Bitcoin Forum
July 20, 2018, 03:23:27 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 [774] 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2559409 times)
jtoomim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 818
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2017, 11:23:21 PM
 #15461

Does the amount of network traffic used by p2pool bother anyone? I have some ideas for how to reduce the amount of traffic (without improving propagation performance), but the traffic doesn't bother me, so I haven't made implementing it a priority.

The other project I have in mind is trying to improve fairness independent of performance by using some sort of share DAG (e.g. with uncles) or one of the other ideas mentioned in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg19248232#msg19248232. That's going to require far more work than the network traffic reduction, though.

Alternately, I could work on polishing the current code a bit, merging into the main p2pool repo, and organizing the community to upgrade. If I do that before the fairness work, that means that we have to do another big upgrade later.

Thoughts?

Hosting bitcoin miners for $65 to $80/kW/month on clean, cheap hydro power.
http://Toom.im
1532057007
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1532057007

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1532057007
Reply with quote  #2

1532057007
Report to moderator
1532057007
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1532057007

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1532057007
Reply with quote  #2

1532057007
Report to moderator
1532057007
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1532057007

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1532057007
Reply with quote  #2

1532057007
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1532057007
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1532057007

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1532057007
Reply with quote  #2

1532057007
Report to moderator
1532057007
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1532057007

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1532057007
Reply with quote  #2

1532057007
Report to moderator
Mister S
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 72
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 16, 2017, 02:21:01 AM
 #15462

Does the amount of network traffic used by p2pool bother anyone? I have some ideas for how to reduce the amount of traffic (without improving propagation performance), but the traffic doesn't bother me, so I haven't made implementing it a priority.

The other project I have in mind is trying to improve fairness independent of performance by using some sort of share DAG (e.g. with uncles) or one of the other ideas mentioned in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg19248232#msg19248232. That's going to require far more work than the network traffic reduction, though.

Alternately, I could work on polishing the current code a bit, merging into the main p2pool repo, and organizing the community to upgrade. If I do that before the fairness work, that means that we have to do another big upgrade later.

Thoughts?

The amount of network traffic can significantly affect users who are subject to data limits (Comcast users) and those who also run full node core. I know I bumped against my data ceiling last month. Reducing it slightly would definitely incentivise me to maintain a full running p2pool node even if I wasn't hashing at the pool. As with most things bitcoin, if it doesn't harm my wallet, I'll help where I can.
frodocooper
Moderator
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 277


View Profile
June 16, 2017, 11:56:25 AM
 #15463

Does the amount of network traffic used by p2pool bother anyone? I have some ideas for how to reduce the amount of traffic (without improving propagation performance), but the traffic doesn't bother me, so I haven't made implementing it a priority.

It does bother me a little. I run my (mainnet) P2Pool node on an Amazon EC2 instance — AWS charges $0.09 per GB out for the first TB — so any reduction in data transfer out would be most welcome Smiley.

Also, having less network traffic may help to reduce latency from my miners to my P2Pool node, which should help lower my DOA rates. (AWS doesn't seem to have user-configurable network QoS).

The other project I have in mind is trying to improve fairness independent of performance by using some sort of share DAG (e.g. with uncles) or one of the other ideas mentioned in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg19248232#msg19248232. That's going to require far more work than the network traffic reduction, though.

Alternately, I could work on polishing the current code a bit, merging into the main p2pool repo, and organizing the community to upgrade. If I do that before the fairness work, that means that we have to do another big upgrade later.

Thoughts?

I personally would prefer having the jtoomimnet code merged into the main P2Pool branch first. We're essentially shooting ourselves in both feet by currently having two separate pools. With the current insane difficulty levels showing no signs of slowing down, it makes the most sense to consolidate our hashpower for a better chance at finding blocks. This may, in turn, attract more miners to P2Pool, since there would be one P2Pool again (network splits seem to scare people off), and a larger total P2Pool hashrate may make P2Pool more attractive again, potentially further attracting more miners which should help reduce variance for everyone.

I'm assuming that the improvements to fairness may take some time before it's ready for mainstream deployment, i.e., more than a month. I think that it's a reasonable tradeoff for us to merge first and then upgrade again in about a month's time (or two), rather than continuing to hobble along with our hashpower scattered across two P2Pools.
windpath
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1233
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2017, 02:05:19 PM
 #15464

Does the amount of network traffic used by p2pool bother anyone? I have some ideas for how to reduce the amount of traffic (without improving propagation performance), but the traffic doesn't bother me, so I haven't made implementing it a priority.

The other project I have in mind is trying to improve fairness independent of performance by using some sort of share DAG (e.g. with uncles) or one of the other ideas mentioned in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg19248232#msg19248232. That's going to require far more work than the network traffic reduction, though.

