Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 31 results by Blue Bear
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
good answer ...
basically it would benefit the pool as a whole if we had that much hashing power in the pool as we would find block more frequently and would be rewarded based on the percentage of work done. A large miner would be facing a higher difficulty than a small miner so the small miner would have a greater chance of getting shares. Frequency of payouts would be greater and is where the greatest benefit would be even if the pay outs are smaller. In the end it would even out or be greater than what the pool is able to get right now with the hash rate being so low.
BB
basically it would benefit the pool as a whole if we had that much hashing power in the pool as we would find block more frequently and would be rewarded based on the percentage of work done. A large miner would be facing a higher difficulty than a small miner so the small miner would have a greater chance of getting shares. Frequency of payouts would be greater and is where the greatest benefit would be even if the pay outs are smaller. In the end it would even out or be greater than what the pool is able to get right now with the hash rate being so low.
BB
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
As I understand it what makes p2pool DOS resistant is the fact that there are many nodes running. To be effective a DOS attack would require most of the nodes to be overwhelmed simultaneously. An attacker would have to determine the most effective nodes to attack to disrupt the network. If the network is adaptive enough it will reach out to link with other nodes that are not under attack maintaining integrity of the network. A Centralized Pool which only has one or two access points would be easily over come in a DOS attack because the attack can be concentrated to limited access points. The more spread out things are harder it is to disrupt. so arguing that consolidation is the best option is an faulty tactic as demonstrated by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. If you both want to consolidate under your banners your both wacked. The more nodes running the better.
I think you are mostly arguing semantics.
Wake up and smell the coffee. If people here wanted to be in a centralized pool they would already be in one.
BB
I think you are mostly arguing semantics.
Wake up and smell the coffee. If people here wanted to be in a centralized pool they would already be in one.
BB
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
I don't think he his worried about the problems that divide p2pool.And i can' t find one node with his 1 mb fork that's on the master branch.
you won't ...
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
When I started before the Jtoomimnet split off mainnet was hashing in the Phash range now it in the low Thash range ... 
Yet everyone seems to keep a small portion of their miners pointed at mainnet
sitting the fence is discouraging and disrupting ...
Shrugs ...
Yet everyone seems to keep a small portion of their miners pointed at mainnet
sitting the fence is discouraging and disrupting ...
Shrugs ...
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
Actually it's a simple CDF calculation that shows how bad it is to limit block sizes to taking an exorbitant 5 minutes to get to 1MB ...
5 minutes is a 50% block on an expected 10 minute network.
So the CDF is 0.39346934028737 or 1 in 1.6 blocks (60.65%) will be over 5 minutes
or reversing that ... 1 in 2.54 blocks (39.3%) will be under 5 minutes ... yeah that's a big % of blocks, not "albeit a small one" at all.
I'm often surprised at how little maths people understand about Bitcoin when they are considered experts in it ... and/or spending money mining on it ...
Note of course, this last comment is directed at someone else not you ...
can you show me the algebraic formula so I can understand it better ....
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
delete the share files in the folder
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
What is happening is that my code has been checking for segwit transactions to not be included in old shares for months but I haven't included a check in the mining code since I thought that v17 shares would activate before segwit activates. Bitcoind is sending segwit txs in its block template but p2pool can't mine them yet. This has nothing to do with syncing other shares.
https://github.com/veqtrus/p2pool/releases/tag/17.1 if anyone needs windows binaries.
https://github.com/veqtrus/p2pool/releases/tag/17.1 if anyone needs windows binaries.
Thanks Veqtrus
I have implemented the new code ... still have to wait until my core node finishes rebuilding to try it ...
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
Thanks froodocooper
What I see is veqtrus Patch is applied in line 58 of the .\p2pool-master\p2pool\bitcoin\helper.py
Code should read:
work['transactions'] = [x for x in work['transactions'] if x['txid'] == x['hash']] # don't mine segwit txs for now
Xantus
so check if that is in your code...
If not add it ... and see if that works before trying for a rebuild ... cause that is what I am doing ...
What I see is veqtrus Patch is applied in line 58 of the .\p2pool-master\p2pool\bitcoin\helper.py
Code should read:
work['transactions'] = [x for x in work['transactions'] if x['txid'] == x['hash']] # don't mine segwit txs for now
Xantus
so check if that is in your code...
