Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 04:15:28 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2035490 times)
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 07:29:07 AM
 #8041

My ASIC is an ASICminer blade V2. The 22% haircut is barely tolerable (consider it a donation). Extending the share target to 30 seconds really helped though.

Quote
My machine is one of those ought's machines that supports 64bit processing, but only has 32 bits of address space. I suspect if pypy worked with no problems for you; your python modules were probably not c-optimized.

Which modules? I'm using whatever python module come from apt-get on ubnutu 13.10? (Pretty much the default install instructions for p2pool if I recall correctly.) Do you know if there is problem with those?


I posted the error messages in my earlier posts.
Quote
Twisted is known to work with PyPy. Some optional C optimizations must be disabled at build/install time. Twisted on PyPy runs faster for most benchmarks.
- https://bitbucket.org/pypy/compatibility/wiki/twisted

Since pypy did not detect the installed modules, they must have been using the C optimizations (Python detected them).

Quote
PyPy has alpha-level support for the CPython C API, however, as of 1.4.1 release this feature is not yet complete. Most libraries will require a bit of effort to work, but there are known success stories. Check out PyPy blog for updates.

C extensions need to be recompiled for PyPy in order to work. Depending on your build system, it might work out of the box or will be slightly harder.
- https://bitbucket.org/pypy/compatibility/wiki/c-api

The "problem" with pure python modules is that they are interpreted. This is slower than native machine code.

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
1481429728
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481429728

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481429728
Reply with quote  #2

1481429728
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481429728
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481429728

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481429728
Reply with quote  #2

1481429728
Report to moderator
1481429728
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481429728

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481429728
Reply with quote  #2

1481429728
Report to moderator
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 08:47:20 AM
 #8042

I will be reopening a new recruiting thread, and it will be self moderated. If you have something to add in terms of recruiting miners to p2pool and therefore helping bitcoin, you and IYFTech are welcome to join.

"You need to make it much easier to install and understand" is a legitimate bit of advice, and just removing posts won't stop that being true.
The 'problem' is that almost all of the new mining power joining the Bitcoin network is motivated purely by profit, and has no altruistic interest in securing the Bitcoin network as an end in itself.
P2Pool requires a lot of extra effort and resources, for little, if any, actual additional benefit over using Eligious/GHash.

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 09:51:02 AM
 #8043

I will be reopening a new recruiting thread, and it will be self moderated. If you have something to add in terms of recruiting miners to p2pool and therefore helping bitcoin, you and IYFTech are welcome to join.

"You need to make it much easier to install and understand" is a legitimate bit of advice, and just removing posts won't stop that being true.

That's valid feedback here. It doesn't help recruit people to use the p2pool software that exists today. For that matter, I'm not a p2pool developer, so for that reason alone it isn't useful or on-topic feedback on my thread. Give your "advice" to them (or better yet contribute), not me.

Quote
The 'problem' is that almost all of the new mining power joining the Bitcoin network is motivated purely by profit, and has no altruistic interest in securing the Bitcoin network as an end in itself.
P2Pool requires a lot of extra effort and resources, for little, if any, actual additional benefit over using Eligious/GHash.

Please see the FUD-repellant thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153232.0) and stop spreading it. P2pool doesn't require "a lot" of effort or resources. I did so for in a few hours on hardware that cost me a few hundred dollars (a tiny fraction of what I've spent on miners), and it is probably possible to use cheaper hardware or run on existing hardware in many cases. That's a small price to pay for for the benefits of immunity from the risks of pools being dishonest, getting hacked, or just having screw ups.

In fact it doesn't require any resources at all since you can use an existing public node.

I do agree it isn't suitable for small miners due to the need to run a bitcoin node, although some people do that anyway. The p2pool part itself is minimal.
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 09:58:39 AM
 #8044

The 'problem' is that almost all of the new mining power joining the Bitcoin network is motivated purely by profit, and has no altruistic interest in securing the Bitcoin network as an end in itself.
P2Pool requires a lot of extra effort and resources, for little, if any, actual additional benefit over using Eligious/GHash.

Please see the FUD-repellant thread (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=153232.0) and stop spreading it. P2pool doesn't require "a lot" of effort or resources. I did so for in a few hours on hardware that cost me a few hundred dollars (a tiny fraction of what I've spent on miners), and it is probably possible to use cheaper hardware or run on existing hardware in many cases.
[...]
I do agree it isn't suitable for small miners due to the need to run a bitcoin node, although some people do that anyway. The p2pool part itself is minimal.