Alternately, I could work on polishing the current code a bit, merging into the main p2pool repo, and organizing the community to upgrade. If I do that before the fairness work, that means that we have to do another big upgrade later.

Thoughts?

The traffic does not bother me, but it appears to affect others...

On improving fairness (and possibly variance for smaller miners/dust payments) I had talked with Sergio from Rootstock and he had some cool ideas. Considering they are going live soon it might be worth following up. The gist was that P2Pool would merge mine both BTC and RSK, and that the block reward would be trustlessly pegged immediately to RSK where smaller payouts could be accumulated and redeemed for BTC when the given miner decided to cash out. There is a lot to flush out there, but at the time (several months ago) Sergio offered to assist with the development.

I'd also like to see our fork resolved ASAP as our variance is just plain ugly Wink

Thanks again for your work on this!

jtoomim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 818
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2017, 03:12:51 PM
 #15465

On improving fairness (and possibly variance for smaller miners/dust payments) I had talked with Sergio from Rootstock and he had some cool ideas. Considering they are going live soon it might be worth following up. The gist was that P2Pool would merge mine both BTC and RSK, and that the block reward would be trustlessly pegged immediately to RSK where smaller payouts could be accumulated and redeemed for BTC when the given miner decided to cash out. There is a lot to flush out there, but at the time (several months ago) Sergio offered to assist with the development.
Sorry Sergio, but that's not a cool idea. For one, it doesn't actually help the fairness problem at all, which is due to DOA/orphan rates being unequal between miners. SDL's proposal only helps with the minimum viable payout size and transaction fees, which is not a problem that we really have with one block a week.

Besides, there are much simpler ways to fix that problem. P2pool could easily encode a balance for each user into the share structure, and only make payouts for users whose balance (including this block) exceeds some threshold. Alternately, for a stateless system, if a user is owed 0.001 BTC and the minimum payout is 0.0015 BTC, we could pay out 2*.001=0.002 BTC each time a block is mined if (parent_hash % 2) == 0. Replace 2 with n for even smaller amounts owed.

Hosting bitcoin miners for $65 to $80/kW/month on clean, cheap hydro power.
http://Toom.im
frodocooper
Moderator
Full Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 236
Merit: 277


View Profile
June 16, 2017, 11:43:34 PM
 #15466

On improving fairness (and possibly variance for smaller miners/dust payments) I had talked with Sergio from Rootstock and he had some cool ideas. Considering they are going live soon it might be worth following up. The gist was that P2Pool would merge mine both BTC and RSK, and that the block reward would be trustlessly pegged immediately to RSK where smaller payouts could be accumulated and redeemed for BTC when the given miner decided to cash out. There is a lot to flush out there, but at the time (several months ago) Sergio offered to assist with the development.
Sorry Sergio, but that's not a cool idea. For one, it doesn't actually help the fairness problem at all, which is due to DOA/orphan rates being unequal between miners. SDL's proposal only helps with the minimum viable payout size and transaction fees, which is not a problem that we really have with one block a week.

Besides, there are much simpler ways to fix that problem. P2pool could easily encode a balance for each user into the share structure, and only make payouts for users whose balance (including this block) exceeds some threshold. Alternately, for a stateless system, if a user is owed 0.001 BTC and the minimum payout is 0.0015 BTC, we could pay out 2*.001=0.002 BTC each time a block is mined if (parent_hash % 2) == 0. Replace 2 with n for even smaller amounts owed.

The RSK idea has one thing going for it, though — it allows for a user-configurable threshold, i.e., the miner can choose to cash out whenever he or she wants to.

If we were to go for the built-in version, it might be a good idea to find a way to make the threshold user-configurable as well (with a reasonable default). It gives miners more options, especially if P2Pool variance one day drops to an average of one block or more a day.

I'd also like to see our fork resolved ASAP as our variance is just plain ugly Wink

Talk about an understatement Tongue.
jtoomim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 818
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2017, 05:36:21 AM
 #15467

User-configurable thresholds aren't hard. Each share you mine could contain a committed number representing your desired payment threshold. The current active threshold for each user is the threshold specified in the most recent share mined by that user.

While I've thought about the minimum payout problem and possible solutions, I don't intend to invest any time implementing them in the near future.

Hosting bitcoin miners for $65 to $80/kW/month on clean, cheap hydro power.
http://Toom.im
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 18, 2017, 12:42:08 AM
 #15468

i prefer an upgrade of the "package" (language ?) around the P2Pool installation ... before all others stuff.
P2Pool node (server) is really hard to install from a profane/rooky view.
And many links around Python (twisted ?) are old, too (ie. 64 bits instructions to keep the path).

I talk about this because many noobs in my part of the -french- forum don't really understand how to set a P2Pool node ... easly on all available OS.

