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

[zvs]

Probably not, since setting up ASICs isn't like setting up a GPU farm 

It's much easier to pay someone some fee rather than actually figure out how p2pool works (omg, how come i'm not getting paid when i've been mining for 3 hrs at 5ghash and block was found?? wtfz)

i suspect to your 'average' user, it's just a bunch of jibber jabber

[1714264057]

1714264057

[1714264057]

1714264057

[-ck]

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

[IYFTech]

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

Agreed, but pool software should be able to adapt to newer hardware - which p2pool does not do. Other pools adapt - that's why they are more successful/bigger.

[HellDiverUK]

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

Agreed, but pool software should be able to adapt to newer hardware - which p2pool does not do. Other pools adapt - that's why they are more successful/bigger.

Exactly.  I can point my Blades to any other pool, be it one with a getwork interface, or any stratum pool via a stratum proxy, and guess what?  It works.  ONLY p2pool shit's it's lips when presented an ASICMiner (or KnC it seems).

As usual, ck, you're skirting round an issue and making excuses, rather than fixing the issue - amazing as it isn't even YOUR issue this time...

[gnar1ta$]

You all realize you are also losing work on traditional pools with KNC right?  Watch your hash rate when new work is pushed, and then check all the bad work it sent off to the pool - especially if you are set to variable difficulty work.  New work is pushed more often with p2pool so it has a greater effect.  P2pool works fine, the hardware companies don't.  Try demanding quality products for the thousands of $'s you spend instead of bashing the free software developed by people volunteering their time. 

[IYFTech]

Dude, all software is free, weather it's pool or miner software. All are open to constructive criticism & all rely on donations , the devs rely on donations to further develop the software. People donate to p2pool when they use it (knowingly or otherwise), but the development is not happening.

Stating facts & indulging in constructive criticism is not "bashing" the software, don't be so touchy 

[gnar1ta$]

I think you are being touchy.  I'm not seeing the criticism of the hardware companies where people are spending thousands of $, not by donation.  P2pol was changed from 10 second work to 30 second work to help ASIC miners.  The ASIC companies responded by making their hardware worse, that's my constructive criticism.    to you too.

[-ck]

The fault lay with the hardware manufacturers, not p2pool, as p2pool was around long before they started making their ASICs. If all the newer hardware follows the same pattern, things will only improve, and old hardware becomes irrelevant very fast in this world anyway.

Agreed, but pool software should be able to adapt to newer hardware - which p2pool does not do. Other pools adapt - that's why they are more successful/bigger.

Exactly.  I can point my Blades to any other pool, be it one with a getwork interface, or any stratum pool via a stratum proxy, and guess what?  It works.  ONLY p2pool shit's it's lips when presented an ASICMiner (or KnC it seems).

As usual, ck, you're skirting round an issue and making excuses, rather than fixing the issue - amazing as it isn't even YOUR issue this time...

I posted some good news about upcoming hardware and p2pool and you shat on it and turned it into an argument against me. Good work. It gets tiring having you go around dissing the effort I put in just because you support a hostile fork. I don't recall personal attacks against you to make you to take sides with such an aggressive stance. You don't like my software and its approach or p2pool, don't use it, but don't expend so much energy putting down other people's hard work. There's a big difference between constructive criticism and just plain bashing. You want to flame? Take it elsewhere, this is the p2pool thread.

To forrestv's credit, he made a LOT of changes leading into the ASIC era, like beefing up stratum support, variable difficulty, clamping down on memory leaks and the longer blocks. There is ALWAYS more work to be done when the landscape is changing so fast in the bitcoin mining world, but it's clear the manufacturers till now have not put p2pool on their radar at all.

[rav3n_pl]

OMG what a flamer.
The ONLY trouble that HARDWARE has witch P2pool is that LP/work reset is making HARDWARE to stop hashing for like 10 sec, or HARDWARE is IGNORING LP/WR signals at all.
ANY thing that ckolivas or forrestv do will NOT help if HARDWARE is NOT working witch STANDARDS that are around like YEAR or more.
BE BLADE is working ONLY on diff=1 and are IGNORING LP signals.
KNC stuff are FREEZING for like 10sec every LP it got.
How our devs can fight that? Where we NOT have ANY access to BEB soft, and KNC just published miner sources few days ago... not even on git... Still if this is HARDWARE issue we cant do NOTHING to make those wrong designed ASICS to work properly on P2pool.

[HellDiverUK]

How our devs can fight that?

Well, I'm coming back to the "they work with other pools". 

I've donated to p2pool plenty - I left the author donation on, and I even sent BTC - but nothing has been done in ages.  p2pool really is becoming a still-birth. It's not 2012, people aren't mining with GPUs any more.
 
I know I'm only a low-scale miner (30GH, soon 50GH), but I'm not using p2pool because it doesn't work with my hardware, even when I mine to p2pool through a proxy.  OK, it's only 30GH, but if I'm giving up on the pool, what are the chances of new users going to the bother of setting up a machine, only to find it doesn't work?  Nil.

p2pool's continued EXISTENCE relies on it being able to cope with the current and future ASIC miners, no matter what retarded firmware on them does. 

