kgb2mining
Member
 Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
 |
August 21, 2014, 07:43:05 PM |
|
It certainly looks like you're saying you want to move it away from being Open Source, tbh: Open source and free will only take any project to a certain level, as long as people are willing to donate to foster a better cause. I don't think this works in the BTC world, since we're all doing this for one reason - to mine BTC and make money......
Personally, I got into Bitcoin because I believe that it has the potential to change the world & dismantle the corrupt Banking systems, & I'm happy if I break even or even make a loss if it succeeds in doing so. I want BTC to replace money, & I also know I'm not alone in believing it can. I'm totally not interested in getting rich, and if I were, mining BTC is not the way I'd go about it  There is far more worth in BTC than making a quick profit. The long term potentials are limitless. World changing even. Well, since you point it out that way... It reads different than the way it sounded in my head.  I probably should have left it at "free", and omitted the Open Source phrase from the sentence. As anyone who has been involved with O.S. for any length of time knows, there is a point where people can no longer contribute because of other "real world" issues and as a project grows it needs more care and feeding and people to help - exactly the case of what happened here with forrestv. At some point you run short of help and goals either become less achievable or frequently attained, or you need to seek alternatives to continue meeting them on time as needed. We already have seen the challenges here with the main developer stepping away. To date, no one has stepped up to fill the holes voluntarily, so it seems like there's a need now to explore the alternative means - i.e. money - to help fix what's broke and continue moving forward. So, yeah, in summary, I didn't mean to insinuate it should be closed off... just that it might end up not being free (as in money) for long if things don't change. PS - I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence, I just didn't feel like separately blockquoting it... |
|
|
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
August 21, 2014, 07:47:23 PM |
|
Would it not make sense to see if there are others who would be willing to put up very well connected peer nodes, which won't service miners, but will provide peering and maybe the data and API system so that it can be queried by the local nodes? I've got resources to be able to contribute and am willing, Paul seems to, and I'm sure there are others who will pitch in as has been the case to date.
That is creating a potential point of failure, the whole idea of a peer to peer network is to avoid that. |
|
|
|
pmorris
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
|
|
August 21, 2014, 07:47:54 PM |
|
I don't think there's anything stopping someone from re-coding it to remove the donation, however I'm not sure how the permissions are setup on the main git repo, whether those changes could be re-submitted back into the main branch without forrestv's approval. That might require a fork.
Anyone is free to fork the code and make their own changes, but I'm sure also if someone did something like that with nefarious purposes it would be found out pretty quickly and that node could probably be blocked from interacting with the rest of the nodes. Now I say that without knowing for sure, but that would be my guess.
They wouldn't need to resubmit to the main repo. They just fork it (like you did) include all the new development work done and paid for but leave out the little bit that makes the donation and then run the node. Presto - 0% fee. They could either release it publicly if they wanted to be an ass or better still just do it on the quiet and leach. It's just the existing system but without the convenient command line option that forrestv put in. But the block chain concept already solved this problem. The same reason a miner can't just give themselves 50 BTC when they mine a block or double spend an input (analogous to removing a development charge). Although any miner could create a block awarding themselves extra BTC the rest of the bitcoin network agrees by consensus that this new block is not valid and simply ignores it - it doesn't enter the block chain. The rules of the system are encoded by the majority consensus of miners. That's the power of the 51% attack. With 51% you can change whatever rules you want and benefit yourself. Taking this to the equivalent situation in the p2pool share chain. If the majority of miners on p2pool agree (or rather their nodes enforce) that a valid share must include a 1% donation to whomever then bang it's the law. Doesn't matter what an individual does with his nod. Nobody else will recognise it so he doesn't get that share. It's a hard fork though because you effectively create an entirely new p2pool which has an incompatible rule with the original p2pool. So the technology is there to do something like that. But trouble is perhaps it's not really p2p anymore. You've just invented a semi-centralised pool that enforces a payment to the boss - even a benevolent one. So politically this could be hard to achieve in practice. |
|
|
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
August 21, 2014, 07:54:17 PM |
|
So the technology is there to do something like that. But trouble is perhaps it's not really p2p anymore. You've just invented a semi-centralised pool that enforces a payment to the boss - even a benevolent one. So politically this could be hard to achieve in practice.
Exactly. So nobody will use it..... |
|
|
|
pmorris
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 21
Merit: 0
|
|
August 21, 2014, 07:54:31 PM |
|
To offset the costs of the API I was considering offering 2 options (miners choice):
Some great thoughts windpath. What stops someone taking your code, running the complex node and replacing your advertisements with their own? Does this just create a way for others to monetise your work? Or would the complex node stuff serving the API stay closed source? |
|
|
|
|
kgb2mining
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
August 21, 2014, 08:02:01 PM |
|
That is creating a potential point of failure, the whole idea of a peer to peer network is to avoid that.
