Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 12:31:42 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 ... 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 [214] 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2035110 times)
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


/dev/null


View Profile
December 27, 2012, 08:18:00 PM
 #4261


ok, back to 0, heh

zvs,

would you mind trying this in you bitcoin.conf?

Code:
#Maximum size, in bytes, of blocks you create:
blockmaxsize=32768

#How many bytes of the block should be dedicated to high-priority transactions,
#included regardless of the fees they pay
blockprioritysize=4096

#Minimum block size you want to create; block will be filled with free transactions
#until there are no more or the block reaches this size:
blockminsize=8192

#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.005

This way you're mining blocks of 32kB max, you can also lower it till you find a good spot, but this way you're still helping the BTC network. Smiley

spiccioli



would this do it?

        past_shares = list(tracker.get_chain(share_data['previous_share_hash'], min(height, 100)))
        tx_hash_to_this = {}
        for i, share in enumerate(past_shares):
            for j, tx_hash in enumerate(share.new_transaction_hashes):
                if tx_hash not in tx_hash_to_this:
                    tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash] = [1+i, j] # share_count, tx_count
        for tx_hash, fee in desired_other_transaction_hashes_and_fees:
            if tx_hash in tx_hash_to_this:
                this = tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash]
            else:
                if known_txs is not None:
                    this_size = bitcoin_data.tx_type.packed_size(known_txs[tx_hash])
                    if new_transaction_size + this_size > 50000: # only allow 50 kB of new txns/share
                        break
                    new_transaction_size += this_size
                new_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash)
                this = [0, len(new_transaction_hashes)-1]
            transaction_hash_refs.extend(this)
            other_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash)


anyway, ok, i'll set it to 50000

i haven't been running merged mining, unfortunately.. i would have liked to have the 100 namecoins

merged mining would cause more DOAs, I'd think....  because you'd have to be running namecoind, ixcoind, whatever else on the same machine as bitcoind...

No, MM is solo Mode and dosnt add Orphans/DOAs.
If you find a share who is higher or equal the diff of the MM AltChains youl simply submit a block to your local daemon (namecoind here) and thats it, only BTC mining is being p2p, MM is solomode.

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
1481416302
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416302

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416302
Reply with quote  #2

1481416302
Report to moderator
1481416302
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416302

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416302
Reply with quote  #2

1481416302
Report to moderator
1481416302
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481416302

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481416302
Reply with quote  #2

1481416302
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
zvs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile WWW
December 28, 2012, 12:58:00 AM
 #4262


ok, back to 0, heh

zvs,

would you mind trying this in you bitcoin.conf?

Code:
#Maximum size, in bytes, of blocks you create:
blockmaxsize=32768

#How many bytes of the block should be dedicated to high-priority transactions,
#included regardless of the fees they pay
blockprioritysize=4096

#Minimum block size you want to create; block will be filled with free transactions
#until there are no more or the block reaches this size:
blockminsize=8192

#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.005

This way you're mining blocks of 32kB max, you can also lower it till you find a good spot, but this way you're still helping the BTC network. Smiley

spiccioli



would this do it?

        past_shares = list(tracker.get_chain(share_data['previous_share_hash'], min(height, 100)))
        tx_hash_to_this = {}
        for i, share in enumerate(past_shares):
            for j, tx_hash in enumerate(share.new_transaction_hashes):
                if tx_hash not in tx_hash_to_this:
                    tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash] = [1+i, j] # share_count, tx_count
        for tx_hash, fee in desired_other_transaction_hashes_and_fees:
            if tx_hash in tx_hash_to_this:
                this = tx_hash_to_this[tx_hash]
            else:
                if known_txs is not None:
                    this_size = bitcoin_data.tx_type.packed_size(known_txs[tx_hash])
                    if new_transaction_size + this_size > 50000: # only allow 50 kB of new txns/share
                        break
                    new_transaction_size += this_size
                new_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash)
                this = [0, len(new_transaction_hashes)-1]
            transaction_hash_refs.extend(this)
            other_transaction_hashes.append(tx_hash)


anyway, ok, i'll set it to 50000

i haven't been running merged mining, unfortunately.. i would have liked to have the 100 namecoins

merged mining would cause more DOAs, I'd think....  because you'd have to be running namecoind, ixcoind, whatever else on the same machine as bitcoind...

