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

[p3yot33at3r]

Agree with the SSD & UPS statements - essential for me anyways.

Nice to see a few blocks rolling in again at last 

[electron-coin]

Would anybody be willing to help port p2pool to merge mine 8-round blake 256?

We have a $200 USD+ bounty. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=306894.3240

Thanks.

[rav3n_pl]

AFAIK merge mine works ONLY on same algo, so if you have working "8-round blake 256" P2Pool it should be able to MM another coins on it.

[electron-coin]

AFAIK merge mine works ONLY on same algo, so if you have working "8-round blake 256" P2Pool it should be able to MM another coins on it.

Thanks for the tip. We do have merge right now with Blakecoin and 5 other coins.

[CohibAA]

Today is a good day to p2pool.

 

[jedimstr]

Windpath: Have you gotten CoinCadence running BitcoinXT yet?  Looks like the big pools are pushing BIP100 (even without anything really coded for this BIP yet) and BIP101 is plateu'ing where it is.

I've been running my p2pool node on BitcoinXT and would hate to see the momentum drop off.

[Carlton Banks]

Windpath: Have you gotten CoinCadence running BitcoinXT yet?  Looks like the big pools are pushing BIP100 (even without anything really coded for this BIP yet) and BIP101 is plateu'ing where it is.

I've been running my p2pool node on BitcoinXT and would hate to see the momentum drop off.

Inadvisable. XT's faster-than-trend increase in the blocksize will gradually begin to kill the economic incentive for p2pool miners with each block reward halving. Pushing the limit higher than prevailing typical bandwidth stops a proper fee market from developing; close to full blocks is optimal to engender the inertial dynamics that promote a fee market.

Maybe you would like to promote the death of p2pool, jedimstr, just don't drag everyone else into it. There will be technically superior solutions to BIP 101 available, be patient.

[windpath]

Windpath: Have you gotten CoinCadence running BitcoinXT yet?  Looks like the big pools are pushing BIP100 (even without anything really coded for this BIP yet) and BIP101 is plateu'ing where it is.

I've been running my p2pool node on BitcoinXT and would hate to see the momentum drop off.

Not yet, however running it locally on my test node. Should be releasing Chain Query next week and then will have time to work on it.

Carltons' comments are not really relevant for me.

My goal in adding XT is to have a method for those that want to vote for bigger blocks to do so with P2Pool as changing our coinbase is not really practical.

In the end I'll support whichever BIP (or XT) that has the most support and increases the block size, but as no other BIPs have working code at this point XT is my only option.

I may try to compile the version that only includes the block increase and not Mike's other changes, will see how that goes when I get started on it.

It's just a way of expressing support for larger blocks with our hash power, ultimately I'll go where the majority does.

[Carlton Banks]

I may try to compile the version that only includes the block increase and not Mike's other changes, will see how that goes when I get started on it.

That won't work after a successful fork; XT will ignore the chain consensus rules (longest chain with highest POW wins). This means that if you dislike XT's future direction, a hard fork is no longer possible, the development team are in charge of which chain prevails, not miners.

[jedimstr]

Well, long before the potential January fork we'll know which way the wind is blowing and hopefully will have more viable BIP proposals out there.  In the meantime switching between BitcoinXT and Bitcoin Core clients is seamless and utilizes the same db/configs and can be done in just a few minutes.  So technically it won't hurt anything for now to essentially "cast a vote" with my node for larger blocks (even if it's still contested which implementation is best, none have been "perfect" yet).  I can always change my node to whatever client implementation is best down the line.  

There's a huge difference between patience and complacency in the face of change.  Burying your head in the sand either way won't help anyone.

[Carlton Banks]

Well, long before the potential January fork we'll know which way the wind is blowing and hopefully will have more viable BIP proposals out there.  In the meantime switching between BitcoinXT and Bitcoin Core clients is seamless and utilizes the same db/configs and can be done in just a few minutes.  So technically it won't hurt anything for now to essentially "cast a vote" with my node for larger blocks (even if it's still contested which implementation is best, none have been "perfect" yet).  I can always change my node to whatever client implementation is best down the line.  

This is true, p2pool nodes won't affect the outcome of the fork unless there is unprecedented growth in the pool's overall hashrate. And it is seamless.

There's a huge difference between patience and complacency in the face of change.  Burying your head in the sand either way won't help anyone.

