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

[Krak]

It is any sense to set it so high? IMO it should be just under pool diff shares ~500 tops.

You can't set the difficulty lower than the normal pool difficulty and it wouldn't make sense if he did.

The purpose is to take up less of the actual share slots, so smaller miners can still get into the chain.

Payouts are determined by how many shares you have, and their difficulty, so if you're submitting fewer shares, but at a higher difficulty, it will balance out and you'll still get your appropriate payout, while smaller miners don't get shut out of the chain altogether from the large miner, taking up so many slots at lower difficulty, to make up his same payout.

-- Smoov

Basically, this.

[1713908702]

1713908702

[1713908702]

1713908702

[tiberiandusk]

Any word on if Namecoin merged mining will ever be pooled like BTC?

[lenny_]

@pyramining:
It's really good to hear!
I am sure that your decision will attract more people to p2pool, and, to your own business as well.
I hope that everything will be fine 

[racerguy]

Any word on if Namecoin merged mining will ever be pooled like BTC?

doubt that, not worth worrying about anyway as nmc's keep dropping in price relative to btc.

[Smoovious]

Any word on if Namecoin merged mining will ever be pooled like BTC?

doubt that, not worth worrying about anyway as nmc's keep dropping in price relative to btc.

and when you figure in NMC's current diff relative to BTC, the drop is even more significant about NMC's future...

-- Smoov

[kano]

Any word on if Namecoin merged mining will ever be pooled like BTC?

doubt that, not worth worrying about anyway as nmc's keep dropping in price relative to btc.

and when you figure in NMC's current diff relative to BTC, the drop is even more significant about NMC's future...

-- Smoov

... also ... NMC are free - why would anyone expect them to have any value?

[mdude77]

Any word on if Namecoin merged mining will ever be pooled like BTC?

doubt that, not worth worrying about anyway as nmc's keep dropping in price relative to btc.

and when you figure in NMC's current diff relative to BTC, the drop is even more significant about NMC's future...

-- Smoov

... also ... NMC are free - why would anyone expect them to have any value?

They seem to have more value than the other crypto currencies...

M

[mdude77]

I haven't checked to see if the new BFL ASIC hardware will be p2pool compatible.  I thought I saw that somewhere it is. 

If it is, is p2pool prepared to handle that type of horsepower?  If things turn out well, I personally expect to get 80g/h of power, and I'm certain I'm on the low end, just like I am now with 5 g/h of power.  As I posted in the ozcoin thread, those pools that can't handle the massive increase in hash power are going to die fast.

M

[eleuthria]

I haven't checked to see if the new BFL ASIC hardware will be p2pool compatible.  I thought I saw that somewhere it is. 

If it is, is p2pool prepared to handle that type of horsepower?  If things turn out well, I personally expect to get 80g/h of power, and I'm certain I'm on the low end, just like I am now with 5 g/h of power.  As I posted in the ozcoin thread, those pools that can't handle the massive increase in hash power are going to die fast.

M

p2pool will likely need to be forked to have a chance to handle ASICs.  The p2pool adjusted difficulty will cause too much variance for anybody not using an ASIC.  One fork for people using ASICs, one for GPUs would be the easiest solution I can think of.  You can't count on every ASIC user to play nice and elect to use a higher difficulty.

[Krak]

I haven't checked to see if the new BFL ASIC hardware will be p2pool compatible.  I thought I saw that somewhere it is. 

If it is, is p2pool prepared to handle that type of horsepower?  If things turn out well, I personally expect to get 80g/h of power, and I'm certain I'm on the low end, just like I am now with 5 g/h of power.  As I posted in the ozcoin thread, those pools that can't handle the massive increase in hash power are going to die fast.

M

As far as server load goes, there's no concern; p2pool has no central server. The only problem will be the rapidly increasing difficulty (which is already getting painful at 800-900). I've only found 4 shares over the past 24 hours with my 580 MH/s.

[mdude77]

I haven't checked to see if the new BFL ASIC hardware will be p2pool compatible.  I thought I saw that somewhere it is. 

If it is, is p2pool prepared to handle that type of horsepower?  If things turn out well, I personally expect to get 80g/h of power, and I'm certain I'm on the low end, just like I am now with 5 g/h of power.  As I posted in the ozcoin thread, those pools that can't handle the massive increase in hash power are going to die fast.

M

As far as server load goes, there's no concern; p2pool has no central server. The only problem will be the rapidly increasing difficulty (which is already getting painful at 800-900). I've only found 4 shares over the past 24 hours with my 580 MH/s.

Didn't we have scaling issues before? 

M

[ChanceCoats123]

I haven't checked to see if the new BFL ASIC hardware will be p2pool compatible.  I thought I saw that somewhere it is. 

