Quote from: jtoomim on February 20, 2015, 03:35:57 AM

Cross-post from the Spondoolies thread, more relevant here:

Quote from: mdude77 on February 19, 2015, 11:47:39 PM

Quote from: PatMan on February 19, 2015, 07:47:02 PM

Quote from: bigblind on February 19, 2015, 07:24:01 PM

centralization incoming Sad

If only everyone used p2pool....... Wink

If everyone did, the share difficulty would be through the roof. 2,222,770,798 if I understand it right..

p2pool is not the answer.

a rewrite perhaps. but not in its current incarnation.

M

I was thinking about this the other day, actually, and I think I got a good solution to the problem.

p2pool uses a share chain much like the block chain for its reward allocation. This means that if you're mining on a share that isn't the most recent, your work is wasted. The blockchain was designed to solve the timestamping problem for creating a distributed ledger system for transactions, which is why the blockchain has to be serialized. With p2pool, there is no such requirement for timestamping and serializing the shares, so the shares do not necessarily need to be arranged in a chain. The fact that they are was probably mostly just a programming convenience in being able to reuse the bitcoin blockchain data structures. I think a better structure for p3pool shares would be a share tree, where each share references at least one parent share instead of exactly one parent share. That way, work done on shares that would end up marked as stale on the current p2pool (i.e. branching shares) could still be incorporated into the p3pool share tree. Add in a small reward to the miner who found the share for each parent share that's referenced for the first time, and everybody's shares should get incorporated as long as the share is based on the most recent block.

Since miners no longer would need to abandon work immediately when someone on p3pool finds a share, p3pool could target much higher share frequencies, such as 1 per second or faster. This would decrease share variance and allow for small miners to use p2pool effectively, and it would also allow p3pool to grow larger while keeping individual share targets reasonable.

That sounds like it would end up being a proportional reward method, yes?