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

[Aseras]

Past luck doesn't guarantee future luck...

Past luck dosnt affect future's luck at all...

On p2pool, it does. If all the miners leave because they think the pool sucks, and the main page says they are loosing 50% of their income by staying here, then yeah, past luck is going to ruin future luck.

Luck in CO-OPs and pools like this is decided almost as much by faith. If p2pool had enough hashrate, everything would be fine.

[stevegee58]

We need some of these big new ASIC rigs that have been making the rounds lately on BTCGuild and eligius to show up at p2pool.

Heck, 1 of them would be nice.

[rav3n_pl]

600GH total power and we all be happy.
About 3 blocks/day and every1 will want to mine in P2pool

[gyverlb]

Past luck doesn't guarantee future luck...

Past luck dosnt affect future's luck at all...

On p2pool, it does. If all the miners leave because they think the pool sucks, and the main page says they are loosing 50% of their income by staying here, then yeah, past luck is going to ruin future luck.

You are mistaking variance with luck. I used p2pool for 6 month, variance over such a period is very small even with p2pool: my payments are currently equivalent to what I would have had with ~99.8% PPS.

[Aseras]

We need some of these big new ASIC rigs that have been making the rounds lately on BTCGuild and eligius to show up at p2pool.

Heck, 1 of them would be nice.

I have a batch 1 order ( of several units ) and the same in batch 2. they'll be here as soon as they get to me and I can get them working.

[maqifrnswa]

If the last n blocks are sufficiently unlucky that for 95 runs of n block solvings out of 100 those n blocks will have required fewer shares to solve, then by definition, the next n blocks will have a 95% probability of being "luckier" than the last n blocks.

Ha, yes, if you are unlucky a lot, your next blocks are expected to be luckier than your unlucky blocks. It doesn't mean that your expected value changes, just your return compared to previous blocks. If I buy two lotto tickets, and lose the first one, my expected outcome of the second one is greater than the known result of the first one.

[organofcorti]

If the last n blocks are sufficiently unlucky that for 95 runs of n block solvings out of 100 those n blocks will have required fewer shares to solve, then by definition, the next n blocks will have a 95% probability of being "luckier" than the last n blocks.

Ha, yes, if you are unlucky a lot, your next blocks are expected to be luckier than your unlucky blocks. It doesn't mean that your expected value changes, just your return compared to previous blocks. If I buy two lotto tickets, and lose the first one, my expected outcome of the second one is greater than the known result of the first one.

Just so. I thought that's what rav3n_pl meant - when luck has been bad it is more likely to get better than worse. Not better than expected, just better.

[maqifrnswa]

Sorry, you are incorrect, since you have ignored pointing out the 2nd part of the reject issue:

The problem with 10-15% rejects is that means others on p2pool with 4-5% rejects are getting a greater proportion of each block vs their hash rate.

Yes if EVERYONE was mining at 10% rejects, then everyone would get the same proportion of income vs their hash rate.

However, those with better reject rates get a proportionately better payment rate and that extra comes from those with the worse reject rates.

That's true, and needs to be understood. Even so, I frequently am trying to explain p2pool to people that are getting just 4-5% rejects (that is, they are doing well compared to the network), and they still think they are losing money compared to other pools (when they are actually making more compared to other pools for being more efficient than others on p2pool).

All I was trying to emphasize is that reject rate on p2pool does not mean the same thing as reject rate on other pools.

[mdude77]

Seems you didn't read me, so I repeat:

Past luck doesn't guarantee future luck...

I read it.  It's still down 90+ days.  It could be luck.  Or it could be something wrong.  Those 90+ days I've been doing a lot better elsewhere, and I have every reason to believe I'll continue to do better. 

It's your money.

M

[PatMan]

No comments?

Indeed. It's also a shame, because if nothing is said or discussed about this problem P2pool will continue to lose miners and cease to exist. That would be a crying shame, because I believe it can work so much better than it is. This was my first and favorite pool, I like the idea of it very much, but at the moment - it's broken.

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

And, look where we are now.......

[maqifrnswa]

No comments?