If it is, is p2pool prepared to handle that type of horsepower?  If things turn out well, I personally expect to get 80g/h of power, and I'm certain I'm on the low end, just like I am now with 5 g/h of power.  As I posted in the ozcoin thread, those pools that can't handle the massive increase in hash power are going to die fast.

M

As far as server load goes, there's no concern; p2pool has no central server. The only problem will be the rapidly increasing difficulty (which is already getting painful at 800-900). I've only found 4 shares over the past 24 hours with my 580 MH/s.

Didn't we have scaling issues before? 

M

I was going to say, it seems like we are again. Browsing the p2pool.info logs, this is the worst string of long blocks in basically a month, and it happened right as the pool started getting more hashes. We were getting over 300ghash more and more often and now we're over 425 with ease.

[mdude77]

Didn't we have scaling issues before? 

M

I was going to say, it seems like we are again. Browsing the p2pool.info logs, this is the worst string of long blocks in basically a month, and it happened right as the pool started getting more hashes. We were getting over 300ghash more and more often and now we're over 425 with ease.

I'm hoping that's not the case and we're just in the bad run. 

But if we drop below 95% according to the stats, I'm going back to ozcoin.

M

[420]

Didn't we have scaling issues before? 

M

I was going to say, it seems like we are again. Browsing the p2pool.info logs, this is the worst string of long blocks in basically a month, and it happened right as the pool started getting more hashes. We were getting over 300ghash more and more often and now we're over 425 with ease.

I'm hoping that's not the case and we're just in the bad run. 

But if we drop below 95% according to the stats, I'm going back to ozcoin.

M

bitminter.com. Ozcoin about to introduce fees, bitminer gives perk of not having to wait for confirmations if you just donate a measly 1%

[mdude77]

Didn't we have scaling issues before? 

M

I was going to say, it seems like we are again. Browsing the p2pool.info logs, this is the worst string of long blocks in basically a month, and it happened right as the pool started getting more hashes. We were getting over 300ghash more and more often and now we're over 425 with ease.

I'm hoping that's not the case and we're just in the bad run. 

But if we drop below 95% according to the stats, I'm going back to ozcoin.

M

bitminter.com. Ozcoin about to introduce fees, bitminer gives perk of not having to wait for confirmations if you just donate a measly 1%

Thanks, but I like Ozcoin.  I usually go PPS which is 5% anyhow.

M

[mdude77]

We're now down to 89.5% for last 7 days.  It's been a really rough 7 days.

30 days is still > 100%.  If/when it drops to 95%, I'm switching back to ozcoin.

Does anyone know for sure if this is a really bad luck streak, or a scaling issue?  We were doing great until the additional 120g/h came online.  Seems awful coincidental to me.  And I don't believe in coincidence.

There are a lot of people here who know a lot more about how mining and p2pool works than I do.  But I haven't seen anyone chime in and indicate whether this appears to be a scaling issue, or a bad luck streak.  Surely there would be tell tale indicators if it was a scaling issue that would help us determine if it's really bad luck or not?


***DOUBLE EDIT - I did my math wrong twice.

My stale rate hasn't increased.. I'm hovering around 5%.  Pool stale rate hasn't changed that much either.
My payout is higher than it should be for 1% of the pool hashpower.  Right now the pool is at 500g/h, I'm at 5 g/h.  That's 1%, so I should get a payout of .5btc.  The last couple days I've been around .6 to .65.  That tells me someone, or a bunch of someones out there aren't getting their fair share of hashes.

I really don't like the idea of leaving.. but I'm not seeing bright ideas as to what's going on.  Hopefully those bright people are furiously coding behind the scenes.

M

[organofcorti]

I think there's something wrong with the p2Pool 7 day stats. If you calculate manually, the last 7 days is better than average luck. In fact, there's been better than average luck at p2Pool for the last 6 weeks now. Check the last 7 days for yourself:

Code:

          Timestamp   ActualShares ExpectedShares
1  1344745354.000000  547055.000000 2036671.000000
2  1344740792.000000 9116832.000000 2036671.000000
3  1344649552.000000  134207.000000 2036671.000000
4  1344648269.000000 2121584.000000 2036671.000000
5  1344627801.000000 3184026.000000 2036671.000000
6  1344596756.000000 7983068.000000 2036671.000000
7  1344487657.000000 3886934.000000 2036671.000000
8  1344430970.000000  839057.000000 2036671.000000
9  1344418762.000000 1225598.000000 2036671.000000
10 1344401496.000000  814265.000000 2036671.000000
11 1344389344.000000  395892.000000 2036671.000000
12 1344383399.000000 2019198.000000 2036671.000000
13 1344353201.000000  279105.000000 2036671.000000
14 1344349060.000000 1526951.000000 2036671.000000
15 1344325803.000000  644660.000000 2036671.000000
16 1344315777.000000   35732.000000 2036671.000000
17 1344315245.000000  271678.000000 2036671.000000
18 1344311286.000000 1395283.000000 2036671.000000
19 1344289928.000000 1986950.000000 2036671.000000
20 1344258323.000000  152132.000000 2036671.000000
21 1344256008.000000  815393.000000 2036671.000000
22 1344243762.000000 1675975.000000 2036671.000000

The average round length / difficulty = 0.91. This is better than average.

