NastyPoP vs Standard P2Pool

[PatMan]

I am disappointed to be accused of not being transparent.

Nobody, including me, is accusing you of not being transparent. You were accusing JB of this:

...and has no transparency...

I have congratulated & praised you & p2p-pop already, as well as suggested your pool to potential miners:

Try Ognasty p2pool-pop:  nastyfans.org:9332 (use your BTC address as your username to receive payouts & add -PoP to the end for NastyPoP payouts)

It is especially for smaller miners & you will be helping to decentralize the network  

So there is really no reason to twist my words.

I'm outta here.

[1714918197]

1714918197

[1714918197]

1714918197

[1714918197]

1714918197

[1714918197]

1714918197

[jonnybravo0311]

OgNasty,

There are 2 reasons why I chose to implement the test the way I did.

1) A miner who chooses to use p2pool is either going to run his own node, or find one as close to his miners as possible from a latency perspective that is performing respectably (low GBT latency, decent efficiency, etc).  If the miner decides to go with NastyPoP, he must accept the added latency as a byproduct of that choice, since he can't build or run his own version of NastyPoP locally or choose to mine on a closer node on which it is installed.
2) I built and own the node on which my miner is pointed and know it is in fact a standard p2pool node with no modifications other than justino's front end and is running the latest version of bitcoind compiled and built on the server.  I don't have control over your node, and I don't know what if any modifications and tuning parameters you've made to your own.

However, since you seem to feel that my test is in some way invalid because I'm not mining on your node, I will gladly rectify this situation.  As of 1900 UTC this coming Friday, I will point one of my S3s to your standard p2pool node, and keep my current miner on the NastyPoP version.

What I have shown thus far in the test is that luck has everything to do with mining and a miner on a standard p2pool node will experience the variance of that luck far more than would a miner who chooses NastyPoP.  In reality, the payouts aren't the real result of the test - the fact that the variance is far less on NastyPoP than it is on a standard node is.  You can even seen this by looking at the results in the OP.  Look how different the numbers are in the standard node vs those on your NastyPoP node.  That evidence clearly shows how NastyPoP reduces variance.

I hope this explanation helps to clarify any misunderstandings you may have.

[jonnybravo0311]

Another week of testing has passed and here are the results...

Standard p2pool node: 0.05615571BTC
NastyPoP: 0.05015601BTC
Expected: 0.0393BTC

Both the standard p2pool node as well as the NasyPoP system beat expectations this week.  Also, if you take a look at the payout history for my miner on the standard p2pool node, you'll notice that I received no payouts for two of the found blocks because I didn't have any shares on the chain when they were found.  For my miner on NastyPoP, I did indeed receive a payout for those blocks.

This is where NastyPoP shines and truly shows the reduced variance and I was hoping we'd see it during the testing.  Although the miner on the standard node edged out the miner on the NastyPoP node, the difference between the two is pretty insignificant this week.

Standard p2pool node paid 142.89% of expectations this week.  NastyPoP paid 127.62%.

Another note I want to add here... to assuage any concerns that OgNasty has had regarding the execution of the tests I've been running, I have pointed yet another of my S3s away from my own node and to the standard p2pool node at nastyfans.org.  This S3 is like the other two: running at a clock of 218.75 getting 440GH/s.  I started it at approximately 19:10UTC today.  The address is 1JbnAstYXy1pmv7AeLj7w117HWvmDXCFDE.  Starting next week I will include the results from that miner in the report as well.

I've updated the OP with this week's results.

[OgNasty]

1) A miner who chooses to use p2pool is either going to run his own node, or find one as close to his miners as possible from a latency perspective that is performing respectably (low GBT latency, decent efficiency, etc).  If the miner decides to go with NastyPoP, he must accept the added latency as a byproduct of that choice, since he can't build or run his own version of NastyPoP locally or choose to mine on a closer node on which it is installed.

Just because it is high latency where YOU are, does not mean it is that way for everyone.  Hence your flawed results which cannot be attributed to luck.  If you believe that, then I would suggest that you aren't very good at math.

