Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 10:55:28 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 [359] 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2034581 times)
TierNolan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
December 13, 2013, 11:38:57 AM
 #7161

Wouldn't it be possible in theory (if the system is changed a bit, I understand that) to create a P2Pool for P2Pool and so on, building a hierarchy of networks, which allow even smaller rates?  It probably would not be worth the effort just to make it usable to small miners, I guess.

The problem with hierarchical p2pool is that the system assumes you can pay to multiple addresses from the coin base.

When you win a share with p2pool, you tell the system what address you want to pay to.

When anyone finds a share that is good enough for bitcoin itself, then that blocks pays out to the most recent N p2pool shareholders.

This tends to lead to lots of small payouts.

To run a 2nd level p2pool, you would do the same.

blocks -> bitcoin main chain blocks
shares -> p2pool shares
share-lites -> 2nd level shares

The share-lites would be a 2nd level of p2pool.  If someone produces a share-lite that meets the actual p2pool share difficulty, then they are supposed to share that share with the last N share-lite share holders.

The problem is that p2pool doesn't let you specify a list of payout addresses.

If it did, then there would be a very large number of shareholders when a block is finally found.  Many miners would end up with dust payments.

The way centralised pools do it is that they don't pay out to all miners for every block.  They combine lots of your (small) payouts into a single payment.  You could say that you want payments only if you are owed at least 0.01BTC.

P2pool has no central authority, so it can't store payments like that, in order to combine them.

It could do some smoothing by storing some debt in the sharechain itself.  If you are skipped from payment, you are paid when the next block arrives.  Getting that algorithm right is hard.  If the pool stops working, then some people will end up not being paid.  Maybe donors could donate money to the sharechain, so it has a pool of cash.

1LxbG5cKXzTwZg9mjL3gaRE835uNQEteWF
1481367328
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367328

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367328
Reply with quote  #2

1481367328
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481367328
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367328

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367328
Reply with quote  #2

1481367328
Report to moderator
1481367328
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367328

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367328
Reply with quote  #2

1481367328
Report to moderator
1481367328
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367328

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367328
Reply with quote  #2

1481367328
Report to moderator
domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 937


View Profile WWW
December 13, 2013, 12:32:17 PM
 #7162

It could do some smoothing by storing some debt in the sharechain itself.  If you are skipped from payment, you are paid when the next block arrives.  Getting that algorithm right is hard.  If the pool stops working, then some people will end up not being paid.  Maybe donors could donate money to the sharechain, so it has a pool of cash.

Yes, I think that's basically what would be required:  Some kind of "P2Pool coin", where you can build up a balance in P2Pool until it is worth to issue a Bitcoin payment.  Without thinking about it further it seems as if this should be possible technically to get right in a decentralised manner somehow, but I understand that this is probably way too much effort and complication for its benefit.

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
TierNolan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
December 13, 2013, 01:27:34 PM
 #7163

Yes, I think that's basically what would be required:  Some kind of "P2Pool coin", where you can build up a balance in P2Pool until it is worth to issue a Bitcoin payment.  Without thinking about it further it seems as if this should be possible technically to get right in a decentralised manner somehow, but I understand that this is probably way too much effort and complication for its benefit.

P2pool doesn't have a genesis block exactly, so there is a risk that the chain would be replaced and miners would lose their stored money.  The trick is to keep that incentive low.

1LxbG5cKXzTwZg9mjL3gaRE835uNQEteWF
kwukduck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1566


View Profile
December 13, 2013, 04:12:56 PM
 #7164

I've been mining at p2pool for months now, without problems, but over the past week i've seen my payout plummet, today it has arrived at 0.00000.
The console tells me everything is fine, it's connected to both bitcoin and the peers, it's running at X GH/s steady, shares are being accepted and i have it running 24/7, yet it tells me 'current payout: 0.00000'.

Whats going on here?

14b8PdeWLqK3yi3PrNHMmCvSmvDEKEBh3E
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
December 13, 2013, 04:46:05 PM
 #7165

I've been mining at p2pool for months now, without problems, but over the past week i've seen my payout plummet, today it has arrived at 0.00000.
The console tells me everything is fine, it's connected to both bitcoin and the peers, it's running at X GH/s steady, shares are being accepted and i have it running 24/7, yet it tells me 'current payout: 0.00000'.

Whats going on here?

Your hashrate is not capable of keeping a share active at all times.  See "Expected time to share:"

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
kwukduck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1566


View Profile
December 13, 2013, 05:09:00 PM
 #7166

I've been mining at p2pool for months now, without problems, but over the past week i've seen my payout plummet, today it has arrived at 0.00000.
The console tells me everything is fine, it's connected to both bitcoin and the peers, it's running at X GH/s steady, shares are being accepted and i have it running 24/7, yet it tells me 'current payout: 0.00000'.

Whats going on here?