Most of the new ASIC hardware either includes, or can be controlled by, tiny computers like a Raspberry Pi or a BeagleBone.
Mining on a standard pool means no need to store the blockchain, almost no CPU or memory requirements, and no network bandwidth required for all of the transactions.
Compared to that, runnng a p2pool node does require massively more resources.

Quote
That's a small price to pay for for the benefits of immunity from the risks of pools being dishonest, getting hacked, or just having screw ups.

In fact it doesn't require any resources at all since you can use an existing public node.

Which opens you back up again to your pool being dishonest or incompetent.
Daily withdrawals from a 'normal' pool reduces the exposure to loss.

The primary reason to use p2pool is to 'protect the network'.
Most new miners don't care about that.

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 10:20:01 AM
 #8045

Quote
I do agree it isn't suitable for small miners due to the need to run a bitcoin node, although some people do that anyway. The p2pool part itself is minimal.

Most of the new ASIC hardware either includes, or can be controlled by, tiny computers like a Raspberry Pi or a BeagleBone.
Mining on a standard pool means no need to store the blockchain, almost no CPU or memory requirements, and no network bandwidth required for all of the transactions.
Compared to that, runnng a p2pool node does require massively more resources.

Massive is relative. By your definition $1 would be "massively more" than $0.01 ("It's 100 times more!") but its still only a dollar.

As I said, if you are running a bitcoin node already, the added cost running a p2pool node is minimal. Certainly not everyone does have a bitcoin node.

Quote
Quote
That's a small price to pay for for the benefits of immunity from the risks of pools being dishonest, getting hacked, or just having screw ups.

In fact it doesn't require any resources at all since you can use an existing public node.

Which opens you back up again to your pool being dishonest or incompetent.
The risk is much lower because the pool never holds the coins. You can verify -- independently (try that on a centralized pool) -- that your shares are being accepted (and will be paid) by looking at the current payouts on any other public node. Even eligius, which claims to make coinbase payouts, has had a huge amount of coins going to their own wallets recently. So far all of those coins have been paid out (if slowly) but this makes them a big target for hackers and exposes everyone to the risk of large operator errors. At times there has been over 3000 BTC being held and paid out "manually."

The other reason it is unlikely you get ripped off by a public node is that each public node tends to be very small. There is so little incentive to be gained by a public node operator skimming a small number of shares it's very unlikely to ever happen. Skimming a tiny (or maybe even not so tiny) amount from a big pool, by contrast, might well be enough to get rich.

Quote
The primary reason to use p2pool is to 'protect the network'.
Most new miners don't care about that.

That's one reason, but not the only reason. Guaranteed coinbase payouts are another reason, and potentially lower fees (not compared to ghash.io but compared to nearly all of the others).

If a few large miners do care about protecting the network, and a bit of a nudge can get them using p2pool, that too can make a difference.
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 10:50:39 AM
 #8046

As I said, if you are running a bitcoin node already, the added cost running a p2pool node is minimal. Certainly not everyone does have a bitcoin node.

Yes, I think we can both agree on both parts of that sentence.
If someone is already running a full bitcoin node, p2pool is a much easier sell.
My guess would be that while the hashrate has risen massively in the last year, the number of full bitcoin nodes has nowhere near kept pace?

BTC: 16TgAGdiTSsTWSsBDphebNJCFr1NT78xFW
SRC: scefi1XMhq91n3oF5FrE3HqddVvvCZP9KB
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 10:53:36 AM
 #8047

My guess would be that while the hashrate has risen massively in the last year, the number of full bitcoin nodes has nowhere near kept pace?

I'd guess that absolutely nothing has kept pace with hash rate. Number of miners, number of users etc. In fact not even bitcoin value. The big driver there is more advanced ASIC technology.

As far as the number of miners compared to the number of bitcoin nodes, I have no idea. Both have consolidated as things have become a bit more centralized I would guess.

mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 12:49:00 PM
 #8048

I'm going try P2pool again, running it locally.  I intend to point one Ant S1 at it.  I have a DSL connection with only 768k up speed.  Any suggestions/recommendations?