Please explain your conclusion, I don't see this creating a single point of failure, and it's quite the opposite. A peering node would simply be another full instance of bitcoind running on a server that's well connected and very well resourced. It would be able to service hundreds of connections from other, smaller, local nodes. It's only purpose would be to ensure a well connected host closer to the smaller or home miners to hopefully increase their chances of getting their shares into the network faster. In addition if it served the data that windpath is alluding to, and serve as a closer location to make the API calls to, it decentralizes the network further, and moves the processing of this data out closer to the individual miners. |
|
|
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
August 21, 2014, 08:07:18 PM |
|
Not a single point of failure, a potential point of failure.....
|
|
|
|
kgb2mining
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
August 21, 2014, 08:16:09 PM |
|
So the technology is there to do something like that. But trouble is perhaps it's not really p2p anymore. You've just invented a semi-centralised pool that enforces a payment to the boss - even a benevolent one. So politically this could be hard to achieve in practice.
Exactly. So nobody will use it..... And, currently there's nothing stopping anyone running a public node from charging a fee for miners to use it, and there's nothing stopping anyone from avoiding using that node (not intended to be snarky, just making the point since it's directly relevant). And currently there are enough issues with p2pool where people are avoiding it and going with higher priced proprietary pools. Arguably those issues could be fixed, but if only there was a way to get them fixed........... We are at the point where you have to pool mine in order to make anything, are we all agreed on that? That being the case, I would rather mine at a pool where I know any fee I pay is going to the betterment of the whole pool and all who mine on it, including myself (third point in my statement - distribute the rest back to all the miners), rather than to make someone or some company rich off my labor. 1% of a BTC is what, $5? did anyone get a coffee on the way to work this morning? How much did that cost you? If forgoing a cup of joe for a couple days meant my Terraminers regained 20% of their hashrate (a piddly little 600GH/s, nothing big  ), sign me up twice. |
|
|
|
|
kgb2mining
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
August 21, 2014, 08:18:59 PM |
|
Not a single point of failure, a potential point of failure.....
Ok, I'll give you that, if a peer node went down it could cause a "burp" for some folks, but I would still contend not a big one. What happens if a peer you're connected to now goes down? bitcoind blacklists it and uses the others in its list. It's like a root nameserver going down... might cause an extra few hundred milliseconds to get a response on a domain query from a different one, but unless they all went down at the same time, you'd really not notice much of a difference. |
|
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
August 21, 2014, 08:23:12 PM |
|
Not a single point of failure, a potential point of failure.....
The failure of the API (which is inevitable, eventually it will have some down time) will have 0 impact on mining. The API will only provide data for the front-end, it will have no hooks into the node at all. To be clear the stuff I'm talking about is basically the entire p2pool Global Dashboard here: http://minefast.coincadence.com/p2pool-stats.phpThe platform data that is not available from p2pool and the block history on the Node Dashboard page here: http://minefast.coincadence.com/index.phpAnd the miner BTC reward and block luck here: http://minefast.coincadence.com/miner.php?id=19vXrwKGUhK4cCU8tA4kWZgbChcmh9a6qjI'm not concerned with someone trying to hijack any ad space, the API will serve raw HTML that is embedded in the pages with Javascript and the ads will simply be there amongst the other data. Yes, someone could write some code to strip the ads and replace them with their own, but I don't see it as being a huge problem. If it became one it would be trivial to dynamically change the ad placement and code so its hard to strip... |
|
|
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
August 21, 2014, 08:35:29 PM
Last edit: August 21, 2014, 08:45:30 PM by PatMan |
|
It's funny, this debate comes round every few months when new arrivals realize the wasted potential p2pool has, but the conclusion is always undecided..... Personally (again), there isn't really a lot wrong with how p2pool works, just what it (doesn't) works with due to no development - this is the problem. If there is to be any kind of hard coded donation feature, it should go to everyone depending on their hash rate, and the option to donate to the dev should remain as it is. It should be possible for the p2pool program to detect if the donation option is enabled or not on a particular node, then adjust the donation amount to that node accordingly. I still believe that if users are able to see that there is ongoing development on p2pool (which there must be in order for p2pool to be compatible with the ever increasing different hardware being released) - they will donate. This should also be displayed on their node for everyone to see - kind of name & shame so to speak..... Just a rough suggestion......  I must admit it's a refreshing change to have a semi-intelligent debate about this, when I first suggested there was plenty of room for improvement with p2pool over a year ago - I was branded a blasphemous upstart witch! How dare I question p2pool...... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