No, MM is solo Mode and dosnt add Orphans/DOAs.
If you find a share who is higher or equal the diff of the MM AltChains youl simply submit a block to your local daemon (namecoind here) and thats it, only BTC mining is being p2p, MM is solomode.

that's not really true (the part about how it 'doesn't add orphans or DOAs')

people started dropping i0coin because it used so much processing power.   namecoin and ixcoin do as well, to a lesser extent.   if you're dealing with a limited amount of bandwidth, it'll also add to that

there's no question that it'll make your bitcoind function slower, though

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
spiccioli
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1376

nec sine labore


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 07:30:26 AM
 #4263

Apart from this that I repeat here for all p2pool users with a standard ADSL connection

Code:
#Maximum size, in bytes, of blocks you create:
blockmaxsize=32768

#How many bytes of the block should be dedicated to high-priority transactions,
#included regardless of the fees they pay
blockprioritysize=4096

#Minimum block size you want to create; block will be filled with free transactions
#until there are no more or the block reaches this size:
blockminsize=8192

#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.005

I'd like to point out that there are p2pools users using an old version of the client

Code:
2012-12-27 11:05:30.775867 Peer 188.252.14.100:37615 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 11:06:46.966781 Peer 199.241.185.82:34124 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 10:06:29.635862 Peer 38.102.67.75:35397 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 15:08:09.930458 Peer 46.105.236.77:34589 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 15:39:22.661182 Peer 67.5.89.140:35547 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-28 04:32:45.287181 Peer 68.102.86.156:33805 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old

Please, update your code! Smiley

spiccioli
zvs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile WWW
December 28, 2012, 08:09:35 AM
 #4264

2012-12-27 11:05:30.775867 Peer 188.252.14.100:37615 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 11:06:46.966781 Peer 199.241.185.82:34124 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 10:06:29.635862 Peer 38.102.67.75:35397 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 15:08:09.930458 Peer 46.105.236.77:34589 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-27 15:39:22.661182 Peer 67.5.89.140:35547 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old
2012-12-28 04:32:45.287181 Peer 68.102.86.156:33805 misbehaving, will drop and ban. Reason: peer too old

LoL, I just checked out one of them:

http://199.241.185.82:9332/static/

you go PoN!

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 09:34:55 AM
 #4265

Apart from this that I repeat here for all p2pool users with a standard ADSL connection

Code:
#Maximum size, in bytes, of blocks you create:
blockmaxsize=32768

#How many bytes of the block should be dedicated to high-priority transactions,
#included regardless of the fees they pay
blockprioritysize=4096

#Minimum block size you want to create; block will be filled with free transactions
#until there are no more or the block reaches this size:
blockminsize=8192

#Fee-per-kilobyte amount (in BTC) considered the same as "free"
#Be careful setting this: if you set it to zero then
#a transaction spammer can cheaply fill blocks using
#1-satoshi-fee transactions. It should be set above the real
#cost to you of processing a transaction.
mintxfee=0.005

...

Please, update your code! Smiley

spiccioli

WTF?

Are you trying to tell everyone that p2pool users are BAD for bitcoin and suggesting they should configure p2pool to be BAD for bitcoin?!?

i.e. if their hardware sux, solve it by restricting BTC block sizes?!?

Sounds like p2pool is a bad idea for bitcoin since people are doing this.

Limiting transaction sizes to 32k means non-p2pool pools are WAY better for bitcoin that p2pool.
I guess everyone now has another reason to avoid p2pool ... with a standard pool we can know what the pool is setting for ALL blocks,
but with p2pool it looks like there are people who are GREATLY restricting the transaction size due to having crappy setups.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
spiccioli
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1376

nec sine labore


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 10:23:34 AM
 #4266

WTF?