Your hashrate is not capable of keeping a share active at all times.  See "Expected time to share:"

Hmm seems you're right, expected time to share 9.5 hours.
Any idea what could cause this, or better yet, how to resolve the issue?
I'm using a bfl single. cgminer tells me shares get accepted continuously but the p2pool console says 0 shares.

14b8PdeWLqK3yi3PrNHMmCvSmvDEKEBh3E
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
December 13, 2013, 05:57:38 PM
 #7167

Resolve it?  Just wait.  Maybe check the graphs to make sure your miner graphs are mostly blue and not red.

A share reported by your miner is not the same as a p2pool share.

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
December 14, 2013, 10:37:16 AM
 #7168

OK, can't afford to keep the node running or mining at p2pool any longer with the current lack of shares issue for smaller (70Gig?) miners - so the node is off for good I'm afraid. It was fun while it lasted though. Maybe if there's a change to the program I'll switch on again, we'll see.......

Adios  Smiley

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile
December 14, 2013, 05:47:03 PM
 #7169

I'm not sure what your issue is there. Low hash-rate miners won't be paid in every single block— once their rate is low enough that they don't constantly have a share in the window, but when they do get paid you'll be "overpaid" and as a result there returns will be as expected on average.
Schleicher
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630



View Profile
December 14, 2013, 06:04:44 PM
 #7170

Low hash-rate miners won't be paid in every single block
Lol, yeah, that's true:
Quote
Local rate: 322MH/s (0.0% DOA) Expected time to share: 63.5 days
If we have bad luck it will be half a year.

Bitcoin donations: 1H2BHSyuwLP9vqt2p3bK9G3mDJsAi7qChw
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


WANTED: Active dev to fix & re-write p2pool in C


View Profile
December 14, 2013, 06:50:12 PM
 #7171

I'm not sure what your issue is there. Low hash-rate miners won't be paid in every single block— once their rate is low enough that they don't constantly have a share in the window, but when they do get paid you'll be "overpaid" and as a result there returns will be as expected on average.

I wouldn't call 70+gig a low rate miner - not yet anyway. I just got tired of watching blocks fly by without finding shares, therefore no payments. It's false economy.

But I don't have an issue with it, I'll use my hash rate on another pool, one that pays for the work  Wink

-- Smiley  Thank you for smoking  Smiley --  If you paid VAT to dogie for items you should read this thread:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018906.0
Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591



View Profile WWW
December 14, 2013, 08:02:42 PM
 #7172

Low hash-rate miners won't be paid in every single block
Lol, yeah, that's true:
Quote
Local rate: 322MH/s (0.0% DOA) Expected time to share: 63.5 days
If we have bad luck it will be half a year.
I wouldn't call that a "low hashrate" miner. That's more of a micro hashrate.

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
December 15, 2013, 02:55:39 PM
 #7173

I'm not sure what your issue is there. Low hash-rate miners won't be paid in every single block— once their rate is low enough that they don't constantly have a share in the window, but when they do get paid you'll be "overpaid" and as a result there returns will be as expected on average.

I wouldn't call 70+gig a low rate miner - not yet anyway. I just got tired of watching blocks fly by without finding shares, therefore no payments. It's false economy.

But I don't have an issue with it, I'll use my hash rate on another pool, one that pays for the work  Wink

I think what you mean is: "I'll use my hash rate on another pool, one that pays less for the work at a commensurately lower share threshold, and I'll end up with the same amount of reward long term  Wink"

Vires in numeris
ksenter
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 90


View Profile
December 15, 2013, 05:17:49 PM
 #7174

It is,  however, really disheartening to get 0 accepted shares for days.  My expected time to share is 15.4 hours but it's been days since I got one.  I did get an orphaned share a couple of days ago.  I can't really complain too much because the prior week I was getting shares way more frequent than the expected time to share.  But it still sucks watching it sit at 0 for so long...
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 941



View Profile
December 15, 2013, 05:25:17 PM
 #7175

I'm not sure what your issue is there. Low hash-rate miners won't be paid in every single block— once their rate is low enough that they don't constantly have a share in the window, but when they do get paid you'll be "overpaid" and as a result there returns will be as expected on average.

I wouldn't call 70+gig a low rate miner - not yet anyway. I just got tired of watching blocks fly by without finding shares, therefore no payments. It's false economy.

But I don't have an issue with it, I'll use my hash rate on another pool, one that pays for the work  Wink

I think what you mean is: "I'll use my hash rate on another pool, one that pays less for the work at a commensurately lower share threshold, and I'll end up with the same amount of reward long term  Wink"

I think what he is really saying is "I want to mine on a pool that has less variance for me."  Seems like a reasonable move to me.  Solo mining also pays the same in the long run, but most people mine on pools to reduce variance.

Also, some other pools also have no fees, and pay transaction fees to miners, just like p2pool.