If not add it ... and see if that works before trying for a rebuild ... cause that is what I am doing ...
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
i running Bitcoin Core 14.2
on Windows 10 64Bit
P2Pool V17.0 from http://u.forre.st/u/iqvaqprd/p2pool_win32_17.0.zip
also installed on my computer because all say i need to, Python 2.7.13 32Bit, installed on Phyton is PIP, Twisted, Zope.interface.
i also installed WMI-1.4.9.win32.exe - now idea wath it is
my problem is the Antminer S7 dont connect to my P2Pool node (http://212.43.81.114:9332). it say in mining status bar my local p2pool server is dead. and work for the second p2pool server (http://173.212.202.33:9332/static/ - to test). a few times it works for somethink about 1 or 2 minutes ....
this one seams to work http://77.250.222.254:9332, but there are many p2pool nodes does not work for my. as my one one ... but why ?
Not sure why but I am having the exact same issue ...
It appears to be a issue in the data.py file at line 209 which deals with the segwit and the p2pool is not currently supporting segwit because not everyone has switched to v17 yet.
I believe this is causing issues with the p2pool network and it is knocking the miners off line. I can mine just fine on a different pool.
However if I have the node running even if I am not mining it it will knock my miners off line.
It appears it may also have something to do with the getwork command as this is what appears to trigger the error. If I have the miners off line that error will not appear as the node runs.
However if the miners come online even if they are not mining the node, the node will start throwing that error.
So either there is a flaw in the code for the node or god forbid there could be a DOS issue going on.
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
Hello to all,
Just because you currently do not have issues with mainnet's memory consumption doesn't mean that others don't or won't. Not everyone has the luxury of having 24 GB of RAM to play with.
I just want to state for the record and clarity that you don't need anywhere near 24GB of RAM to run v17. I run it using an old used laptop with 4GB RAM and an i3 processor (2nd generation I believe). Bitcoind, p2pool and cgminer are running on the same system. I did have to do a bit of fine tuning like running Ubuntu Server, limit the connections to bitcoind to 35, etc... but nothing much out of the ordinary. I've been running v17 for two days non-stop. I did not find any errors in the logs that can be related to the laptop running out of memory (or not that I've noticed) (i actually haven't found any real problems at all). Everything has been working as it should. My stale rate is for the moment a bit on the high side ~15.4% but if I check the logs I see that it has been quite a lot lower a few hours ago (even lower than the stale rate of the network). In general it is close or lower than the stale rate of the network. But I'll keep an eye on it. The memory consumption by the relevant processes is for the moment as follows (this data comes from 'top'): 1) python (which is the p2pool node): 53.2%, 2) bitcoind: 29.9%, 3) cgminer: 0.2%, which totals to 83.3%. This changes a bit over time but not much. The CPU usage is at most around 70% for all three processes, but it is much more erratic than the memory consumption. It never stays for a long time at 70%.
However, my laptop runs into trouble if I use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/. I've noticed that if i use this once or a few times, a few hours later my node runs into trouble. P2pool freezes and my computer is constantly busy doing stuff. Normally the freezing stops after a few minutes, but in general it starts again a bit later. I need to kill p2pool and restart it to get again working properly. Apparently when I use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/, the memory consumption of P2pool slowly increases until it is over 2GB and then my laptop runs into trouble. This evolution takes up a few hours. If i don't use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/ then the memory consumption of P2pool remains on a constant level. If I don't use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/, and just check the node status through the command line i don't have any problems at all. I have been running V16 for weeks without interruptions. Has anyone experienced this before?
All in all I think we can say that running v17 or P2pool in general is also a real possibility for people with less powerful hardware and people on a budget. Of course if you want to run a public P2pool node you will need more powerful equipment.
Just because you currently do not have issues with mainnet's memory consumption doesn't mean that others don't or won't. Not everyone has the luxury of having 24 GB of RAM to play with.