You should be patient then, instead of performing any of your other suggestions. Because backing a bad faith, badly conceived idea is exactly what you jedimstr specifically did the last time something controversial happened on this p2pool sub-board, isn't that right?

[jedimstr]

You should be patient then, instead of performing any of your other suggestions. Because backing a bad faith, badly conceived idea is exactly what you jedimstr specifically did the last time something controversial happened on this p2pool sub-board, isn't that right?

Carlton: care to remind me? Don't know which of my posts or questions have pissed you off so much. I mean, seriously I don't.

EDIT:
Ok, I've been digging into my post history and can't for the life of me find where the supposed controversial posts that got you so pissed off in this thread for P2Pool.
This is the closest I can find: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg7224251#msg7224251 and it's not all that controversial at all.

Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize.  But I really don't want bad blood here either way.

[TheRealSteve]

I may try to compile the version that only includes the block increase and not Mike's other changes, will see how that goes when I get started on it.

That won't work after a successful fork; XT will ignore the chain consensus rules (longest chain with highest POW wins). This means that if you dislike XT's future direction, a hard fork is no longer possible, the development team are in charge of which chain prevails, not miners.

That's not quite correct.  The developers could add code that gives them 10% of each block reward and you'll find that most users, miners, services, etc. will go tell them to fork off, refuse to run any client with that code, and those devs will merely have wasted their time.  Checkpointing (which I think you're alluding to, as Mike has mentioned in an interview once that this could be an option in case the chain goes back and forth) doesn't help either if people don't run the code that adds (or polls for) these checkpoints.  Forks are also always a possibility - this doesn't depend on developers in any way, only on what the network deems as being valid, which in turn depends on the code the nodes run.  Whether that fork would find success depends entirely on the merits of the fork.

Those 'other changes' currently in XT also don't rely on the fork or the BIP101 code at all.  Nodes could already be running with those changes in place and in effect (XT nodes do), and you'd never know unless you did an analysis of the node's behavior.

[Carlton Banks]

I may try to compile the version that only includes the block increase and not Mike's other changes, will see how that goes when I get started on it.

That won't work after a successful fork; XT will ignore the chain consensus rules (longest chain with highest POW wins). This means that if you dislike XT's future direction, a hard fork is no longer possible, the development team are in charge of which chain prevails, not miners.

That's not quite correct.  The developers could add code that gives them 10% of each block reward and you'll find that most users, miners, services, etc. will go tell them to fork off, refuse to run any client with that code, and those devs will merely have wasted their time.  Checkpointing (which I think you're alluding to, as Mike has mentioned in an interview once that this could be an option in case the chain goes back and forth) doesn't help either if people don't run the code that adds (or polls for) these checkpoints.  Forks are also always a possibility - this doesn't depend on developers in any way, only on what the network deems as being valid, which in turn depends on the code the nodes run.  Whether that fork would find success depends entirely on the merits of the fork.

Those 'other changes' currently in XT also don't rely on the fork or the BIP101 code at all.  Nodes could already be running with those changes in place and in effect (XT nodes do), and you'd never know unless you did an analysis of the node's behavior.

Allow me to modify my statement, although you should know what I meant.

After this specific planned fork to XT on January 11th 2016, miners will not be able to fork the XT chain, because the checkpoints (hence the XT devs) decide the valid chain, not the miners.


You are correct about one thing; nothing will prevent miners who don't want XT from continuing using a different chain. But XT itself cannot be forked at the network level, that's what the checkpoints are for, they are intended as such.

[Carlton Banks]

Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize.  But I really don't want bad blood here either way.

I'm alright, you're not as offensive as you seem to think.

You were one of many who consistently, on many occasions, supported personal attacks on the developer of p2pool. In fairness, you've also been more accommodating since then. I have been reading this thread although I don't always post.

You were wrong to behave that way towards the developer. So apologise, as you've intimated. Being nice when he returned is not an apology (to adults, anyway)

[jedimstr]

Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize.  But I really don't want bad blood here either way.

I'm alright, you're not as offensive as you seem to think.

You were one of many who consistently, on many occasions, supported personal attacks on the developer of p2pool. In fairness, you've also been more accommodating since then. I have been reading this thread although I don't always post.