Are you trying to tell everyone that p2pool users are BAD for bitcoin and suggesting they should configure p2pool to be BAD for bitcoin?!?

i.e. if their hardware sux, solve it by restricting BTC block sizes?!?

Sounds like p2pool is a bad idea for bitcoin since people are doing this.

Limiting transaction sizes to 32k means non-p2pool pools are WAY better for bitcoin that p2pool.
I guess everyone now has another reason to avoid p2pool ... with a standard pool we can know what the pool is setting for ALL blocks,
but with p2pool it looks like there are people who are GREATLY restricting the transaction size due to having crappy setups.

kano,

there are two issues here:

  • users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
  • users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.


I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not.

I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions.

spiccioli

edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones.
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 10:58:21 AM
 #4267

WTF?

Are you trying to tell everyone that p2pool users are BAD for bitcoin and suggesting they should configure p2pool to be BAD for bitcoin?!?

i.e. if their hardware sux, solve it by restricting BTC block sizes?!?

Sounds like p2pool is a bad idea for bitcoin since people are doing this.

Limiting transaction sizes to 32k means non-p2pool pools are WAY better for bitcoin that p2pool.
I guess everyone now has another reason to avoid p2pool ... with a standard pool we can know what the pool is setting for ALL blocks,
but with p2pool it looks like there are people who are GREATLY restricting the transaction size due to having crappy setups.

kano,

there are two issues here:

  • users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
  • users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.


I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not.

I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions.

spiccioli

edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones.

But your restriction says it is better for BTC, for people to mine on any of the big pools like OzCoin, EMC, BTC Guild, etc since they include more transactions in their blocks, and BTC is about committing transactions.

Setting a restriction on transaction size because the pool sux, is not good for BTC it is BAD for BTC.

Luke-Jr did this with Eligius for about 5 or 6 months - his restriction was even worse though, a maximum of 32 transactions per block.

Sorry, there's no argument for doing it other than "I want to be paid more per transaction than the big pools are paid"
There is NO "good for BTC" anywhere in that statement, only "BAD for BTC"

This is again, why I'd like an on-going report about block sizes based on pools - i.e. show which pools are best for BTC - and this argument clearly says p2pool isn't.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
K1773R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


/dev/null


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 11:08:42 AM
 #4268

WTF?

Are you trying to tell everyone that p2pool users are BAD for bitcoin and suggesting they should configure p2pool to be BAD for bitcoin?!?

i.e. if their hardware sux, solve it by restricting BTC block sizes?!?

Sounds like p2pool is a bad idea for bitcoin since people are doing this.

Limiting transaction sizes to 32k means non-p2pool pools are WAY better for bitcoin that p2pool.
I guess everyone now has another reason to avoid p2pool ... with a standard pool we can know what the pool is setting for ALL blocks,
but with p2pool it looks like there are people who are GREATLY restricting the transaction size due to having crappy setups.

kano,

there are two issues here:

  • users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
  • users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.


I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not.

I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions.

spiccioli

edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones.

But your restriction says it is better for BTC, for people to mine on any of the big pools like OzCoin, EMC, BTC Guild, etc since they include more transactions in their blocks, and BTC is about committing transactions.

Setting a restriction on transaction size because the pool sux, is not good for BTC it is BAD for BTC.

Luke-Jr did this with Eligius for about 5 or 6 months - his restriction was even worse though, a maximum of 32 transactions per block.

Sorry, there's no argument for doing it other than "I want to be paid more per transaction than the big pools are paid"
There is NO "good for BTC" anywhere in that statement, only "BAD for BTC"

This is again, why I'd like an on-going report about block sizes based on pools - i.e. show which pools are best for BTC - and this argument clearly says p2pool isn't.
u get this totaly wrong, some guys did limit it but usualy bitcoind dosnt limit transactions! p2pool itself includes every transactions (even these without fees).
if you would use these bitcoind settings for a centralized pool, the pool would suck too (like Eligius) but this isnt the pools software fault, its the faulty settings u set in ur bitcoind configuration.