I just want to state for the record and clarity that you don't need anywhere near 24GB of RAM to run v17. I run it using an old used laptop with 4GB RAM and an i3 processor (2nd generation I believe). Bitcoind, p2pool and cgminer are running on the same system. I did have to do a bit of fine tuning like running Ubuntu Server, limit the connections to bitcoind to 35, etc... but nothing much out of the ordinary. I've been running v17 for two days non-stop. I did not find any errors in the logs that can be related to the laptop running out of memory (or not that I've noticed) (i actually haven't found any real problems at all). Everything has been working as it should. My stale rate is for the moment a bit on the high side ~15.4% but if I check the logs I see that it has been quite a lot lower a few hours ago (even lower than the stale rate of the network). In general it is close or lower than the stale rate of the network. But I'll keep an eye on it. The memory consumption by the relevant processes is for the moment as follows (this data comes from 'top'): 1) python (which is the p2pool node): 53.2%, 2) bitcoind: 29.9%, 3) cgminer: 0.2%, which totals to 83.3%. This changes a bit over time but not much. The CPU usage is at most around 70% for all three processes, but it is much more erratic than the memory consumption. It never stays for a long time at 70%.
However, my laptop runs into trouble if I use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/. I've noticed that if i use this once or a few times, a few hours later my node runs into trouble. P2pool freezes and my computer is constantly busy doing stuff. Normally the freezing stops after a few minutes, but in general it starts again a bit later. I need to kill p2pool and restart it to get again working properly. Apparently when I use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/, the memory consumption of P2pool slowly increases until it is over 2GB and then my laptop runs into trouble. This evolution takes up a few hours. If i don't use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/ then the memory consumption of P2pool remains on a constant level. If I don't use http://(MY_LOCAL_IP_ADDRESS):9332/, and just check the node status through the command line i don't have any problems at all. I have been running V16 for weeks without interruptions. Has anyone experienced this before?
All in all I think we can say that running v17 or P2pool in general is also a real possibility for people with less powerful hardware and people on a budget. Of course if you want to run a public P2pool node you will need more powerful equipment.
That's why running a node for me is a mobility problem.
I have to move permanently between two different cities 300km apart and I can not walk with a desktop from side to side. It is not practical for me. That's why I have to setup the p2pool node on a laptop which is less powerful than a desktop.
In all honesty the only issue I really see is a bandwidth issue. The Node itself does not use that much in the way of resources. Between Bitcoin Core and the Node they use a fair amount of bandwidth on my network ... Honestly I think it could run on an Raspberry PI if you wanted to do so ... however you would not have the resources needs in the form of drive space. Might be something to test ...
BB
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
frodocooper
Respectfully I agree that everyone has their own reasons for making their choices.
Believe it or not I respect that Jtoomim does try to help others more as you also do and for that I am great full.
The example of slushpool was just that ... an example which was known to be a limited example.
I have no issue with anyone knowingly choosing to use Jtoomim's code. I might be interested in trying it myself.
The way Jtoomim's presentation comes off to me is "He is right."
Kind of rubs me the wrong way.
I have issue with is someone pushing their Opinion on what the future holds.
What I was trying to tell him is "A boulder will move down stream with the Current. Stop trying to force the Boulder."
Not that it will make any sense to the young people out there ...
State your views please.
Stop finding fault with others in a public forum.
I can cite several examples of this in the past 3 pages from Jtoomim.
If you think it is wrong try to work "one on one" or "one on two" to fix the problem.
Further I think there is to much animosity between Jtoomim and veqtrus based on what I have seen in the limited time I have been on here.
Maybe in a few years when they have mellowed with age they might be able to get over that and work together to make something great.
Honestly I am to old to wanna listen to anyone who comes off as squabbling brats
If I had them both in my presence I would do one of two things ...
Get them drunk and let them sort it out.
Or take them out back ...
But what do I know I am just a old hardware guy
Respectfully
BB
Respectfully I agree that everyone has their own reasons for making their choices.
Believe it or not I respect that Jtoomim does try to help others more as you also do and for that I am great full.
The example of slushpool was just that ... an example which was known to be a limited example.
I have no issue with anyone knowingly choosing to use Jtoomim's code. I might be interested in trying it myself.
The way Jtoomim's presentation comes off to me is "He is right."
Kind of rubs me the wrong way.
I have issue with is someone pushing their Opinion on what the future holds.
What I was trying to tell him is "A boulder will move down stream with the Current. Stop trying to force the Boulder."