You were wrong to behave that way towards the developer. So apologise, as you've intimated. Being nice when he returned is not an apology (to adults, anyway)

Well, please read my posts again, and forrestv's in relation to his long absence.  I did NOT intend to take personal attacks on forrestv at all and only held the position that others should take up the mantle if he was too busy with his personal life and school to work on p2pool.  I also was on the side of turning the donation fee into a bounty for those that would take up that mantle, if forrestv really couldn't work on this anymore.  I also backed the donations going to forrestv for solving some of our continuing issues coming from the Litecoin Dev camp (I believe you've seen me post in those threads as well, since I remember you posting there too).  But if you remember, those solutions did not come even though he put some time into it.  

I don't see how that is a personal attack on forrestv at all.  Besides it's a moot point since he's been back as you've said.
Either way I'm not the one taking things to a personal level here and I apologize if you think I've ever come across that way.  If anything I think you're unjustly conflating my positions on the subject with those who have a more, shall we say emotive presence on this thread.

[Carlton Banks]

Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize.  But I really don't want bad blood here either way.

I'm alright, you're not as offensive as you seem to think.

You were one of many who consistently, on many occasions, supported personal attacks on the developer of p2pool. In fairness, you've also been more accommodating since then. I have been reading this thread although I don't always post.

You were wrong to behave that way towards the developer. So apologise, as you've intimated. Being nice when he returned is not an apology (to adults, anyway)

I did NOT intend to take personal attacks on forrestv at all and only held the position that others should take up the mantle if he was too busy with his personal life and school to work on p2pool.  I also was on the side of turning the donation fee into a bounty for those that would take up that mantle, if forrestv really couldn't work on this anymore.  

anyone who does know the post history also knows that it was NOT like that. You people had NO PLAN as to how you would replace the person that wrote this code, you simply shouted loudly for weeks and weeks about how no-one should give forrest money. Trying to squirm out of it now with diversions and fantasy reflect very badly on you.

Either way I'm not the one taking things to a personal level here and I apologize if you think I've ever come across that way.  

Apologise for backing the (now heavily discredited) coyotes who tried to push forrest out of his own project. That would be entirely appropriate. But it seems you're too intransigent for that.

If anything I think you're unjustly conflating my positions on the subject with those who have a more, shall we say emotive presence on this thread.

You're consistently referring to emotions and making repeated use of expressions like "pissed off". I supply morality, but not emotion. Don't get confused.

[jedimstr]

Seriously, I want to know how I pissed you off so bad and if I was wrong apologize.  But I really don't want bad blood here either way.

I'm alright, you're not as offensive as you seem to think.

You were one of many who consistently, on many occasions, supported personal attacks on the developer of p2pool. In fairness, you've also been more accommodating since then. I have been reading this thread although I don't always post.

You were wrong to behave that way towards the developer. So apologise, as you've intimated. Being nice when he returned is not an apology (to adults, anyway)

I did NOT intend to take personal attacks on forrestv at all and only held the position that others should take up the mantle if he was too busy with his personal life and school to work on p2pool.  I also was on the side of turning the donation fee into a bounty for those that would take up that mantle, if forrestv really couldn't work on this anymore.  

anyone who does know the post history also knows that it was NOT like that. You people had NO PLAN as to how you would replace the person that wrote this code, you simply shouted loudly for weeks and weeks about how no-one should give forrest money. Trying to squirm out of it now with diversions and fantasy reflect very badly on you.

Either way I'm not the one taking things to a personal level here and I apologize if you think I've ever come across that way.  

Apologise for backing the (now heavily discredited) coyotes who tried to push forrest out of his own project. That would be entirely appropriate. But it seems you're too intransigent for that.

If anything I think you're unjustly conflating my positions on the subject with those who have a more, shall we say emotive presence on this thread.

You're consistently referring to emotions and making repeated use of expressions like "pissed off". I supply morality, but not emotion. Don't get confused.

Wow... Just wow.

The project is open sourced on Github. Forrestv was absent by his own admission for a long time due to personal priorities.  Like ANY open source project, we asked for developers to contribute and fork the code to a more maintained state. No one picked up the mantle.  As simple as that.

Believe what you want.  Doesnt matter.  forrestv is back and there have been numerous github commits and developer pull requests from others since then.

Not going to apologize for advocating what open source development and github branching and forking are all about.  

Others may have been more vehement about it, but im not going to stand here and be buried under retarded statements of imaginary slights.  Welcome to the ignore list. I see only one person trolling here now.

[Carlton Banks]

You were never accused of trolling, welcome to the straw man club.

[Songminer]

On a positive note, the pool is up to 291 miners..

30 day luck of 127% didn't hurt, I bet.