are?

[jtoomim]

You mean big enough like you currently are?

Unfortunately, yes.

On that note, I've been meaning to ask other p2poolers what I should do about that, if anything. My nodes currently comprise around 46% of the p2pool hashrate. This means I could perform selfish mining attacks if I wanted to, and if I boosted my hashrate a bit, I could 51% attack the p2pool network and get 100% of the shares. Mostly, this happened because p2pool shrank from 2 PH/s to 0.8 PH/s, not because we grew much. One way of dealing with this issue is that I could take some of my hashrate off of p2pool (and maybe solo mine instead), but that would make p2pool blocks even rarer. (I think my nodes have found the last 4 p2pool blocks.) I could also maybe spread some of my hashrate among other nodes, although this would reduce our revenue. Or we could get more people to mine on p2pool, somehow.

[jtoomim]

Unfortunately, Bitcoin Classic has not been updated to support CSV and BIP9 yet.

BitcoinXT release F has been tagged. It has BIP9, BIP68, BIP112, and BIP113 support, plus Xthin blocks. As such, it should work fine even after the CSV fork is activated, and should be compatible with p2pool version 16.

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/4p7pl3/bitcoin_xt_release_f_has_been_tagged/

Keep in mind that this is based on the 0.11 branch, so performance may be sub-par.

[sawa]

You mean big enough like you currently are?

Unfortunately, yes.

On that note, I've been meaning to ask other p2poolers what I should do about that, if anything. My nodes currently comprise around 46% of the p2pool hashrate. This means I could perform selfish mining attacks if I wanted to, and if I boosted my hashrate a bit, I could 51% attack the p2pool network and get 100% of the shares. Mostly, this happened because p2pool shrank from 2 PH/s to 0.8 PH/s, not because we grew much. One way of dealing with this issue is that I could take some of my hashrate off of p2pool (and maybe solo mine instead), but that would make p2pool blocks even rarer. (I think my nodes have found the last 4 p2pool blocks.) I could also maybe spread some of my hashrate among other nodes, although this would reduce our revenue. Or we could get more people to mine on p2pool, somehow.

I think, you don't have to do anything. Neither go to other nodes nor remove your hashrates from p2pool. Everyone who wanted to leave have already gone on ckpool and further reduction of hashrate is unlikely. There left those who will never remove their powers from p2pool, and, most likely, will attract other people to join here.

[jtoomim]

Is anyone else having trouble with peer acquisition? vps.forre.st seems to be down.

[jtoomim]

Bitcoin Classic 1.1.0 is out. It supports CSV and in my limited testing works fine with p2pool v16.

[ramsis]

You mean big enough like you currently are?

Unfortunately, yes.

On that note, I've been meaning to ask other p2poolers what I should do about that, if anything. My nodes currently comprise around 46% of the p2pool hashrate. This means I could perform selfish mining attacks if I wanted to, and if I boosted my hashrate a bit, I could 51% attack the p2pool network and get 100% of the shares. Mostly, this happened because p2pool shrank from 2 PH/s to 0.8 PH/s, not because we grew much. One way of dealing with this issue is that I could take some of my hashrate off of p2pool (and maybe solo mine instead), but that would make p2pool blocks even rarer. (I think my nodes have found the last 4 p2pool blocks.) I could also maybe spread some of my hashrate among other nodes, although this would reduce our revenue. Or we could get more people to mine on p2pool, somehow.

Hello! I have p2pool at 10% of capacity throughout its network. And I'm not going to leave him!!! And all that I acquire. I will be adding to p2pool
Since the wire is not one experience comparing pool Kano and p2pool.
I can safely say that those who believe in the fairy tale about the bad pool. Continue to believe in. Many people do not know how to count money. I do not understand how people do not understand this..
Here is a link https://forum.bits.media/index.php?/topic/253-p2pool-detcentralizovannyi-pul/?p=441341, Google translator to help.

The hosts of other pools, well able to hang noodles on the ears!

p/s My English is at the level of Google. So I apologize.