Indeed. It's also a shame, because if nothing is said or discussed about this problem P2pool will continue to lose miners and cease to exist. That would be a crying shame, because I believe it can work so much better than it is. This was my first and favorite pool, I like the idea of it very much, but at the moment - it's broken.

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

And, look where we are now.......

Comments about what? What problem needs to be fixed? Is there a bug (besides increased variance combined with increased expected time to solve blocks)?

[mdude77]

No comments?

Indeed. It's also a shame, because if nothing is said or discussed about this problem P2pool will continue to lose miners and cease to exist. That would be a crying shame, because I believe it can work so much better than it is. This was my first and favorite pool, I like the idea of it very much, but at the moment - it's broken.

If it gets fixed, and I hope it does, I will have no problem joining it again.

And, look where we are now.......

Comments about what? What problem needs to be fixed? Is there a bug (besides increased variance combined with increased expected time to solve blocks)?

p2pool coincidentally went south after stratum support was added.  It's been down, quite a bit, since then, with no signs of coming back.

It could be all horrible luck.  But the longer it goes on, the less likely it is bad luck.

http://p2pool.info/

M

[maqifrnswa]

p2pool coincidentally went south after stratum support was added.  It's been down, quite a bit, since then, with no signs of coming back.

It could be all horrible luck.  But the longer it goes on, the less likely it is bad luck.

http://p2pool.info/

M

Thanks - my point is that it doesn't help to keep posting there is a problem without actually finding what the problem is (or if there even is a problem). It's all open source yet no one can find a problem with the code. While the luck charts make it look like something is wrong, other analysis shows that it may be working ok:

As a follow up to my last post, here's a better way of judging luck:

My point is to not assume something is wrong just because it feels wrong. It's your money, and can mine how you like - I just wanted to point out that there are no comments because as far as anyone can tell there is no problem.

[gyverlb]

I took the time to compile a guide for mining efficiently on P2Pool:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153232.0

Hope it helps. I have still some details to add but there's enough already for a first version.

[stevegee58]

I'm fixing to move back to p2pool but I want to clarify something.  Do I have to downgrade my bitcoin client to 0.7.2 from 0.8.0 before mining?  Or is it all sorted now and I can stay with 0.8.0?

[Prattler]

I'm fixing to move back to p2pool but I want to clarify something.  Do I have to downgrade my bitcoin client to 0.7.2 from 0.8.0 before mining?  Or is it all sorted now and I can stay with 0.8.0?

0.8.0 works if there is no attack. If there is an attack and another fork is induced, with 0.8.0 you'd be mining on the wrong fork.

[Aseras]

The .8 "bug" was because of people tinkering with the block sizes. A single transaction was 990kb, below the hard limit of 1mb, but above the threshold that .7 liked so .7 rejected it and .8 accepted it. That cuased the fork, for 11 subsequent blocks.

I wonder if the reason p2pool has issues is because some miners decide to try and restrict their local bitcoind block sizes. Using the settings rav3n_pl and other have posted to reduce latency.

If miners have inconsistent bitcoind setting for block sizes how does p2pool aggregate them to make a block within the shares?

Forrest?

[Prattler]

I wonder if the reason p2pool has issues is because some miners decide to try and restrict their local bitcoind block sizes. Using the settings rav3n_pl and other have posted to reduce latency.

If miners have inconsistent bitcoind setting for block sizes how does p2pool aggregate them to make a block within the shares?

P2pool miners are each making their own blocks according to their own rules, only the payment is shared.

[rav3n_pl]

I wonder if the reason p2pool has issues is because some miners decide to try and restrict their local bitcoind block sizes. Using the settings rav3n_pl and other have posted to reduce latency.

If miners have inconsistent bitcoind setting for block sizes how does p2pool aggregate them to make a block within the shares?

P2pool miners are each making their own blocks according to their own rules, only the payment is shared.

Trouble was because block was TOO BIG. Tuning block to SMALLER size can`t produce any trouble related to that bug.

[Aseras]

Right. The question is, is tuning the block sizes causing a problem with p2pool? Is that the "bug"?