[HellDiverUK]

It gets tiring having you go around dissing the effort I put in just because you support a hostile fork. I don't recall personal attacks against you to make you to take sides with such an aggressive stance. You don't like my software and its approach or p2pool, don't use it, but don't expend so much energy putting down other people's hard work. There's a big difference between constructive criticism and just plain bashing. You want to flame? Take it elsewhere, this is the p2pool thread.

To forrestv's credit, he made a LOT of changes leading into the ASIC era, like beefing up stratum support, variable difficulty, clamping down on memory leaks and the longer blocks. There is ALWAYS more work to be done when the landscape is changing so fast in the bitcoin mining world, but it's clear the manufacturers till now have not put p2pool on their radar at all.

To be fair, ck, you're not exactly Mr Carisma.  If you say bfgminer is a hostile fork, then I pose the notion that you're a hostile developer.   

The author(s) of the Other Miner(tm) have added a lot of stuff that is genuinely useful, recently (getwork and stratum proxy built in, nicer user interface, more useful stats on the screen, author provided OpenWRT build, etc).   I still loath your decision to go with WinUSB - the hotplug thing is pointless, and the WinUSB stuff just adds a layer of complication that isn't needed.  He also answers questions in his thread, rather than your stock "README  " answers you seem to give. 

OK, so forrestv has made some changes, but I don't see any recent changes, or even any discussion of changes in the pipeline.  I'm thinking he's sitting somewhere with fingers in ears singing "la la la la" in a loud voice.  I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[organofcorti]

<snip>
To be fair, ck, you're not exactly Mr Carisma.  If you say bfgminer is a hostile fork, then I pose the notion that you're a hostile developer.   
<snip>

While this was about miners, I wasn't keen to weigh in since I never used p2Pool and I haven't mined for ages.

But if you're going to judge development by charisma, let me provide some anecdotal evidence: Con has always been polite to me and taken the time to explain things I didn't understand. OTOH Luke-Jr has been rude and hostile to my questions (which started out respectful and polite, and became less so the more responses I got from him).

I'm sure there are hostile developers. Con isn't one of them.

[rav3n_pl]

OK, so forrestv has made some changes, but I don't see any recent changes, or even any discussion of changes in the pipeline.  I'm thinking he's sitting somewhere with fingers in ears singing "la la la la" in a loud voice.  I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Looks like you re missing ROOT of the trouble. As one and only DECENTRALIZED pool P2pool has to manage some way to keep track of work done by miners and calculate payout in way, that cannot be forged, stolen or broken in any way. Bitcoin block chain is the way. P2pool is using 30 seconds blocks (shares) to keep track of work done by miners and allow every node to correctly calculate payout to all miners in SAME way. This is why we have LP/WR signal every 30s. In "normal" (centralized) pools this is done on one machine and LP is only on block change in bitcoin network - about every ~10 minutes.
So miner that is trying to mine on P2pool and freezing for ~10s every LP is "missing" ~30% of time. Miner that need ~10s to compute one WU and is also ignoring LP has 30% doa.
This is NOT P2pool fault but badly coded/designed miners. LP spec is there like 2 years now, so I not see ANY explanation for miner designers that they NOT implementing it in proper way.
Same is for stratum and vardiff that IS implemented in P2pool. If miner is NOT using it why blame pool?

[kano]

It gets tiring having you go around dissing the effort I put in just because you support a hostile fork. I don't recall personal attacks against you to make you to take sides with such an aggressive stance. You don't like my software and its approach or p2pool, don't use it, but don't expend so much energy putting down other people's hard work. There's a big difference between constructive criticism and just plain bashing. You want to flame? Take it elsewhere, this is the p2pool thread.

To forrestv's credit, he made a LOT of changes leading into the ASIC era, like beefing up stratum support, variable difficulty, clamping down on memory leaks and the longer blocks. There is ALWAYS more work to be done when the landscape is changing so fast in the bitcoin mining world, but it's clear the manufacturers till now have not put p2pool on their radar at all.

To be fair, ck, you're not exactly Mr Carisma.  If you say bfgminer is a hostile fork, then I pose the notion that you're a hostile developer.   

I'd suggest you learn English.

The author(s) of the Other Miner(tm) have added a lot of stuff that is genuinely useful, recently (getwork and stratum proxy built in, nicer user interface, more useful stats on the screen, author provided OpenWRT build, etc).   I still loath your decision to go with WinUSB - the hotplug thing is pointless, and the WinUSB stuff just adds a layer of complication that isn't needed.  He also answers questions in his thread, rather than your stock "README  " answers you seem to give. 

So in your opinion hotplug is pointless - well I'm glad we got that clear.
Your opinion of hotplug is indeed just that and no more.