Your pool is very close to my facility.  
 time=10.2 ms
 time=10.1 ms
 time=10.3 ms
 time=10.1 ms

2) I built and own the node on which my miner is pointed and know it is in fact a standard p2pool node with no modifications other than justino's front end and is running the latest version of bitcoind compiled and built on the server.  I don't have control over your node, and I don't know what if any modifications and tuning parameters you've made to your own.

NastyPool is a default P2Pool node.

However, since you seem to feel that my test is in some way invalid because I'm not mining on your node, I will gladly rectify this situation.  As of 1900 UTC this coming Friday, I will point one of my S3s to your standard p2pool node, and keep my current miner on the NastyPoP version.

Cool.  Thank you for deciding to run this test fairly to get legitimate data about NastyPoP vs Standard P2Pool payouts.  I look forward to seeing your numbers show a slight advantage to Standard P2Pool next week as your hashrate ramps down to where both miners are equal, followed by nearly identical numbers the following week.  Perhaps once that happens, you will stop your ludicrous luck argument and restore some legitimacy to these numbers.  Maybe you'll even go as far as removing the inaccurate data.

What I have shown thus far in the test is that luck has everything to do with mining and a miner on a standard p2pool node will experience the variance of that luck far more than would a miner who chooses NastyPoP.

You aren't seeing higher earnings due to luck with Standard P2Pool.  Your hashrate isn't low enough to see the extreme variance reduction benefits of NastyPoP.  For the test you think you're doing, you'd see much better results mining with 1GH/s.  

[jonnybravo0311]

1) A miner who chooses to use p2pool is either going to run his own node, or find one as close to his miners as possible from a latency perspective that is performing respectably (low GBT latency, decent efficiency, etc).  If the miner decides to go with NastyPoP, he must accept the added latency as a byproduct of that choice, since he can't build or run his own version of NastyPoP locally or choose to mine on a closer node on which it is installed.

Just because it is high latency where YOU are, does not mean it is that way for everyone.  Hence your flawed results which cannot be attributed to luck.  If you believe that, then I would suggest that you aren't very good at math.

Your pool is very close to my facility.  
 time=10.2 ms
 time=10.1 ms
 time=10.3 ms
 time=10.1 ms

Quite frankly I'm amazed by your continued assertions that I'm somehow running a flawed test.  Now you're insinuating that my math skills are lacking.  My results absolutely can be attributed to statistical luck, plain and simple.  The latency from my location to your node is higher than I would choose if I were going to be picking a node on which to mine; however, the latency isn't so different as to be as big a factor as you're claiming it is.

To your node:

--- nastyfans.org ping statistics ---
39 packets transmitted, 39 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 116.675/158.528/388.339/71.604 ms

To my node:

--- 104.131.12.128 ping statistics ---
40 packets transmitted, 40 packets received, 0.0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 20.111/40.750/143.201/36.491 ms

I also stated that a miner is forced to accept the higher latency if he chooses to mine on NastyPoP because your server is located in the EU.  Yes, there are some miners closer to your server, and there are also some miners who are farther away.  The point remains that everybody who chooses NastyPoP is indeed forced to accept that consequence, whereas if they want to mine a traditional p2pool node, they can run their own on their local home network where ping times are of no consequence.  Or, they can choose to run on a node that is close to them.

2) I built and own the node on which my miner is pointed and know it is in fact a standard p2pool node with no modifications other than justino's front end and is running the latest version of bitcoind compiled and built on the server.  I don't have control over your node, and I don't know what if any modifications and tuning parameters you've made to your own.

NastyPool is a default P2Pool node.

I didn't mean to insinuate that you are running some non-standard version of the p2pool code.  All I meant here was that you could have tuned your node to change things like max block size, etc.  I don't control the node, so I don't know what you've done.  That's all.  You've cleared it up, and I take your word for it.

However, since you seem to feel that my test is in some way invalid because I'm not mining on your node, I will gladly rectify this situation.  As of 1900 UTC this coming Friday, I will point one of my S3s to your standard p2pool node, and keep my current miner on the NastyPoP version.