August 21, 2014, 09:52:32 PM
Last edit: August 21, 2014, 10:32:33 PM by PatMan |
|
Like I said, not much wrong with it... But it needs to be seen instead of looking for it - noob friendly style., both that & the dev donation...... |
|
|
|
|
PatMan
|
|
August 21, 2014, 10:23:08 PM |
|
EDIT: Not working for me, locked up & gave me this error when I tried to stop it: " namecoind: /usr/include/boost/interprocess/sync/posix/recursive_mutex.hpp:77: boost::interprocess::ipcdetail::posix_recursive_mutex::~posix_recursive_mutex(): Assertion `res == 0' failed." |
|
|
|
|
squashpile
|
|
August 22, 2014, 12:22:10 AM
Last edit: August 22, 2014, 12:37:53 AM by squashpile |
|
More blocks.. 0.06507941 on 1TH/s today so far. Not bad. One more today  You guys running nodes please advise. What is your average bitcoind RAM usage after a few days? I had been having some bitcoind crashing issues and recreated swap @ 2GB and changed swapiness and cache pressure. So far so good, but I'm curious on usage on other nodes. I have limited connections in Bitcoind to 40 too. I didn't mess with P2Pool connection limits (32/6 currently). I'm thinking I need to up the memory allocation if the swap changes don't work out. May be off-topic and need to post on support thread but the gurus are here. |
SquashPool - 0% Fee - Dedicated P2Pool VPS - Atlanta, GA - SSD - Gig uplink
|
|
|
kgb2mining
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
August 22, 2014, 01:57:34 AM |
|
More blocks.. 0.06507941 on 1TH/s today so far. Not bad. One more today You guys running nodes please advise. What is your average bitcoind RAM usage after a few days? I had been having some bitcoind crashing issues and recreated swap @ 2GB and changed swapiness and cache pressure. So far so good, but I'm curious on usage on other nodes. I have limited connections in Bitcoind to 40 too. I didn't mess with P2Pool connection limits (32/6 currently). I'm thinking I need to up the memory allocation if the swap changes don't work out. May be off-topic and need to post on support thread but the gurus are here. Sweet, 3 blocks today... been a nice run since over the weekend for sure. To answer the question tho, our node is currently at 589MB for bitcoind on uptime of just under 15 days, at least according to the p2pool graphs. To be fair tho, we're not allowing connections inbound, and only have 7 outbound peers. GBT latency is .223s average. How much RAM do you have on your node total? |
|
|
|
|
kgb2mining
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
August 22, 2014, 02:01:46 AM |
|
It's funny, this debate comes round every few months when new arrivals realize the wasted potential p2pool has, but the conclusion is always undecided..... Personally (again), there isn't really a lot wrong with how p2pool works, just what it (doesn't) works with due to no development - this is the problem. If there is to be any kind of hard coded donation feature, it should go to everyone depending on their hash rate, and the option to donate to the dev should remain as it is. It should be possible for the p2pool program to detect if the donation option is enabled or not on a particular node, then adjust the donation amount to that node accordingly. I still believe that if users are able to see that there is ongoing development on p2pool (which there must be in order for p2pool to be compatible with the ever increasing different hardware being released) - they will donate. This should also be displayed on their node for everyone to see - kind of name & shame so to speak..... Just a rough suggestion...... I must admit it's a refreshing change to have a semi-intelligent debate about this, when I first suggested there was plenty of room for improvement with p2pool over a year ago - I was branded a blasphemous upstart witch! How dare I question p2pool...... You know, this isn't too far from what I suggested in my post I also agree, if there was active development, and active results, more would be inclined to contribute. Seems like we have a typical High Noon situation between the users and the devs, with both sides saying "your move tex" but no one giving in first. |
|
|
|
|
bitcoinbearhk
Member
Offline
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
|
|
August 22, 2014, 12:59:44 PM |
|
I received some 0.00028 BTC this morning in my P2Pool wallet ... not newly generated coins ... wondering did any one else on p2pool also receive that and what for?
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinbearhk
Member
Offline
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
|
|
August 22, 2014, 01:02:50 PM |
|
Unfortunately I am a civil engineer , but not computer engineer ... I am very limited in regard to computing and coding ... I would say, at the "common user" level.
I am a fast learner though. Can someone point me to the right direction or provide me a list of stuffs starting from scratch that I need to learn if I would wish to contribute to re-coding the p2pool software?
How do coders come to be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