If I can't get it working locally, I'll find a good public node.

Thanks,

M.

EDIT: Bitcoin and p2pool will be running on my main workstation, an i7 with 24gb ram and the blockchain and p2pool chain on my SSD.


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.
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


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


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:03:49 PM
 #8049

I'm going try P2pool again, running it locally.  I intend to point one Ant S1 at it.  I have a DSL connection with only 768k up speed.  Any suggestions/recommendations?

If I can't get it working locally, I'll find a good public node.

Thanks,

M.

EDIT: Bitcoin and p2pool will be running on my main workstation, an i7 with 24gb ram and the blockchain and p2pool chain on my SSD.



Greetings mdude - welcome back, you glutton for punishment you  Cheesy Cheesy

768k up is more than enough dude - I have the same (on a good day).

i7 & 24gb RAM is overkill my man. I run an unlocked Sempron mildly OC'd with 16gb RAM on my node merge mining 6 coins no problem (no weekly reboots/resets/restarts needed here  Cheesy Cheesy), check my sig for stats if you need a comparison. Are you on windoze or Linux?

-- 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
mdude77
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:31:52 PM
 #8050

I'm going try P2pool again, running it locally.  I intend to point one Ant S1 at it.  I have a DSL connection with only 768k up speed.  Any suggestions/recommendations?

If I can't get it working locally, I'll find a good public node.

Thanks,

M.

EDIT: Bitcoin and p2pool will be running on my main workstation, an i7 with 24gb ram and the blockchain and p2pool chain on my SSD.



Greetings mdude - welcome back, you glutton for punishment you  Cheesy Cheesy

768k up is more than enough dude - I have the same (on a good day).

i7 & 24gb RAM is overkill my man. I run an unlocked Sempron mildly OC'd with 16gb RAM on my node merge mining 6 coins no problem (no weekly reboots/resets/restarts needed here  Cheesy Cheesy), check my sig for stats if you need a comparison. Are you on windoze or Linux?

The bandwidth is obviously used for other things.  In the past I've always had problems keeping my stales low because of bandwidth issues.  This is my workstation, I use it for a lot of things, and I don't like running out of memory or processing power. Smiley  Windows ... Linux and I don't see eye to eye.

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.
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


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


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:35:57 PM
 #8051

Right, mine's a dedicated rig. I've not used windoze for mining for a long time now, so I probably won't be of much help in that respect, but I can defo recommend you have your wallet data on a separate , fast SSD  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
roy7
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:38:16 PM
 #8052

The primary reason to use p2pool is to 'protect the network'.
Most new miners don't care about that.

Personally I find a primary reason to use p2pool is the freshly minted coins, and (while running your own node) protection from any sort of theft (either by a pool op or a hacker attacking the pool). Yes a public node could be open to operator abuse like any normal pool, so that'd be a wash. But a public p2pool is still mining coins directly to your own wallet instead of a central source for payment later (and a hacker target). Eligius does direct payment sometimes (they have had a lot of 'failsafe' mode lately, meaning they centralize the funds after all), but very few other pools do. A hacker also recently stole a good amount of NMC from Eligius as well.

RoyalMiningCo: Pools retired. Was fun!
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 03:54:21 PM
 #8053

Massive is relative. By your definition $1 would be "massively more" than $0.01 ("It's 100 times more!") but its still only a dollar.

As I said, if you are running a bitcoin node already, the added cost running a p2pool node is minimal. Certainly not everyone does have a bitcoin node.

Running a P2Pool node Increases my operating costs by about 10%.

In that post, I estimate that P2Pool makes the machine draw an extra 20Watts or so. That is 14.4kWh/month or about $1.44 assuming 10 cents/kWh.

It also appears that P2Pool uses about 6% of my 300GB bandwidth cap as well. That works out to about $6.60/month. (Bandwidth is expensive for some reason). (Calculation: 4.15GB/7days*30days/300GB*100%)

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


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


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:07:51 PM
 #8054

I guess bandwidth costs vary greatly from country to country, here in the UK most internet providers offer unlimited usage as standard with no caps - this is mainly due to the crap infrastructure outside of the cities where rural communities have to pay the same price for a 1m/2m connection (if they can get it) as a city dweller with a 4m/16m connection from the same provider on the same plan...... Tongue

I seem to remember reading an article somewhere about a survey that put the UK 35th in the world rankings regarding internet connectivity/infrastructure which I confirmed with a BT engineer not long ago. That's abysmal, but says a lot about the UK too.....ie: Third world dinosaur  Roll Eyes

EDIT: Found a similar article where the UK is ranked 25th in the EU - that's got to be close to last hasn't it?:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/636979/uk-broadband-speeds-ranked-25th-in-europe

Are there even 25 countries in the EU?  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

-- 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
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 04:14:50 PM
 #8055

I am in Canada. I am also using a commercial Internet plan so that it does not get cut off for "server hosting".

