Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 02:00:18 PM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2033291 times)
cheat_2_win
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 215


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 08:17:09 PM
 #301

In the time between blocks, there are still subsidy payments rolling out to miners!  Smiley

How does the subsidy work? How do I know I have received the subsidy payment?
1481292018
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481292018

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481292018
Reply with quote  #2

1481292018
Report to moderator
1481292018
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481292018

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481292018
Reply with quote  #2

1481292018
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481292018
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481292018

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481292018
Reply with quote  #2

1481292018
Report to moderator
1481292018
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481292018

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481292018
Reply with quote  #2

1481292018
Report to moderator
nelisky
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 09:04:51 PM
 #302

I've just started trying p2pool, and I was constantly getting hash > target errors, along with pretty much 100% rejects on cgminer. I was also pointing my single ztex fpga at it.

Then it downed on me, maybe I should try and see which of the miners was misbehaving... I tried BTCMiner alone, no problem. The I tried cgminer alone, no problem either.

I then fired both I was back at the hash > target land... Am I correct to assume a single p2pool instance can only be used by one single miner?
ancow
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 373


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2012, 09:15:57 PM
 #303

Am I correct to assume a single p2pool instance can only be used by one single miner?

No, I use mine with 2-3 cgminer instances. I get "Pool not providing work fast enough" quite regularly, but otherwise it works fine...

BTC: 1GAHTMdBN4Yw3PU66sAmUBKSXy2qaq2SF4
Vanderbleek
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 227


View Profile WWW
February 04, 2012, 09:39:10 PM
 #304

Something I just thought about: as p2pool grows, and the internal diff. rises, shares might become too infrequent for people to be happy with. The solution is other, separate p2pools: but what if that was coded into the p2pool program? And when and when total hashrate grew beyond a threshold (probably some fraction of the total network) it would spin off other pools, so users didn't have to worry about this "load balancing" themselves?

If I helped, feel free to donate to:
BTC: 1DimPUBPnmZuWu5XrMa3xVnFgMz1iGBNdr
LTC: LLqQuvRZd4uZyenER2mE8d3ns1N1qBWQjD
flower1024
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


luck is just a share away


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 09:43:52 PM
 #305

Something I just thought about: as p2pool grows, and the internal diff. rises, shares might become too infrequent for people to be happy with. The solution is other, separate p2pools: but what if that was coded into the p2pool program? And when and when total hashrate grew beyond a threshold (probably some fraction of the total network) it would spin off other pools, so users didn't have to worry about this "load balancing" themselves?

i'd prefer a solution where smaller miners work together in a sub-p2pool to solve a big-p2pool share.

but anyway: i am sure forrestv will come with a clever idea as soon as it gets necessary
ChanceCoats123
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 680



View Profile
February 04, 2012, 09:44:13 PM
 #306

Something I just thought about: as p2pool grows, and the internal diff. rises, shares might become too infrequent for people to be happy with. The solution is other, separate p2pools: but what if that was coded into the p2pool program? And when and when total hashrate grew beyond a threshold (probably some fraction of the total network) it would spin off other pools, so users didn't have to worry about this "load balancing" themselves?

I think this is happening right now (the first part at least). I used to have pretty consistent share counts, but now I'm getting less than half of what I should get per 24 hours even with the variance averaged out. My hashrates have increased and I'm seeing less shares and less payouts. It's no longer conducive for me to be mining like this unless something changes. We all dislike the power that PPS pools have over the market and the miners, but at least I have a daily paycheck without a doubt...
flower1024
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


luck is just a share away


View Profile
February 04, 2012, 09:47:39 PM
 #307

Something I just thought about: as p2pool grows, and the internal diff. rises, shares might become too infrequent for people to be happy with. The solution is other, separate p2pools: but what if that was coded into the p2pool program? And when and when total hashrate grew beyond a threshold (probably some fraction of the total network) it would spin off other pools, so users didn't have to worry about this "load balancing" themselves?

I think this is happening right now (the first part at least). I used to have pretty consistent share counts, but now I'm getting less than half of what I should get per 24 hours even with the variance averaged out. My hashrates have increased and I'm seeing less shares and less payouts. It's no longer conducive for me to be mining like this unless something changes. We all dislike the power that PPS pools have over the market and the miners, but at least I have a daily paycheck without a doubt...

current p2pool shows how often you could expect a p2pool share (for me its 40min with 580mh with p2pool@160gh).

as long as my share finding average is below four hours i am fine. its just a higher variance for small miners. nobody looses anything.
ChanceCoats123
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 680



View Profile
February 04, 2012, 10:18:28 PM
 #308

That is true.  Undecided

However, I checked p2pool and it was well over 5 hours since my last share and I was at 425mhash. Seems like something is a little up if flower1024 is getting a share every 40 minutes at 580mhash...
Frizz23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 06:34:20 AM
 #309

It seems we haven't found a block in almost 24 hours, right?

Is there a way to verify this?

[Edit]: I also noticed: I got my last subsidy payment 4 days ago (30.01.2012). Have they been stopped?