[jtoomim]

I have switched my nodes over to p2pool v16. The current hashrate is approximately 97% v16 over the last hour, and about 76% v16 over the last day. This means that anyone still on v15 will soon have their shares ignored by the rest of the network.

[ramsis]

In Russia we built three nodes. The overall capacity of 400TH/s
By the end of June. We plan to raise up to 500-700TH/s.

[astutiumRob]

P2Pool release 16.0 - commit hash: d3bbd6df33ccedfc15cf941e7ebc6baf49567f97
So, please upgrade to 16.0 now and also tell everyone else to.

Updated our small pool @ http://p2pool.ukbmg.com:9332/static/efe/
and advised the 3 other pools on kit we host to do the same

[aib]

for a question regards P2Pool for litecoin (sCrypt)

the highest difficulty is 15258.556231856346 when I do  address/999999999+999999999

anyone know if that's enough to scale up to a higher hash rate?


and also I found that hash power always get cut off by P2Pool 10-20% compare to F2Pool.
anyone know how to tweak it to make it make stable and high hashrate?

[squidicuz]

I have switched my nodes over to p2pool v16. The current hashrate is approximately 97% v16 over the last hour, and about 76% v16 over the last day. This means that anyone still on v15 will soon have their shares ignored by the rest of the network.

Awesome!

Seems there are a few new miners as well?  Welcome! 

[Meuh6879]

v16 : job done.

[KyrosKrane]

Is something odd going on with P2pool? Check the hashrate and number of miners for the last few hours on this chart:

http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.php

This mirrors what I'm seeing with my own P2pool nodes - one hosted locally with my miner, and one on a VPS. It looks like the miner isn't getting proper responses (?) back from the pool, so it keeps mining without any new work. But it seems it's getting *something* that makes it think the pool is alive, so it's not failing over to the backup pools. In turn, it seems the P2pool node is registering zero hash rate. If I restart the pool and miner, it goes back to normal for a while, then zeros out again.

A quick check of the servers shows that P2pool is hogging 100% CPU time (on one core, of course), and the messages in the text log show it receiving hundreds of new shares.

Currently mining on V16.

Any thoughts?

Edit: An image of the chart at the link above, in case it later turns out to be an unrelated error.

[sawa]

At the time when the giant amount of transactions go through BTC network, many nodes lose their connection with the daemon.
When the connection is restored, they actively start to synchronize shares with other nodes.
I noticed that in the process of an exchange of shares with remote peers the node stops taking the job from miners.

Code:

2016-06-29 01:38:16.266381 Processing 109 shares from 46.32.254.29:9333...
2016-06-29 01:39:56.764554 ... done processing 109 shares. New: 19 Have: 22792/~17280

40 seconds of inactivity. It causes a significant drop of hashrate and the graphs of local rate become spiked.

I have reported this issue (please leave your comments there): https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/issues/311
It seems that such problems on all nodes.

[jtoomim]

Is something odd going on with P2pool? Check the hashrate and number of miners for the last few hours on this chart:

I'm seeing this too. Furthermore, I'm seeing stuff like this:

2016-06-28 14:40:39.001988 > in download_shares:
2016-06-28 14:40:39.002117 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2016-06-28 14:40:39.002181 > Failure: p2pool.p2p.ShareReplyError: too long
2016-06-28 14:40:39.002370 Requesting parent share ea0f2aee from 10.0.1.3:38393
2016-06-28 14:40:39.311156 > in download_shares:
2016-06-28 14:40:39.311285 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2016-06-28 14:40:39.311351 > Failure: p2pool.p2p.ShareReplyError: too long
2016-06-28 14:40:39.311523 Requesting parent share ea0f2aee from 10.0.1.3:37971
2016-06-28 14:40:39.494657 > in download_shares:
2016-06-28 14:40:39.494775 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2016-06-28 14:40:39.494827 > Failure: p2pool.p2p.ShareReplyError: too long