Not that it will make any sense to the young people out there ...
State your views please.
Stop finding fault with others in a public forum.
I can cite several examples of this in the past 3 pages from Jtoomim.
If you think it is wrong try to work "one on one" or "one on two" to fix the problem.
Further I think there is to much animosity between Jtoomim and veqtrus based on what I have seen in the limited time I have been on here.
Maybe in a few years when they have mellowed with age they might be able to get over that and work together to make something great.
Honestly I am to old to wanna listen to anyone who comes off as squabbling brats
If I had them both in my presence I would do one of two things ...
Get them drunk and let them sort it out.
Or take them out back ...
But what do I know I am just a old hardware guy
Respectfully
BB
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
Well I am not having any issues with it Jtoomim ...
of course I am a hardware guy and am running around 24 gb of ram on the system with the node on it ...
I am not running skimpy systems and don't intend to ...
but that being said I have my reasons for running v17 and am happy with my decision to do so ...
Please stop trying to intimidate everyone to jumping onto your code.
Respectfully
BB
of course I am a hardware guy and am running around 24 gb of ram on the system with the node on it ...
I am not running skimpy systems and don't intend to ...
but that being said I have my reasons for running v17 and am happy with my decision to do so ...
Please stop trying to intimidate everyone to jumping onto your code.
Respectfully
BB
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
I think the 2 that can help you are jtoomin and veqtrus.
I don't think either of them agree on much of anything but they seem the most knowledgeable in this forum there is also a github area that has comments and such ... I keep losing my way there though ...
I don't think either of them agree on much of anything but they seem the most knowledgeable in this forum there is also a github area that has comments and such ... I keep losing my way there though ...
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
I wrote a guide for vtc but it may help you with btc too if you want to run from source. Also use the master branch which includes a necessary commit.
Thank you Veqtrus
I will dig in and see what I come up with ...
BB
Re: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool
Is btc1 wallet safer than btc core wallet for running a p2pool node (anti fraud or something) ?
I will be forced to synchronize everything again to the btc1 wallet ?
Safer? It depends on how the November fork plays out. It will be safer to use whichever node the other people you want to transact with are using.I will be forced to synchronize everything again to the btc1 wallet ?
btc1 will follow Segwit2x. Bitcoin Core will not.
Currently, 90.9% of the network hashrate is signaling support for Segwit2x (https://coin.dance/blocks). Segwit2x also has the support of Bitpay, Coinbase, and every other major Bitcoin company that has registered an opinion on the matter except for Blockstream. Blockstream, plus a number of smaller companies (Échange de Montréal, Bitbrains, Bitstop) oppose it (https://coin.dance/poli).
Personally, I think Segwit2x will be the dominant chain. The data seem to be in its favor. I could be wrong, though.
The blockchain downloaded by btc1 and Bitcoin Core will be compatible until November. If you want to switch, all you need to do is stop one bitcoind and start the other. After the November fork, though, it will require you to resync your blockchain in order to switch between the two.
veqtrus's code (v17 shares) is incompatible with btc1, and only works with Bitcoin Core. My code will work with either btc1 or Bitcoin Core, though it will give you a warning message if you try to use Core.
Jtoomim
Respectfully I believe your assumption that support for Segwit2x as the dominate chain is wrong. In slushpool the strongest support goes to Bitcoin with only 10% signaling for for the fork. I don't know but the source you are showing as evidence may only be getting their information from like minded people and not from the community as a whole. As for the exchanges signaling their support , I know that Coinbase was not going to support it to begin with and then rethought it from a economic point of view in that they can make money off of the split from people moving their coin from one branch to another after the split.
I think people are people and will move in their own self interest which is why it has taken so long just to get segwit to activation in the first place. People do not like to feel uncomfortable expressly when their money is involved. The new chain will have to prove itself before people will jump into the pool. Look at how long it took Bitcoin to increase in value over $10.00 per coin. Consider Litecoin, Darkcoin, Dogcoin, Ethereum and all the rest. Ethereum is one of the newest and has been preforming better that Litecoin which has been around longer. What has happened to the others?
I think is a good move on your part to support both sides until you know which way the coin will land. I believe you may have blinders on though.
Respectfully,
BB