For some reason, 300GB is a number that keeps coming up as being abusive. That works out to less than 1Mbps (over a whole month).

Edit:
Quote from: ARCHIVED -  Telecom Decision CRTC 2010-255
45. The Bell companies' proposed economic (Internet traffic management practices) would include an excessive usage charge of $0.75 per additional GB of use in excess of 300 GB monthly for a (wholesale Residence Gateway Access Services) ISP's end-user if, and when, they introduce a corresponding charge of $1.00 per GB of use in excess of 300 GB monthly for their retail customers. Certain GAS ISPs submitted that the Bell companies' application of this wholesale charge would be anti-competitive and could be implemented with virtually no notice of the date of its imposition.

46.     The Commission considers that the application of the Bell companies' proposed excessive usage charge for GAS would constitute equivalent treatment of their GAS and retail Internet services if an excessive usage charge of $1.00 per GB of use in excess of 300 GB monthly is introduced for all their retail Internet service customers. The Commission considers, however, that the Bell companies should provide advance notice to GAS customers that this charge will be implemented.
- http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2010/2010-255.htm

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 08:23:46 PM
 #8056

In that post, I estimate that P2Pool makes the machine draw an extra 20Watts or so. That is 14.4kWh/month or about $1.44 assuming 10 cents/kWh.

The entire system I have running a bitcoin node and p2pool uses well under 20 W. You need to go back to the drawing board.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 08:28:35 PM
 #8057

I'm going try P2pool again, running it locally.  I intend to point one Ant S1 at it.  I have a DSL connection with only 768k up speed.  Any suggestions/recommendations?

Block incoming connections (or if you have a firewall, just don't forward the port) to bitcoind. That will prevent people from using your node to download the blockchain. In my experience that is the single most important tuning item.





jedimstr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 08:36:53 PM
 #8058

I'm going try P2pool again, running it locally.  I intend to point one Ant S1 at it.  I have a DSL connection with only 768k up speed.  Any suggestions/recommendations?

Block incoming connections (or if you have a firewall, just don't forward the port) to bitcoind. That will prevent people from using your node to download the blockchain. In my experience that is the single most important tuning item.







But also potentially detrimental to the integrity of the Bitcoin network... at least allow a few incoming connections (like say 6) versus the crazy high defaults.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 08:46:59 PM
 #8059

Quote
Block incoming connections (or if you have a firewall, just don't forward the port) to bitcoind. That will prevent people from using your node to download the blockchain. In my experience that is the single most important tuning item.
But also potentially detrimental to the integrity of the Bitcoin network... at least allow a few incoming connections (like say 6) versus the crazy high defaults.

No that won't work. Even one incoming connection will still periodically (and not infrequently) be used to download the blockchain in my experience, and when this happens it really hurts your p2pool performance and earnings. The reason zero is an effective setting here is that it disables block chain downloads. If you don't like people doing it this way, convince the bitcoin developers to add a feature to directly limit blockchain downloads.

I understand the effect on bitcoin peer-to-peer and that is a downside, but it is a tradeoff you have to make if you want to efficiently run a p2pool node with limited resources.

What you can do if you want to help the bitcoin p2p, and what I do myself, is allow incoming connections on another node (on a different network) where you don't care about the performance impact the way you do for p2pool. Keep the p2pool node quiet.

It would be nice if there were better tuning options on bitcoin to rate-limit people using your node to download the blockchain, and likewise if bitcoin were able to download the blockchain from multiple sources (bittorrent style) to put less load on each individual source, but neither of those features exist currently.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1246



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 09:18:15 PM
 #8060

p2pool.info not working?

I see two recent blocks that don't show up.

Pages: « 1 ... 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] 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 ... 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!