Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 04:56:59 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 ... 814 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2591584 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
March 17, 2014, 07:52:22 PM
 #8021

Offering to help new users setup p2pool correctly when you are obviously having difficulty setting up your own node is unwise. Having to reboot every week means you have done something wrong, even with all the bugs in p2pool, you should not have to do this.

I never said reboot. And for that matter, there is nothing bad that happens specifically after a week. I have noticed there are some resource leaks that come up, so to avoid problems, I set things up to restart p2pool (only, I don't reboot or restart bitcoind) once per week, before any problems occur. Others have reported the exact same resource leaks. There is nothing wrong with my setup. My node works wonderfully (consistently >100% efficiency).

There is a bit of irony here, as you talk about "gurus" claiming there is nothing wrong with p2pool and accusing miners of not knowing what they are doing then you show up here and do the exact same thing.

Most of the ASIC problems you identified last year don't exist any more. This was mostly solved by the ASIC miners working better. As you correctly state, there hasn't been

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. General complaints about p2pool, especially when you haven't even tried using it recently with current hardware are unwelcome. "It's not as good as my vaporware idea of a project" is even more useless.


1711688219
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711688219

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711688219
Reply with quote  #2

1711688219
Report to moderator
1711688219
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711688219

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711688219
Reply with quote  #2

1711688219
Report to moderator
1711688219
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711688219

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711688219
Reply with quote  #2

1711688219
Report to moderator
No Gods or Kings. Only Bitcoin
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
March 17, 2014, 08:06:16 PM
 #8022

There is a little bit of swap use, but the only things using more than about 16MB are Bitcoind and P2Pool. Together they use about 2GB of my 3.3GB of available memory. By "cache miss", I meant the OS had to go to disk at all (the Bitcoin blockchain does not fit in RAM).

Getblocktemplate itself shouldn't have to go to disk (the mempool is in memory, obviously). Yes the rest of bitcoind does hit disk and maybe this slows down GBT (due to locks), but that shouldn't be a major issue with an SSD. One guess would be maybe with the increased pypy memory usage (not sure why that happens) you have less available RAM for caching so you hit disk (even SSD) more, slowing things down. Perhaps that offsets the CPU gains from pypy.

Quote
Looking at that graph a second time, it appear that the first spike starts to ramp up over an hour or so. Not sure what would cause that (maybe a peer downloading the block-chain?). If your machine has 8GB of RAM, it is probably newer than mine. Maybe pypy JIT overhead is negligible on newer hardware.

Ah, that could be. One thing I do is block incoming connections on my bitcoind node, which has the effect of avoiding blockchain downloads (since the standard client only does them on outgoing connections -- to them, incoming to you). Downloading the block chain is really bad with p2pool, especially if you have any ISP bandwidth issues, but probably for other performance reasons, as you point out.

Quote
Edit: While we are making feature requests: I would like to see a p2pool block template latency graph, if that is possible. Would take a lot of guess-work out of my testing.

How would this be different from the graph that is currently displayed?

Regarding my hardware it isn't that the system is so new (or fast), it is just that I had some extra 4 GB modules sitting around so I used them. It is actually an nettop type system with a dual-core but otherwise severely underpowered AMD. It may be that I was more CPU limited without pypy compared to a more conventional PC so I saw more improvement.


phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2014, 09:06:15 PM
Last edit: March 17, 2014, 10:14:41 PM by phillipsjk
 #8023

Most of the ASIC problems you identified last year don't exist any more. This was mostly solved by the ASIC miners working better. As you correctly state, there hasn't been

You can see from my graph that it is not fixed for me. The fix was to extend the block-target to 30 seconds. With a 10 second block target, I would have >65% DOA shares on average because the round time on my ASIC is 12.8 seconds (and does not support longpolling). As it is, I expect at least 22% DOA. In practice, I am getting 30% or more.

Quote
How would this be different from the graph that is currently displayed?

A P2Pool getblock template lantency graph would tell me how long P2Pool spends processing it's own blocks. I suspect that it runs several seconds on my machine. I could artificially lower the bitcoind getblocktemplate time by:
  • Un-nice-ing  bitcoind. This will actually slow down P2Pool
  • Closing bitcoind to incoming connections as suggested. I want to contribute to the Bitcoin network as much as possible. Mining is just a bonus.
Edit: If I assume the P2Pool getblocktemplate processing always takes the same amount to time (thus makes a graph pointless), I can calculate it from my hash-rate graph. 30% DOA - 22% Expected DOA = 8% of 30 seconds of round time being CPU latency.
30secondsx8%=2.4 seconds - 0.7s  Bitcoind latency = 1.7 seconds P2Pool latency
--some of that may be due to limited network bandwidth too.
--My machine is dual-core as well, so that simple math may not hold.

Quote
Regarding my hardware it isn't that the system is so new (or fast), it is just that I had some extra 4 GB modules sitting around so I used them.

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.


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

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
March 17, 2014, 09:46:18 PM
 #8024

Most of the ASIC problems you identified last year don't exist any more. This was mostly solved by the ASIC miners working better. As you correctly state, there hasn't been

You can see from my graph that it is not fixed for me. The fix was to extend the block-target to 30 seconds. With a 10 second block target, I would have >65% DOA shares on average because the round time on my ASIC is 12.8 seconds (and does not support longpolling).

Are you using one of the new ASICs that I mentioned earlier? The real fix is to natively support longpolling or stratum (or shorter rounds), as the recent ASICs do. Otherwise, your ASIC will just not work well with any pool or coin with fast rounds.

As much a supporter of p2pool I might be, I'd suggest you move that hardware elsewhere if it can't be fixed. When I was running older ASICs I tried p2pool and then stopped using it. Wasn't fixable given the latency inherent in the hardware.

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?


phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 07:29:07 AM
 #8025

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
murraypaul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 08:47:20 AM
 #8026

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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 09:51:02 AM
 #8027

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
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 09:58:39 AM
 #8028

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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 10:20:01 AM
 #8029

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
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 10:50:39 AM
 #8030

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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 10:53:36 AM
 #8031

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: 1540
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 12:49:00 PM
 #8032

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.


I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent!  Come join me!
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


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


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:03:49 PM
 #8033

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: 1540
Merit: 1001



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:31:52 PM
 #8034

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

I mine at Kano's Pool because it pays the best and is completely transparent!  Come join me!
IYFTech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


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


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:35:57 PM
 #8035

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
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 01:38:16 PM
 #8036

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.
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 03:54:21 PM
Last edit: March 18, 2014, 04:04:30 PM by phillipsjk
 #8037

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
Merit: 500


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


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:07:51 PM
Last edit: March 18, 2014, 04:42:44 PM by IYFTech
 #8038

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
Merit: 1001

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 04:14:50 PM
Last edit: March 18, 2014, 04:51:52 PM by phillipsjk
 #8039

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
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1197



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 08:23:46 PM
 #8040

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.
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 ... 814 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!