[GPG Public Key]  [Devcoin Builds]  [BBQCoin Builds]  [Multichain Blockexplorer]  [Multichain Blockexplorer - PoS Coins]  [Ufasoft Miner Linux Builds]
BTC/DVC/TRC/FRC: 1K1773RbXRZVRQSSXe9N6N2MUFERvrdu6y ANC/XPM AK1773RTmRKtvbKBCrUu95UQg5iegrqyeA NMC: NK1773Rzv8b4ugmCgX789PbjewA9fL9Dy1 LTC: LKi773RBuPepQH8E6Zb1ponoCvgbU7hHmd EMC: EK1773RxUes1HX1YAGMZ1xVYBBRUCqfDoF BQC: bK1773R1APJz4yTgRkmdKQhjhiMyQpJgfN
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 11:14:04 AM
 #4269

kano,

there are two issues here:

  • users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
  • users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.


I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not.

I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions.

spiccioli

edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones.

just fyi, my "standard ADSL" connection has 768k up.

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.
zvs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile WWW
December 28, 2012, 11:17:16 AM
 #4270

kano,

there are two issues here:

  • users of p2pool with older versions of the client code, these are the ones that need to upgrade
  • users of p2pool which have a standard ADSL and as such need to restrict block size since a 1 MB block that needs to be pushed out through a 64kB ADSL upstream connection can take a long time, even more so if it has to be sent to 50 different nodes.


I don't think that restricting block size is detrimental, I, as a miner, can decide what to include and what not.

I coud, for example, leave unrestricted block size but ask for a 0.01 BTC fee and decide not to process fee-less transactions.

spiccioli

edit: ps. btw, my configuration reserves some space for fee-less transactions and high-priority ones.

just fyi, my "standard ADSL" connection has 768k up.

M

I live in a rural area and the best option here until 2 yrs ago was cable that was limited to 256kbps upstream....  that was called the 'business package'

actually, if you're trying to sling around 200kb blocks to multiple peers, the best option in that case I guess would be to just eat close to a second of latency from satellite.... well, if you can get satellite

i could in texas!       (not wireless in this area tho, hah)

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
spiccioli
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1376

nec sine labore


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 11:23:08 AM
 #4271

kano,

IMHO the only good thing for bitcoin are:

- distribution, p2pool envisions the original idea of a distributed network
- fees should in the end replace block reward.

mining has different costs in different parts of the world and not everyone can have a T1 at his/her home.

So, restricting block size/imposing a fee are legal ways to handle such differences.

If a p2pool user has a fiber connection, for example, he could mine a much bigger block.

BTW, if you see here

http://blockchain.info/blocks

you'll find out that block sizes can be a lot lower than 32 kB even for big pools.

spiccioli
spiccioli
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1376

nec sine labore


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 11:33:42 AM
 #4272


just fyi, my "standard ADSL" connection has 768k up.

M

mdude77,

I was talking about 64kB (or 640 kbits ), so it really makes little difference if you have a 200kB block to send around.

spiccioli
forrestv
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 510


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 04:41:11 PM
 #4273

Complete blocks are never sent over the P2Pool network; the most you should ever have to burst upload when you get a share is ~2kB to every peer. If decreasing the block size helps your stale rate, it's more likely a latency issue within the P2Pool codebase that can be fixed, instead of a result of your internet connection.

zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
Local rate: 7.74GH/s (7.2% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0917 hours
Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours

that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large?  it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
Having every single share orphaned is a sign of bitcoind being broken or some other misconfiguration, not any fixable latency. Did reducing maxblocksize to 0 help?

BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.

1J1zegkNSbwX4smvTdoHSanUfwvXFeuV23
rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1320


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile
December 28, 2012, 07:38:03 PM
 #4274

TRC pool is forked?
I`m playing witch some changes in code on windows, and when I delete shares graph shows pool rate as about 600MH then after few minutes drop to less than 200.
From my linux node it seems that I`m inly active TRC miner ~150MH + 2 or 3 users that make about 50MH total.
I also see total 4-5 nodes tops.

