does it mean that the best ever would be p2pool was mining to just one address and then as coins mature it would be redistributed? is not this what nasty is doing?
That is our vision (credit to nonnakip for the work he's done on it), only we also distribute based on hashrate and not accepted p2pool shares to be fair to the little guys. I think it is a much better solution than to run a centralized pool out of the gate. I would love to see more p2pool sub-pools pop up with their own unique features, the way NastyPool offers our unique payout method and mining credits. It sounds like -ck is working to help make his proxy more stable for this use which may be a huge step forward in bringing more users to the p2pool network.
As stated above, though this is simply centralising a 'supposed' decentralised pool.
The point of p2pool is to not do this.
Though that is also a part of the problem with it.
That is your opinion and a hypocritical one I might add. Having sub-pools with different features run by different operators to attract miners that otherwise would not participate with p2pool mining is not a bad thing for network decentralization. It is a step forward from the
centralized pools we see owning nearly all of the network today. Maybe when p2pool has evolved a bit more, casual Bitcoin miners can easily run their own nodes. I certainly encourage it and get nothing from users on our 0% fee node. However, until some major issues are worked through, sub-pools may be the ONLY option for small miners who want to participate on the p2pool network without having to sacrifice regular earnings.
I see no hypocrisy at all from me.
Yes I run a centralised pool - I'm not hiding that at all.
P2pool, on the other hand, states in the title it is a 'decentralised' pool.
However, it seems to have many 'centralised' nodes, and that 'centralisation' has only increased over the past couple of years.
Bitcoin has 'centralised' pools.
P2Pool has 'centralised' nodes.