Syke
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


View Profile
February 05, 2012, 07:41:09 AM
 #310

It seems we haven't found a block in almost 24 hours, right?

Is there a way to verify this?

[Edit]: I also noticed: I got my last subsidy payment 4 days ago (30.01.2012). Have they been stopped?
There were a couple days after that without a subsidy, but there have been two in the last day or so.

Buy & Hold
naima53
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 09:15:18 AM
 #311

Please, put a screenshot should look like a properly configured p2pool. which field is responsible for what? and how to view my stats? and why "recent 0.0% Shares0 {0orphan 0 dead"} ? i am try 700mh\s... 2 his 5850...

Donate me) 16f6iWHHkVEnDReeBQPT9GwCNwUfPTXrp2
Frizz23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 10:03:34 AM
 #312

Are the statistics of p2pool correct? It says : "Average time between blocks: 0.42 days". Which is about 2.4 blocks per day.

But when I check the blocks that are actually found it's more like 1.3 blocks per day.

See for yourself:

2012-02-05 : 0
2012-02-04 : 1
2012-02-03 : 0
2012-02-02 : 2
2012-02-01 : 2
2012-01-31 : 2
2012-01-30 : 2
2012-01-29 : 2
2012-01-28 : 2
2012-01-27 : 1
2012-01-26 : 0
2012-01-25 : 2
2012-01-24 : 0

Frizz23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 11:22:09 AM
 #313

Edit: Other than the last 3 days, it's been relatively average. The last three days have been a stinker.

I'd say the last 14 days have been a stinker.

Because if the statistics would be true ("Average time between blocks: 0.42 days" -> which is about 2.4 blocks per day) we should have had days like this:
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
3

Haven't seen a single 3 block day so far.

So something stinks here. Possibly not only the statistics ...

Frizz23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 11:52:41 AM
 #314

The pool has been growing over the time period you've listed.

What does that have to do it?

One block found is one block found. If the pool size is 1, 10 or 1000.

The statistics (and maybe more) is simply wrong.


flower1024
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868


luck is just a share away


View Profile
February 05, 2012, 11:56:43 AM
 #315

The pool has been growing over the time period you've listed.

What does that have to do it?

One block found is one block found. If the pool size is 1, 10 or 1000.

The statistics (and maybe more) is simply wrong.



do you know what average means?
and as holiday said: 5 blocks a day: if you see that would you still say: wrong statistics?

as you are arguing about p2pool block finding rate p2pool size does matter. it only finds every 0.42days a block because of its size. if it is smaller the number raises...

EDIT: corrected an error

EDIT:
maybe its just a misunderstanding.
the average block-find-time is not for old blocks.
it just tells you how often to expect blocks.
eja
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 12:52:02 PM
 #316

Finally another block Smiley

https://blockchain.info/block-index/859662/000000000000085b21e6ad526cbe78e75ba5f4057a734be5d641dd41bd69fde5

BTC:16iXexzgaBEMxiQTSLwqbVAfKmN8ZqBa8m - LTC:LhfzDKQzez2Mxmtd1wQWJbcp2BuWFyfCtf
YAC:YEZ6p9MgGuapGRY9CFmxep7hJ6ZH9HJ1uN - MSG:BM-2D7fEEFznM1QjGBv1h6qsiEDrtsWmrbTFm
naima53
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 01:50:51 PM
 #317

uffff. I shone the whole day to configure it. Now I will wait a few days what would compare the performance of p2poool  Cheesy

Donate me) 16f6iWHHkVEnDReeBQPT9GwCNwUfPTXrp2
m3ta
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 427



View Profile WWW
February 05, 2012, 05:42:48 PM
 #318

So something stinks here. Possibly not only the statistics ...

Indeed, your notion of "average" reeks more than cow dung.

Why the frell so many retards spell "ect" as an abbreviation of "Et Cetera"? "ETC", DAMMIT! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera

Host:/# rm -rf /var/forum/trolls
Frizz23
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
February 05, 2012, 06:31:56 PM
 #319

Indeed, your notion of "average" reeks more than cow dung.

No need to get personal.

btw ... I didn't bring in my definition of average - I only quoted the output of p2pool ("Average time between blocks: 0.42 days"). And that's just not correct.

- statistics for 2012 so far (Jan 1st ... now): 36 days / 45 blocks = 0.8 days per block (and not 0.42).
- statistics for the last couple of days would be even worse.


DiabloD3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


DiabloMiner author


View Profile WWW
February 05, 2012, 06:45:40 PM
 #320

Indeed, your notion of "average" reeks more than cow dung.

No need to get personal.

btw ... I didn't bring in my definition of average - I only quoted the output of p2pool ("Average time between blocks: 0.42 days"). And that's just not correct.

- statistics for 2012 so far (Jan 1st ... now): 36 days / 45 blocks = 0.8 days per block (and not 0.42).
- statistics for the last couple of days would be even worse.



I suspect the average is since the dawn of p2pool.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... 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!