I run a P2Pool node since 2015 with a full Bitcoin Core node.  Smiley
sawa
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1282
Merit: 1005



View Profile
June 18, 2017, 06:18:33 AM
 #15469

I started the thematic chat https://t.me/p2pool in the Telegram messenger https://telegram.org/
Join, share opinions, ask questions. Owners of nodes can publish addresses, exchange the source code of p2pools for different coins there.
Chat is multilanguage. Those who do not know languages, install the bot-translator http://telegram.me/ytranslatebot to the messenger

tubexc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 501
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 18, 2017, 03:12:05 PM
 #15470

This problem of the existence of two P2pools is easily solved if forrestv issues a node warning for everyone to install the P2Pool version of jtoomim!!!
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000



View Profile
June 18, 2017, 04:33:29 PM
 #15471

Pretty.

jtoomim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 818
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2017, 06:14:03 PM
 #15472

Looks like another nicehash miner with high DOA rates, but on mainnet this time. It's interesting to see how they drive the orphan rates down even as they drive the DOA rates up.

Hosting bitcoin miners for $65 to $80/kW/month on clean, cheap hydro power.
http://Toom.im
veqtrus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 107
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2017, 08:26:02 PM
 #15473

This problem of the existence of two P2pools is easily solved if forrestv issues a node warning for everyone to install the P2Pool version of jtoomim!!!

Why would forrestv want people to use a p2pool fork which would only make it more centralized?

P2Pool donation button | Bitrated user: veqtrus.
tubexc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 501
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 18, 2017, 08:30:29 PM
 #15474

This problem of the existence of two P2pools is easily solved if forrestv issues a node warning for everyone to install the P2Pool version of jtoomim!!!

Why would forrestv want people to use a p2pool fork which would only make it more centralized?

More lucrative for the miners who come here to complain, you wanted to say !?!
veqtrus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 107
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2017, 08:32:38 PM
 #15475

This problem of the existence of two P2pools is easily solved if forrestv issues a node warning for everyone to install the P2Pool version of jtoomim!!!

Why would forrestv want people to use a p2pool fork which would only make it more centralized?

More lucrative for the miners who come here to complain, you wanted to say !?!

We can't force miners to care about decentralization. If they want centralized pools they can use them but that doesn't mean p2pool has to change.

P2Pool donation button | Bitrated user: veqtrus.
tubexc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 501
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 18, 2017, 08:46:52 PM
 #15476

This problem of the existence of two P2pools is easily solved if forrestv issues a node warning for everyone to install the P2Pool version of jtoomim!!!

Why would forrestv want people to use a p2pool fork which would only make it more centralized?

More lucrative for the miners who come here to complain, you wanted to say !?!

We can't force miners to care about decentralization. If they want centralized pools they can use them but that doesn't mean p2pool has to change.

Anything
As long as this brings more blocks  Grin
Blocks where are you ?
jtoomim
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 818
Merit: 1001


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2017, 04:47:44 AM
 #15477

Why would forrestv want people to use a p2pool fork which would only make it more centralized?
Maybe because my fork has lower CPU usage, lower memory usage, lower orphan rates, better fairness, and substantially higher revenue from tx fees? And maybe because your premise of that causing centralization is, I dunno, wrong?

Hosting bitcoin miners for $65 to $80/kW/month on clean, cheap hydro power.
http://Toom.im
veqtrus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 107
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2017, 11:43:07 AM
 #15478

Why would forrestv want people to use a p2pool fork which would only make it more centralized?
Maybe because my fork has lower CPU usage, lower memory usage, lower orphan rates, better fairness, and substantially higher revenue from tx fees?
That's because new shares aren't 1MB yet as your fork allows. Then again you advocate making Bitcoin's block size limit infinite...

P2Pool donation button | Bitrated user: veqtrus.
in2tactics
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 19, 2017, 12:17:09 PM
 #15479

... Then again you advocate making Bitcoin's block size limit infinite...
Satoshi never imposed a block size limit in the beginning. There was something like a 32mb network message limit, but that is it. What is your point?

Casual Miner: 3x 2PAC and 3x Moonlander 2
Retired HW: 2x AntMiner S7-LN, 5x AntMiner U1, 2x ASICMiner Block Erupter Cube, 4x AntMiner S3, 4x AntMiner S1, GAW Black Widow, and ZeusMiner Thunder X6
veqtrus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 107
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2017, 12:26:08 PM
 #15480

... Then again you advocate making Bitcoin's block size limit infinite...
Satoshi never imposed a block size limit in the beginning. There was something like a 32mb network message limit, but that is it. What is your point?
Satoshi also:


P2Pool donation button | Bitrated user: veqtrus.
Pages: « 1 ... 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 [774] 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 »
  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!