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

[DiabloD3]

P2Pool is the fourth largest pool! BOOM!
https://blockchain.info/pools

terahash, here we come!

Ente

Ahem

https://blockchain.info/pools?timespan=4days

Much more closer to the actual top ten I maintain.

[1713502847]

1713502847

[1713502847]

1713502847

[1713502847]

1713502847

[1713502847]

1713502847

[1713502847]

1713502847

[1713502847]

1713502847

[m3ta]

Code:

first block at 2011-08-23 23:20:35, last block at 2012-02-06 02:55:57
total of 60 blocks in 166 Days 4 Hours 35 minutes 22 seconds
2.77 per day

Just facts. So that some whiners stop emoing about luck and the definition of "average".

I think you swapped some numbers there?  

60 blocks in 166 days is 0.3614457831325301 per day.

166 blocks in 60 days is 2.766666666666667 per day.

Heh, indeed! Never code anything before coffee, my grandma used to say.

[bulanula]

P2Pool is the fourth largest pool! BOOM!
https://blockchain.info/pools

terahash, here we come!

Ente

Yeah. Probably has to do with adding it as the first listed sticky in this pools thread

[kano]

Curious about the coinbase in p2pool blocks
Most I've seen have been 0000 (i.e. almost nothing)
They are easy to spot though coz they pay in the coinbase txn (and don't say Eligius in the coinbase itself )

But this one: 165558 (00000000000007d5f9d3a5bd7d9d184f31df65b6c185433504452bcb0d9c8bcb)

Was: coinbase (44) : fabe6d6d2184daf786691909635b7684622b478c3489abe4888195feca7274e3ae5953570100000 000000000
 (..mm!....i..c[v.b+G.4........rt..YSW........)

Which looks like MM - but there doesn't appear to be an NMC block at exactly 02:55:57 6-Feb-2012 UTC (0x4f2f413d)
So ... out of curiosity ... what is that in the coinbase?
It can't be MM coz there would be nowhere to actually pay it ... would there?

(and how would it get in there anyway)

[naima53]

Yesterday I tried to interest some Russian fans at the p2pul ... I wrote a few posts in the main Russian forums. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62698.0
http://forums.overclockers.ru/viewtopic.php?p=9322835#p9322835
http://forum.btcsec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=166

[Frizz23]

Code:

first block at 2011-08-23 23:20:35, last block at 2012-02-06 02:55:57
total of 60 blocks in 166 Days 4 Hours 35 minutes 22 seconds
2.77 per day

Just facts. So that some whiners stop emoing about luck and the definition of "average".

Muahaha ... how did you even manage to unwrap your computer? How old are you? 6? Basic mathematics? Ever heard of it ...?

[Drsmite]

Code:

first block at 2011-08-23 23:20:35, last block at 2012-02-06 02:55:57
total of 60 blocks in 166 Days 4 Hours 35 minutes 22 seconds
2.77 per day

Just facts. So that some whiners stop emoing about luck and the definition of "average".

Muahaha ... how did you even manage to unwrap your computer? How old are you? 6? Basic mathematics? Ever heard of it ...?

Can we please cut out the personal attacks from these forums.  This is the completely wrong community to troll and flame, all it can do is hurt our progress.

[ThiagoCMC]

Guys,

 Just for the record here:

 A Complete Guide to P2Pool
 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62842.0

 Please, let me know if I write something wrong...

Best,
Thiago

[-ck]

Well, I'm mining here too now. Good work on the concept.

cgminer version 2.2.3 has some enhancements specifically targeted at working optimally with p2pool so if you're on cgminer, I recommend upgrading.

[DiabloD3]

Well, I'm mining here too now. Good work on the concept.

cgminer version 2.2.3 has some enhancements specifically targeted at working optimally with p2pool so if you're on cgminer, I recommend upgrading.

DiabloMiner had p2pool support first :<

[coretechs]

I use both Diablo and cgminer. 

[-ck]

Well, I'm mining here too now. Good work on the concept.

cgminer version 2.2.3 has some enhancements specifically targeted at working optimally with p2pool so if you're on cgminer, I recommend upgrading.

DiabloMiner had p2pool support first :<

Haha. Cgminer worked fine on p2pool before as well. It just works even better now. I was making no comparison with DM.

[Red Emerald]

So I'm running two p2pool nodes.  One is on the same subnet as my miner and the other is running on my residential connection as a backup pool.