Don't get me wrong - I mine on p2pool, and I wish everyone did, just so over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat.  But I definitely understand the frustration of small miners with the variance they see on p2pool.

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 941



View Profile
December 15, 2013, 05:32:05 PM
 #7176

I mine on p2pool, and I wish everyone did, just so over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat.

If over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat if everyone mined on p2pool, why don't we just force everyone to mine on p2pool? Why don't we just change the protocol to the p2pool protocol?

(Hint: I'm not actually suggesting we do this.)

Then why bother asking the question?  Maybe I need a bigger hint to see what your point is.  And who is this 'we' you speak of?


Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 941



View Profile
December 15, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
 #7177

I mine on p2pool, and I wish everyone did, just so over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat.

If over-centralization of mining would no longer be a threat if everyone mined on p2pool, why don't we just force everyone to mine on p2pool? Why don't we just change the protocol to the p2pool protocol?

(Hint: I'm not actually suggesting we do this.)

Then why bother asking the question?

Because apparently you're more fond of p2pool than I am, so I thought maybe you'd have an answer.

Maybe I need a bigger hint to see what your point is.

My point is that p2pool is less secure than solo mining, and that solo mining on average pays slightly more in the long run. But I think you'd be better able to see that by working through the question without worrying about the point that's going to be made.

And who is this 'we' you speak of?

Probably related to the "everyone" you speak of.

Is the point you are trying to make that everyone should solo mine?  Nothing in you original post suggested that, or even hinted at it.

To be clear, I have no emotional relationship with p2pool at all.  It is a tool I use for mining, no more, no less.  Of the numerous such tools (mining pools), I think p2pool serves my needs the best.

You need to expand on your security concerns about p2pool, as I (and probably other readers) don't know what you are talking about.

My question about your use of 'we' is because your statement suggested that you were part of some 'we' that has the power to force people to mine on p2pool, and I was curious to know what 'we' had such power.

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 941



View Profile
December 15, 2013, 06:04:49 PM
 #7178

Is the point you are trying to make that everyone should solo mine?

No.

I was just asking a question. I guess you don't care to answer it.

I'm not smart enough to figure out your question apparently.  Why don't you ask it like you were asking a 2-year old so I might have a chance of understanding?

If your question is the literal question you originally asked, then, clearly, I answered that above when I pointed out that there is, to my knowledge, no 'we' that has the power to force anyone to use p2pool - nor should there be.

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 941



View Profile
December 15, 2013, 06:24:19 PM
 #7179

Is the point you are trying to make that everyone should solo mine?

No.

I was just asking a question. I guess you don't care to answer it.

I'm not smart enough to figure out your question apparently.  Why don't you ask it like you were asking a 2-year old so I might have a chance of understanding?

If your question is the literal question you originally asked, then, clearly, I answered that above when I pointed out that there is, to my knowledge, no 'we' that has the power to force anyone to use p2pool - nor should there be.

The miners would be one such "we". If 51% of miners only accepted blocks which met the criteria for being valid in p2pool, we'd effectively force everyone to use p2pool.

I'm really confused now.  First you said I clearly liked p2pool more than you, and now you want to organize miners to force people to use p2pool?

If 51% of miners agreed that p2pool was the way to go, there would be no force necessary, as the majority of miners would already be using p2pool and there would be no centralization problem to start with.

-----
EDIT:  You added some more to your reply while I was typing, so I should reply to that part too.
More miners would equal smaller per-block payouts, but more blocks - so it evens out.  It would help the problem of centralization because, as you must know, p2pool is not centralized.



Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 941



View Profile
December 15, 2013, 06:53:43 PM
 #7180

I don't want to organize miners to force people to use p2pool.

More miners would equal smaller per-block payouts, but more blocks - so it evens out.

Huh?

It would help the problem of centralization because, as you must know, p2pool is not centralized.

Bitcoin isn't centralized either, but that doesn't mean there's no centralization problem in Bitcoin.

1) I'm glad you don't want to force people to use p2pool.

2) You said "Among other things, block rewards would only be a bit over 5% of what they would be otherwise."  I can only interpret that to mean that because there are more miners the reward per-block would be smaller, which is true - but if there is more hashpower on the pool, the pool will also mine more blocks.  These two changes are inversely proportional, so they offset.  (i.e. 0.1 btc per block * 5 blocks per day = 0.5 btc per day.  10 times as many miners means 0.01 btc per block payout, but 10 times as many blocks - which is 0.5 btc per day - the same as before.)  If this is not what you meant, then I have no idea what you mean.

3) Again, I have no idea what the point is that you're trying to make with this statement about bitcoin centralization - whatever it is, it has nothing to do with pools in general, or p2pool in particular.  You seem to have strayed a long way from your initial question, and from the topic of this thread.

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
Pages: « 1 ... 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 [359] 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 ... 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!