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
My SatoshDice bot https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897685
-ck
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
December 29, 2012, 03:47:49 AM
 #4275

BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
Great. I just released a new version of cgminer, 2.10.4, as a hotfix to ensure it works with p2pool stratum.

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

Activity: 2100



View Profile
December 29, 2012, 06:08:38 AM
 #4276

BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
Great. I just released a new version of cgminer, 2.10.4, as a hotfix to ensure it works with p2pool stratum.
FWIW, the cgminer problem here was fixed in BFGMiner 2.9.2 (Nov 5, 2012), so there should be no need for a new version to use p2pool + stratum.

kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
December 29, 2012, 07:19:24 AM
 #4277

BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.
Great. I just released a new version of cgminer, 2.10.4, as a hotfix to ensure it works with p2pool stratum.
FWIW, the cgminer problem here was fixed in BFGMiner 2.9.2 (Nov 5, 2012), so there should be no need for a new version to use p2pool + stratum.
IW zero

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
kitsura
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 22


View Profile
December 29, 2012, 12:54:43 PM
 #4278

My incoming peer has always been 0. Any cause for concern?
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
December 29, 2012, 01:42:36 PM
 #4279

My incoming peer has always been 0. Any cause for concern?

That means you aren't forwarding the p2pool port from your firewall.  Probably okay.

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.
zvs
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386



View Profile WWW
December 29, 2012, 03:43:53 PM
 #4280

Complete blocks are never sent over the P2Pool network; the most you should ever have to burst upload when you get a share is ~2kB to every peer. If decreasing the block size helps your stale rate, it's more likely a latency issue within the P2Pool codebase that can be fixed, instead of a result of your internet connection.

zvs, what kind of hardware were you running P2Pool on when you got this?
Local rate: 7.74GH/s (7.2% DOA) Expected time to share: 0.0917 hours
Shares: 31 total (28 orphaned, 3 dead) Efficiency: 0.000%
Payout if a block were found NOW: 0.49253475 BTC to 1Zevusze7BjTpp4srJhx4zkRBxpbgwU4A. Expected after mining for 24 hours: 0.664 BTC
Current block value: 26.55448192 BTC Expected time to block: 11.5 hours

that's fancy
i'm guessing it's because the size of my blocks are too large?  it looks like it's running 900KB atm.
ok, back to 0, heh...
Having every single share orphaned is a sign of bitcoind being broken or some other misconfiguration, not any fixable latency. Did reducing maxblocksize to 0 help?

BTW, Stratum support is finished and will be released later today.

Yeah, but to do so I had to restart bitcoind.   So it could very well have been something wrong with the bitcoind->p2pool connection....  couldn't see how it could be bitcoind itself, since it was still reporting everything as normal...

The blocksize was at around 900KB, I thought maybe that might be the issue... although I doubt it was so high for 2 hours

Dacentec, best deals for US dedicated servers. They regularly restock $20-$25 Opterons with 8-16GB RAM & 2x1-2TB HDD's (ofc, usually lots of other good stuff to choose from).  I did a Serverbear benchmark of one of my $20/mo Opteron (June last year), it's here.  Have had about a half dozen different servers with Dacentec, & none have failed to sustain at least 40MB/s (burst higher). My favorite is a 12-month rent-to-own ZT Systems 2XL5520 16GB 2x2TB SATA for $40/month (got lucky with the 'off-brand', haven't seen a RTO 2xL5520 for under $50/mo since -- at least for monthly contracts).  wholesaleinternet.com has some ancient 2-core intel CPUs @ $10/mo sometimes (I got an Intel Core 2 6300 @ 1.86GHz, with a 250GB HDD with 46000 hours on it, LOL. $20 @ Dacentec is much better, if you can grab one). joesdatacenter.com (same location as Wholesale Internet) also occasionally has specials (or if you don't want to wait, it has an AMD Opteron 170 @ $16/mo).
Pages: « 1 ... 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 [214] 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 ... 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!