[racerguy]

Any word on if Namecoin merged mining will ever be pooled like BTC?

doubt that, not worth worrying about anyway as nmc's keep dropping in price relative to btc.

and when you figure in NMC's current diff relative to BTC, the drop is even more significant about NMC's future...

-- Smoov

... also ... NMC are free - why would anyone expect them to have any value?

They seem to have more value than the other crypto currencies...

M

actually they're lower than ltc atm even though litecoin produces something like 3 times as many coins/day.

[mdude77]

I think there's something wrong with the p2Pool 7 day stats. If you calculate manually, the last 7 days is better than average luck. In fact, there's been better than average luck at p2Pool for the last 6 weeks now. Check the last 7 days for yourself:

Code:

          Timestamp   ActualShares ExpectedShares
1  1344745354.000000  547055.000000 2036671.000000
2  1344740792.000000 9116832.000000 2036671.000000
3  1344649552.000000  134207.000000 2036671.000000
4  1344648269.000000 2121584.000000 2036671.000000
5  1344627801.000000 3184026.000000 2036671.000000
6  1344596756.000000 7983068.000000 2036671.000000
7  1344487657.000000 3886934.000000 2036671.000000
8  1344430970.000000  839057.000000 2036671.000000
9  1344418762.000000 1225598.000000 2036671.000000
10 1344401496.000000  814265.000000 2036671.000000
11 1344389344.000000  395892.000000 2036671.000000
12 1344383399.000000 2019198.000000 2036671.000000
13 1344353201.000000  279105.000000 2036671.000000
14 1344349060.000000 1526951.000000 2036671.000000
15 1344325803.000000  644660.000000 2036671.000000
16 1344315777.000000   35732.000000 2036671.000000
17 1344315245.000000  271678.000000 2036671.000000
18 1344311286.000000 1395283.000000 2036671.000000
19 1344289928.000000 1986950.000000 2036671.000000
20 1344258323.000000  152132.000000 2036671.000000
21 1344256008.000000  815393.000000 2036671.000000
22 1344243762.000000 1675975.000000 2036671.000000

The average round length / difficulty = 0.91. This is better than average.

Your math and statistics always befuddle me.  But this one I think I can do.. but I'm not going to.  I'm going to assume your math is right, just question your conclusion.

p2pool.info shows the last 7 days as 0.89.  I could see rounding error being the difference between your 0.91 and p2pool.info's 0.89.

What I'm not understanding is how that's better than average?  I thought 1 was average?

M

[racerguy]

I think there's something wrong with the p2Pool 7 day stats. If you calculate manually, the last 7 days is better than average luck. In fact, there's been better than average luck at p2Pool for the last 6 weeks now. Check the last 7 days for yourself:

Code:

          Timestamp   ActualShares ExpectedShares
1  1344745354.000000  547055.000000 2036671.000000
2  1344740792.000000 9116832.000000 2036671.000000
3  1344649552.000000  134207.000000 2036671.000000
4  1344648269.000000 2121584.000000 2036671.000000
5  1344627801.000000 3184026.000000 2036671.000000
6  1344596756.000000 7983068.000000 2036671.000000
7  1344487657.000000 3886934.000000 2036671.000000
8  1344430970.000000  839057.000000 2036671.000000
9  1344418762.000000 1225598.000000 2036671.000000
10 1344401496.000000  814265.000000 2036671.000000
11 1344389344.000000  395892.000000 2036671.000000
12 1344383399.000000 2019198.000000 2036671.000000
13 1344353201.000000  279105.000000 2036671.000000
14 1344349060.000000 1526951.000000 2036671.000000
15 1344325803.000000  644660.000000 2036671.000000
16 1344315777.000000   35732.000000 2036671.000000
17 1344315245.000000  271678.000000 2036671.000000
18 1344311286.000000 1395283.000000 2036671.000000
19 1344289928.000000 1986950.000000 2036671.000000
20 1344258323.000000  152132.000000 2036671.000000
21 1344256008.000000  815393.000000 2036671.000000
22 1344243762.000000 1675975.000000 2036671.000000

The average round length / difficulty = 0.91. This is better than average.

I think p2pool's hashrate is slightly underreported seeing as stales aren't included in the hashrate calculations even though stales can be blocks.