They are both setup with the same versions of everything and both on the lastest git head and both are merged mining with namecoind (I like the new simpler flags btw)

My main instance output this

2012-02-06 14:28:36.710654 New work for worker! Difficulty: 1.235214 Share difficulty: 357.877941 Total block value: 50.011230 BTC including 43 transactions

and at almost the same time, my backup output this

2012-02-06 14:28:35.523973 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 349.760460 Total block value: 50.010530 BTC including 29 transactions
2012-02-06 14:28:37.032823 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 357.877941 Total block value: 50.010530 BTC including 29 transactions

Any ideas why my backup pool has different numbers for everything?  And why did the backup pool output 2 different lines with "New work?"  The second line has the same share difficulty as my main instance, but the difficulty, block value and number of transactions aren't the same.  Both nodes to show the same number of shares in the chain and the same pool hash rate and stale rate.

Both bitcoind's relay are connected to eachother, so I thought the number of transactions should be very close to the same. 43 and 29 seems like a big difference.

[forrestv]

Curious about the coinbase in p2pool blocks
Most I've seen have been 0000 (i.e. almost nothing)
They are easy to spot though coz they pay in the coinbase txn (and don't say Eligius in the coinbase itself )

But this one: 165558 (00000000000007d5f9d3a5bd7d9d184f31df65b6c185433504452bcb0d9c8bcb)

Was: coinbase (44) : fabe6d6d2184daf786691909635b7684622b478c3489abe4888195feca7274e3ae5953570100000 000000000
 (..mm!....i..c[v.b+G.4........rt..YSW........)

Which looks like MM - but there doesn't appear to be an NMC block at exactly 02:55:57 6-Feb-2012 UTC (0x4f2f413d)
So ... out of curiosity ... what is that in the coinbase?
It can't be MM coz there would be nowhere to actually pay it ... would there?

(and how would it get in there anyway)

That was a merged mining header and became Namecoin block http://explorer.dot-bit.org/b/2184daf786691909635b7684622b478c3489abe4888195feca7274e3ae595357 (notice how the block's hash in the url appears 4 bytes into the MM header.) The Bitcoin block header's timestamp doesn't have to match Namecoin's.

So I'm running two p2pool nodes.  One is on the same subnet as my miner and the other is running on my residential connection as a backup pool.

They are both setup with the same versions of everything and both on the lastest git head and both are merged mining with namecoind (I like the new simpler flags btw)

My main instance output this

2012-02-06 14:28:36.710654 New work for worker! Difficulty: 1.235214 Share difficulty: 357.877941 Total block value: 50.011230 BTC including 43 transactions

and at almost the same time, my backup output this

2012-02-06 14:28:35.523973 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 349.760460 Total block value: 50.010530 BTC including 29 transactions
2012-02-06 14:28:37.032823 New work for worker! Difficulty: 0.999985 Share difficulty: 357.877941 Total block value: 50.010530 BTC including 29 transactions

Any ideas why my backup pool has different numbers for everything?  And why did the backup pool output 2 different lines with "New work?"  The second line has the same share difficulty as my main instance, but the difficulty, block value and number of transactions aren't the same.  Both nodes to show the same number of shares in the chain and the same pool hash rate and stale rate.

Both bitcoind's relay are connected to eachother, so I thought the number of transactions should be very close to the same. 43 and 29 seems like a big difference.

The share difficulties match, which is expected. The reason that there's two is that there was a new P2Pool share produced in between them. The local difficulty is different because it automatically changes so that P2Pool isn't swamped with shares from your miners. Total block value and transactions depends on which transactions your bitcoind has heard of.

[-ck]

ckolivas, maybe I should ask this in the cgminer thread, but since it concerns P2Pool I'll ask here anyway.

I was running 2.1.2 before upgrading to the latest version. I was using -c 1 and --submit-stale with 2.1.2, and since upgrading I've removed --submit-stale as it seems it's no longer required in 2.2.3.

Do you recommend I continue to use -c 1 and are there any other switches that might be useful for P2Pool?

I'm assuming you mean -g 1. That's probably the only switch which -theoretically- might help. It has as much effect on speeding up returns as decreasing intensity by 1. The difference is decreasing intensity by 1 has a much bigger effect on your overall hashrate. Find the peak of your hashrate with intensity, but don't go higher (usually somewhere 7-9) and -g 1 is all I'd recommend.

[jothan]

I'm on p2pool since yesterday, nice piece of work, it is quite smooth to install and run. I am contributing ~1720 Mhash/s right now.

I especially like the graphs.

[freakfantom]

I'm using Windows x64. I installed Python 2.7 x64, Twisted x64, unzipped Zope.Interface x64, but when I try to see the graphs I get the following "Install python-rrdtool!". Searching Google for python-rrdtool didn't help to find a compiled version. Any help would be appreciated.

[Rubberduckie]

This has probably been asked before,but is it it better to have one instance of CGMiner for each GPU?

[Rubberduckie]

Thanks for the quick reply!

[Rubberduckie]

adding  700 MH/s to the pool