Hashers are not miners, and Bitcoin network doesn't need them.

[sickpig]

I have a KnC Jupiter and I usually have it using two pools, first my own p2pool merged mining node that merges all eight merged mined coins, second, in case of problems (like the motherboard currently being blown) with my p2pool it uses mmpool at bitparking as backup.

When using mmpool it correctly shows in its dashobard web system its hashrate.

When mining on my p2pool though it shows a hashrate about half what the p2pool is actually getting from it according to p2pool itself.

So this problem seems to be cosmetic, somehow the Jupiter's web system is extracting wrong information from the cgminer instance it is using.

But it took me some time to finally migrate to having my p2pool as first choice pool because at first it did seem like it had real problems trying to use p2pool.

One thing miners stand to gain by using p2pool instead of centralised pools is control over which coins to merge.

Until recently no public pool I knew of merged I0C, GRP, CLC nor XGG.

A while ago mmpool reinstated I0Coin and at the same time also added GRP.

But as far as I know you still miss out on both CLC and XGG if you use any centralised pool instead of running your own p2pool node.

As more blockchains implement merged mining, people using centralised pools will likely miss out on more and more merged mined blockchains.

-MarkM-

thanks for sharing your experience, really appreciated.

How did you discover that your real hashrate was actually twice the hashrate reported by cgminer? 

I have a more general question though: how is possible to improve the situation in a technical way? I've heard of other problems related to p2pool (latencies, flushwork). Are those problems real? Is there enough man-power, commitment and resources  behind the project?

[1714871031]

1714871031

[1714871031]

1714871031

[1714871031]

1714871031

[jeliman]

why do people grumble about hashers??

Bitcoin must prove that it is able to deal with this and many other "problems" to come if it aspires for a sustainable currency.

Ok, they dont care about BTC or other altcoins and what?
I buy oil futures for speculation and I dont care about oil, am I evil??

The hashers just contribute to a crypto economy by creating a demmand for hardware, sending coins to exchanges etc. They are a vital part of the whole picture.

[chopsticks]

why do people grumble about hashers??

Bitcoin must prove that it is able to deal with this and many other "problems" to come if it aspires for a sustainable currency.

Ok, they dont care about BTC or other altcoins and what?
I buy oil futures for speculation and I dont care about oil, am I evil??

The hashers just contribute to a crypto economy by creating a demmand for hardware, sending coins to exchanges etc. They are a vital part of the whole picture.

Correct. Cryptocurrency will have to deal with far more powerful forces than current  hashers.

If JP Morgan, WellsFargo, Microsoft, Apple, Google or Amazon want to start hashing then we'll see something altogether different.

[luv2drnkbr]

Correct. Cryptocurrency will have to deal with far more powerful forces than current  hashers.

If JP Morgan, WellsFargo, Microsoft, Apple, Google or Amazon want to start hashing then we'll see something altogether different.

Oh god I would love for that to happen.  That would be so great for bitcoin.  It would force the community to mobilize and get normal users mining.  It would be a temporarily "bad" thing but the result would be in the end amazingly good for bitcoin.  And meanwhile the price would be driven up due to the influx of all this new hashing power and the economic relationship between mining, perceived value, and actual real incentive and value.  It would push bitcoin truly mainstream almost overnight.

Also, completely agree with you OP.  Everybody should be either solo mining, p2pool mining, or always mining on pools with less than say 15% of the total network.  (Solo and p2pool obviously better-- getting work from central nodes is not what bitcoin is about!)  And everybody should also be merged mining namecoin.

[Meuh6879]

that why i have plan in my PC to alternate 1 hour for pool and 1 hour for solo mining ... to support transactions even if pool fail.

[smooth]

that why i have plan in my PC to alternate 1 hour for pool and 1 hour for solo mining ... to support transactions even if pool fail.

Not a bad idea but a better plan is to alternate between a large pool (for consistent regular payouts) and (your own node on) p2pool (to support decentralization).  P2pool will not pay out as consistently as the big pool but much more regularly than solo mining, with the same benefits of decentralization.

[jeliman]

Oh god I would love for that to happen.  That would be so great for bitcoin.  It would force the community to mobilize and get normal users mining.  It would be a temporarily "bad" thing but the result would be in the end amazingly good for bitcoin.  And meanwhile the price would be driven up due to the influx of all this new hashing power and the economic relationship between mining, perceived value, and actual real incentive and value.  It would push bitcoin truly mainstream almost overnight.

though very optimistic, this could be the real life scenario

Also, completely agree with you OP.  Everybody should be either solo mining, p2pool mining, or always mining on pools with less than say 15% of the total network.  (Solo and p2pool obviously better-- getting work from central nodes is not what bitcoin is about!)  And everybody should also be merged mining namecoin.

everybody should..... ? Come on, the system must be robust enough to deal with all the variety of people joining in. And even though the community of BTC miners prooved to be self-regulatory (Ghash issue) still I'm afraid  that somewhere in the shade "evil" forces are getting ready for an assult to test the overall integrity of the whole crypto-revolution

[spartacusrex]

Just to clarify..

p2pool ROCKS. No question.