Cool.  Thank you for deciding to run this test fairly to get legitimate data about NastyPoP vs Standard P2Pool payouts.  I look forward to seeing your numbers show a slight advantage to Standard P2Pool next week as your hashrate ramps down to where both miners are equal, followed by nearly identical numbers the following week.  Perhaps once that happens, you will stop your ludicrous luck argument and restore some legitimacy to these numbers.  Maybe you'll even go as far as removing the inaccurate data.

I decided to point yet another of my miners to your standard node.  There's not going to be any ramping down and equalizing.  I have 9 S3s.  When I started the test, I used the one pointed to my backup node and pointed one of them to your NastyPoP node.  Now I'm pointing a third to your standard node.  If anything, statistically speaking, the miner using NastyPoP should payout higher this week.  Why?  Because as of now, p2pool expects to find a block every 15 hours or so, yet my S3 only expects to find a share every 36 hours or so.  Therefore, my NastyPoP miner expects to get paid for 2 blocks before my regular Nasty miner even expects to find a share and get paid.  If I'm lucky, I'll find more shares than expected.  If I'm unlucky, I won't.

So much for my lack of math skills.

What I have shown thus far in the test is that luck has everything to do with mining and a miner on a standard p2pool node will experience the variance of that luck far more than would a miner who chooses NastyPoP.

You aren't seeing higher earnings due to luck with Standard P2Pool.  You're seeing higher earnings due to lower latency.  Period.  Your hashrate isn't low enough to see the extreme variance reduction benefits of NastyPoP.  For the test you think you're doing, you'd see much better results mining with 1GH/s.  

I really can't believe that you truly think the fact that my S3 happened to have submitted more shares than expected has everything to do with latency and nothing to do with luck.  I'm seeing higher earnings because my S3 had more shares on the chain than expectations, which is easily seen - and strangely enough verified by you - by looking at the hash rate p2pool thinks it has.  Twice in this thread you've provided the hash rate p2pool thinks that miner has, and both times p2pool thought that rate was higher than it actually is.  If you really think that's solely because of latency, you're just plain wrong.

In any case, the test continues and I look forward to seeing how the three miners compare to each other: a close p2pool node, a faraway p2pool node and a faraway node running NastyPoP.

[OgNasty]

There's not going to be any ramping down and equalizing.

What new address are you using to mine?

[jonnybravo0311]

There's not going to be any ramping down and equalizing.

What new address are you using to mine?

I posted it earlier... I created the address yesterday and configured my S3 to use it on the standard Nasty p2pool.  Here it is:

1JbnAstYXy1pmv7AeLj7w117HWvmDXCFDE

[yslyung]

CHILLLLLL we here to run tests & a FAIR comparison ! not to .... each other.

Very nice of JB to do the tests & also very nice of nasty who have made a unique p2pool.

[jonnybravo0311]

I wouldn't normally update this post unless directly asked a question or to respond to some discussion point.  Having written that, I wanted to post this.  On Friday, just after 19:00 UTC, I created a new BTC address and configured one of my S3s to mine on the nastyfans.org traditional p2pool.  I now have 3 S3s on this test: one of them is mining on my backup node, one is mining on nastyfans.org using NastyPoP and the third is mining on nastyfans.org using traditional p2pool payout.

Since I brought this S3 to the nastyfans.org pool, it has found far more shares than it should have: 4 in the past 48 hours.

First, here's the configuration screen of that miner:


Now, here's the graph from nastyfans.org:


Statistically, an S3 should take between a day and a half and 2 days to find a share.  Clearly this miner is beating expectations - and as with the miner on my backup node has shown thus far in the test - variance plays a far larger role on the traditional p2pool node than it will with NastyPoP.  As of this post, the miner on my backup node has 0 shares on the chain.

We'll see how this all plays out come Friday...

[stan258]

Your pool is very close to my facility.  
 time=10.2 ms
 time=10.1 ms
 time=10.3 ms
 time=10.1 ms

I just came across this thread…..I got these results based in Las Vegas. I don’t know where OGs server is hosted but it is close to me. I am surrounded by 2 or 3 dcs. I can piss on one of dc wall from the roof.  I have pulled my hardware to try a new pool.  You guys need some test results now or can you wait until I get new hardware in a few days? I don’t want to take anything down from the pools I am mining at sorry.  The s3s that where here have been sold. 