As for your master you praise - you forgot to mention that he extorts payments in IRC ... yes acolyte - continue your blind faith.
You think there might be a reason he was voted LAST at the Bitcoin Foundation election and got less than half the votes of 2nd last?
https://electionbuddy.com/elections/9787/results/pqdyb3n39
Though the difference between 1st and 2nd last wasn't very large.

OK, so forrestv has made some changes, but I don't see any recent changes, or even any discussion of changes in the pipeline.  I'm thinking he's sitting somewhere with fingers in ears singing "la la la la" in a loud voice.  I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Also learn about the design of p2pool and a whole new term for you to read up about ... LP ... and what the actual problem is with crap hardware design like the KFC.
The KFC has a 10s idle on LP
If that is beyond your understanding of what the problem is then I guess you've made it clear your argument is worth jack shit.

[HellDiverUK]

The author(s) of the Other Miner(tm) have added a lot of stuff that is genuinely useful, recently (getwork and stratum proxy built in, nicer user interface, more useful stats on the screen, author provided OpenWRT build, etc).   I still loath your decision to go with WinUSB - the hotplug thing is pointless, and the WinUSB stuff just adds a layer of complication that isn't needed.  He also answers questions in his thread, rather than your stock "README  " answers you seem to give. 

So in your opinion hotplug is pointless - well I'm glad we got that clear.
Your opinion of hotplug is indeed just that and no more.

And again, you pick up on the least important part of my post.  I've bolded the important parts for the hard of thinking.   

But, yeah, about the hot plug - who the hell unplugs their miners?  Mine are plugged in 24/7, mining 24/7.  Only time mine aren't mining is on the very rare occasion I'm rebooting the host PC.  Going by the "post your rig" threads, I think I'm in the majority group who mine the hell out of their machines, and aren't unplugging their miners willy-nilly.

[IYFTech]

While this was about miners, I wasn't keen to weigh in since I never used p2Pool and I haven't mined for ages.

But if you're going to judge development by charisma, let me provide some anecdotal evidence: Con has always been polite to me and taken the time to explain things I didn't understand. OTOH Luke-Jr has been rude and hostile to my questions (which started out respectful and polite, and became less so the more responses I got from him).

I'm sure there are hostile developers. Con isn't one of them.

+1

Seems to be a bit of a shitstorm going on here.

Guys, whatever your feelings are towards other forum members - personal attacks are uncalled for & just not cool.

Can we keep it clean & on-topic por favor?  

Edit: For the record, I'm a cgm man all the way - always have been & always will be 

[kano]

...
And again, you pick up on the least important part of my post.  I've bolded the important parts for the hard of thinking.   
...

Lulz. Funny how I seemed to list a number of things in my reply that you ignored

This thread is about p2pool.
But as I said in my reply to you that you completely ignored most of,
you're arguing in here about p2pool fail - yet you don't even understand the design of p2pool or why it works that way.

The hardware issue is simply hardware designed badly - problems that can easily be avoided.

These companies have ignored input about what should be done and gone ahead and made blunders.
To help with this, forrestv has changed p2ool to help deal with some of these more blatant hardware design flaws.

Seriously, the KFC miner effectively stops mining for 10s every LP.
Who but an idiot or BTC ignorant hardware designer would do something like that.
You can't get around that with p2pool, but you can avoid making your miner go idle in the hardware design ... as anyone, not ignorant of how BTC in general works, would do.

The basic design of p2pool is a sub chain of BTC.
That design is actually what will be required in the future for BTC to continue or it will die.
It won't be p2pool, but the concept is indeed what BTC will require to grow beyond it's rather blatant, current limitations.
... and it's nothing new about how to design the correct hardware, the problem is we have BTC noobs, who think they are know it alls, who then go and design hardware with totally fail mistakes, that are unnecessary and obvious to avoid.

[HellDiverUK]

Agreed, sorry, I went in a 'big kid who lost his lolly' crusade to OffTopicLand. 

I also apologise for being a TAUC towards kano and ck - there's no need for it, even though I disagree with their choice of USB drivers, they're still producing one of the top-two mining programs, without which BTC wouldn't be where it is now.

I hope you accept my apologies.

[ok]

Got a couple of ASICMiner Erupter blades running smoothly on p2pool for quite sometime now.
No need for proxy. Just configure yourusername+1 on the blade soft (note the +1 at the end to maintain the correct p2pool difficulty).
Results are actually better than obtained at other pools. The high DOA rate for these blades does not affect final results which are inline with the expected total payout.

A feature that will be more than welcome on p2pool will be a way to mitigate DDOS attacks that happen every couple of weeks or so. I had to block quite a few IPs on the firewall -many from Indonesia- . These IPs come and visit you node hundreds of times per second until they take it down. This forces to restart p2pool and block the attacking IPs on the firewall. Some kind of protection inside p2pool will be very welcome.

[walf_man]

avalon with 100G, but p2pool show 80G
why?  how to fix it?
thanks a lot to your reply.