BUT - p2pool is not the BE ALL AND END ALL ANSWER.. I wish it was.

All p2pool does, from a technical perspective, is make bitcoin run on a much faster chain. Originally it was 10 seconds, but now has moved to 30 seconds, funnily enough to let the ASIC machines work on it... So it's chain is just, with 30 secs, 20 times easier to mine on. And yes, it is decentralised, just like btc. But that's all.

Once A LOT of hashing power moves to p2pool, EXACTLY the same thing will happen and only pools will be able to mine it.

You will not be able to mine solo on p2pool. You'll have to join a pool that mines p2pool.

And then the whole circus will start again.

A technical solution has yet to be found for this issue.

That doesn't mean it won't, but just saying 'EVERYONE JUMP ONTO P2POOL', is a temporary solution at best..

Now.. Let's think of a proper technical solution, as the OP suggests..

{..sits on chair and starts thinking..HARD..}.. 
 

[murraypaul]

p2pool already does better than centralized pools by reducing orphans, paying out transaction fees to miners, allowing merged mining and not charging any fees. So hashers who adopt it and become full miners should already increase their earnings.

BTCGuild pays for orphans, pays transaction fees, merge mines NMC, and charges 1.5% fees.

The bigger issues are: 1) awareness, 2) easy of setup/management, 3) compatibility with some mining setups (some specific ASICs don't work well and very small miners won't get consistent earnings).  If you want to help with decentralization, contribute to working on one of these three items. Anyone who is interested, even without any programming or scripting ability, can help with 1)

And:
a) Increased disk space and IO requirements for the full Bitcoin blockchain
b) Increased CPU and memory requirements for running bitcoind
c) Increased network bandwidth requirements for running a full node
d) Increased variability
e) Increased transaction costs in later spending your mining income, due to the large number of small payments, rather than a single payment from a pool

For me, 1.5% seems like a fair charge to avoid those issues.

(To the thread in general) Stop assuming that people are being stupid or ignorant, just because they don't make the same choices you do.

[Trongersoll]

I see nothing new here, why did we need a new thread to rehash old ideas?

[murraypaul]

BTCGuild pays for orphans, pays transaction fees, merge mines NMC, and charges 1.5% fees.

Oops, I meant 3%

[curt.rowland]

I guess I am just another "hasher" contributing the problem then. But I have just as much right to be here doing it as anyone else and if someone doesnt like it then they are more than welcome to leave.

[curt.rowland]

for anyone who takes offense to someone jumping into this to make a quick buck, I'm sure you're not holding on to any coins at all?

[curt.rowland]

holier than thou bullshit!!

[Holliday]

for anyone who takes offense to someone jumping into this to make a quick buck, I'm sure you're not holding on to any coins at all?

The point is, if you want to continue to use your hardware investment to make a quick buck in the future, you might want to consider the health of the network which is paying the bills.

Perhaps even, if the network was in a healthier state, there may be more investor confidence, and you could be earning even more today.

But, by all means, do as little as you can to earn a quick buck today with no regard for tomorrow.

[FandangledGizmo]

I see nothing new here, why did we need a new thread to rehash old ideas?

Because the vulnerability centralisation of mining creates has been solved by POS crypto-currencies.
Except for first mover advantage Bitcoin is already worthless/obsolete.

Bitcoin can either seriously try and fix the problem now, or be relegated to the dustbowl of history the next time there is a serious double spend attack.

[Holliday]

Because the vulnerability centralisation of mining creates has been solved by POS crypto-currencies.
Except for first mover advantage Bitcoin is already worthless/obsolete.

Proof of Stake coins have been around long enough that if what you are saying is true, the market would already reflect this. Well... it doesn't.

[FandangledGizmo]

Because the vulnerability centralisation of mining creates has been solved by POS crypto-currencies.
Except for first mover advantage Bitcoin is already worthless/obsolete.

Proof of Stake coins have been around long enough that if what you are saying is true, the market would already reflect this. Well... it doesn't.

Coins 3 (Peercoin) & 4 (NXT) have POS.

What will happen to Litecoin when scrypt-asics are released soon?
What will happen to NXT when it releases a one-click install client soon and not an eight step download?

I think the market does already reflects the strength of POS coming up & I think you will have NXT (only a few months old) sitting behind Bitcoin soon waiting for a double-spend attack for the market to make it obsolete.

What does POW do better than POS?

[smooth]

Except for first mover advantage Bitcoin is already worthless/obsolete.

Except for looks I'm about as hot as a Sports Illustrated cover model. Get it?

[chopsticks]

Because the vulnerability centralisation of mining creates has been solved by POS crypto-currencies.
Except for first mover advantage Bitcoin is already worthless/obsolete.

Bitcoin can either seriously try and fix the problem now, or be relegated to the dustbowl of history the next time there is a serious double spend attack.

And you are holding how many, and of what type, of coinage?

I'm asking because I wonder if you're full of hot air or actually have your head pulled out.