[jonnybravo0311]

Quick update... I've had to power down my miner on the standard p2pool payout for a few hours today... it's in the basement and my water heater just blew up, so I'm busy getting rid of the excess water and cleaning things up.  Once the new water heater has been installed, I'll fire it back up.  That's why you're going to see the drop in hash rate on the graphs (if you're looking).  The miner on the NastyPoP payout is upstairs on a different circuit, so it's still up and running.

[stan258]

772 rejects with 6214 accepted .12% for 6 hrs now. 

[OgNasty]

my water heater just blew up, so I'm busy getting rid of the excess water and cleaning things up.

Sorry to hear that.

Starting next week NastyPoP payouts will start seeing a bonus from 250 NastyFans seats.

Donations to NastyPool Update:
I've decided to redirect distributions from the 250 seats I had going to NastyPool.  Instead of continuing to save funds for a future lottery, these distributions will now be donated to the NastyPoP address to provide additional BTC for NastyPoP miners.

[jonnybravo0311]

my water heater just blew up, so I'm busy getting rid of the excess water and cleaning things up.

Sorry to hear that.

Starting next week NastyPoP payouts will start seeing a bonus from 250 NastyFans seats.

Donations to NastyPool Update:
I've decided to redirect distributions from the 250 seats I had going to NastyPool.  Instead of continuing to save funds for a future lottery, these distributions will now be donated to the NastyPoP address to provide additional BTC for NastyPoP miners.

That's a pretty cool way to distribute those funds.  Nicely done!

I just got everything all set back up and fired up the miner again.  Thanks for the well wishes on the water heater.  At least I caught it early and was home when it happened... boy that would have been an absolutely awful mess had I been away!

[jonnybravo0311]

Another week in the books.  Let's take a look at the results.  Also note that this week there's a third miner in the tests.  I pointed one of my S3s to mine on nastyfans.org's standard p2pool payout.

My standard p2pool node - 0.03205607BTC
OgNasty's standard p2pool node - 0.03861873BTC
NastyPoP p2pool - 0.02812263BTC
Expected - 0.0388BTC

Surprisingly, the miner I have pointed to OgNasty's p2pool payouts fared the best this week.  I fully expected it to do worse than the other two because of the fact that the BTC address was completely new to p2pool, so ramping up some shares should have played a part.  Instead, it performed much higher than expectations.  I posted screenshots on 12/28 that showed the miner had found a higher than expected number of shares, which in turn translated into higher than expected payouts when blocks were found.

In general p2pool's luck was pretty awful this past week (coincidence.com shows 7 day luck of 73.17%), so it's not surprising every miner missed the expected payout mark for 440GH/s over 7 days.  The one that came closest was the new miner I added last Friday.

The OP is updated with the results.

[nonnakip]

As maintainer of NastyPool and implementer of NastyPoP I want to clear up some misconceptions here.

I start by saying thank you to jonnybravo0311. You are doing excellent work testing.

The NastyPoP payout method is very simple. PatMan mentions closed source. Here is the source:

• every Friday at 19:00 UTC count up the hashes generated by each NastyPoP miner since previous Friday at 19:00 UTC
• count 6-confirmation-BTC held by NastyPoP Bitcoin mining address
• distribute that BTC amount to NastyPoP miners based on proportion hashes

For long term mining this will yield the same payout as P2Pool.

Unless NastyPoP gets significant "marketshare", in the short term large miners will typically yield less payout and small miners will yield more payout as P2Pool.

So why would anyone mine on NastyPoP?

If you are a miner that does not receive regular P2Pool payouts it can be nice to mine P2Pool via NastyPoP and receive regular payouts. As SP20 and S5 miners flood the market this point should not be undervalued.

If you are a large miner NastyPoP can provide some extra safety. For example your water heater blows up and you must shut down your miner for a few days. With P2Pool that could be extra bad if P2Pool luck was very big during those few days. With NastyPoP the spurious P2Pool luck waves do not play such a role.

NastyPoP and NastyPool also offer other bonuses but I do not want this to be NastyPoP advertisement. I only want to clarify misconceptions.

Some reasons why a different P2Pool node shows different reject rates is because of merged mining. Until recently NastyPool merged mined Namecoin and Huntercoin. Particularly Huntercoin caused many extra work restarts for miners. And work restarts is the primary reason for rejects. Last week NastyPool stopped merged mining with Huntercoin so this should help that situation. Namecoin is still merged mined. This is how NastyPool funds itself.

I welcome this and any other NastyPoP tests. I think it would be particularly interesting to read a test from a miner that was using non-P2Pool and switched to NastyPoP for 2 weeks. Especially for a smaller miner that was using non-P2Pool previously.

The main goal of NastyPoP is not to convert P2Pool-miners to NastyPoP-miners. It is to convert non-P2Pool miners to P2Pool miners (via NastyPoP).

[Prelude]

Great thread, jonnybravo0311! Thanks for all the work you've done, and the statistics. Very interesting.

Might switch 5 undervolted S1s I have contributing heat my mother's house over to nastyPOP. Seems like they would be perfect candidates! Only thing that bugs me a bit is the highish 108ms average ping from her place. Too bad there isn't an east coast NA server.

[OgNasty]

Great thread, jonnybravo0311! Thanks for all the work you've done, and the statistics. Very interesting.

Might switch 5 undervolted S1s I have contributing heat my mother's house over to nastyPOP. Seems like they would be perfect candidates! Only thing that bugs me a bit is the highish 108ms average ping from her place. Too bad there isn't an east coast NA server.

A US server is something that is currently being worked on.  We have the hosting and equipment but nonnakip has some development work to do before that is a reality.  This thread actually inspired a much more thorough look at the NastyPool node to see why we saw such shortcomings compared with jonnybravo's node.  While some of it can be written off as latency, there are certainly other factors at play here that have been identified and are being resolved.  Positive changes are on the horizon that will help both the Standard & NastyPoP payouts made by NastyPool.  I think the disconnect evidenced by jonnybravo's results is going to have a positive impact, and I am thankful to him for that.

[jonnybravo0311]

Another week down, and this week we see for the first time NastyPoP's variance reduction payouts winning out over standard p2pool for one of my miners.  The miner on my node had just plain awful luck at the beginning of the week.  It had no shares on the chain and missed payments for 5 of the blocks p2pool found.  My miner on the NastyPoP node was paid for every found block.  I'm very happy we've now seen this, and the payout results reflect the fact that my miner missed those 5 blocks.  So... here are the results for my miners for the week:

My standard p2pool node - 0.024337627BTC
OgNasty's standard p2pool node - 0.06870469BTC
NastyPoP p2pool - 0.04531921BTC
Expected - 0.0381BTC
P2Pool 7 day luck - 152.23%

Look very closely at the difference in the payouts between my two miners on standard p2pool payouts.  They are both S3s.  They are both clocked at 218.75 to get 440GH/s.  They're both running on the same EVGA 1300 G2.  Yet, the S3 on my node only made 0.024337627, while my S3 on nastyfans.org made 0.06870469.  That's the variance that p2pool miners see, and what the NastyPoP system normalizes.

P2Pool, in general this week beat expected earnings.  My miners on nastyfans (both the regular and the NastyPoP) followed that trend and beat out expected earnings.

OP has been updated with this week's results.

[jonnybravo0311]

Another week in the books, and it's a win across the board for the NastyPoP payouts.  The miners on the standard p2pool payout suffered some pretty bad luck finding shares and missed a number of payouts because of it.  The miner on NastyPoP was paid out for every single block.  P2Pool itself did abysmally this past week with a 7 day luck value of only 62.25%.  That, combined with my miners finding fewer than expected shares led to the following results:

My standard p2pool node - 0.00419189BTC
OgNasty's standard p2pool node - 0.01805329BTC
NastyPoP p2pool - 0.02152612BTC
Expected - 0.0367BTC
P2Pool 7 day luck - 62.25%

There we have it folks - the first time in this test that the NastyPoP method resilience to variance wins the day.  OP has been updated with this week's results.