03:43:49 Fyi, XmrSale posted an update in their CCS and they put up a fake demo store: https://store.xmrsale.org/ 03:44:29 https://repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/ccs-proposals/-/merge_requests/246#note_11677 06:24:59 https://twitter.com/cynthiamlummis/status/1447925235538345993?s=21 07:35:44 crypto_grampy[m]: how do you mean a 'fake demo store'? 07:37:42 geonic: what's with people asking about voting on the blockchain? That is a questionable idea, if there is ever one. 07:48:23 hello, monero wallet never connects. 07:48:23 it is the gui wallet 07:48:23 monerod gives this error: 07:48:23 ERROR torsocks[6311]: General SOCKS server failure (in socks5_recv_connect_reply() at socks5.c:527) 09:55:01 Try in Whonix Workstation without torsocks (everything is routed via Tor there anyway). 11:16:12 Hello! Why not include P2Pool mining in the official Montero wallet? Obviously, solo mining has outlived its usefulness for a long time. Replace the solo mining option in the official monero wallet with P2Pool mining. 11:16:12 And also make a commission for those who connect to a remote node, so that the holders of the full node recoup the costs 11:17:07 I am also positive to the idea of replacing solo mining in the GUI wallet with p2pool mining. 11:17:23 P2pool should get a higher hashrate share. 11:17:59 mechanic41turk[m: Even if not replacing, perhaps a checkbox option between the two can be offered. 11:46:52 "I am also positive to the idea..." <- Thanks! 11:46:52 I wonder if at least someone uses solo mining in a wallet? Do you have statistics? 11:46:52 After all, the probability of getting a block in 6-10 years is unlikely to attract anyone. Is there really someone who runs a solo mining option in the official wallet? 11:46:52 But p2pool mining would probably be used by everyone 11:55:37 Transactions and solo mining are basic requirements of any blockchain. The core/reference wallet should support them, if for no other reason than to provide a reference implementation for how the blockchain works. 11:55:37 IMO, if you want other fancy features, those can be implemented by other teams in other software. 12:04:15 > <@chad:monero.social> Transactions and solo mining are basic requirements of any blockchain. The core/reference wallet should support them, if for no other reason than to provide a reference implementation for how the blockchain works. 12:04:15 > 12:04:15 > IMO, if you want other fancy features, those can be implemented by other teams in other software. 12:04:15 Yes, but after Monroe introduced the random X algorithm, solo mining of this coin became completely impossible from the point of view of practicality and in general the probability of obtaining a result. 12:05:26 +1 for making the GUI p2pool by default. It's practical, and I don't think it'd be a bad thing if p2pool started to be seen as the primary means of mining monero. 12:16:21 "+1 for making the GUI p2pool..." <- If you do not introduce p2pool mining into the official Monero wallet on a par with solo mining, then people will continue to mine on simple pools, killing the decentralization of the Monero network and enriching the owners of simple pools. The p2pool miner in the Monero wallet is the only way to motivate people to keep a full node on their computers. I support that p2pool 12:16:21 mining in general should become the main one for Monroe. 12:20:19 hello, is group still active? 12:28:58 My point is not that P2Pool shouldn't be used. Obviously it should be highly encouraged. The problem is, the reference wallet needs to provide the bare minimum features for someone to use Monero. Its not the place for hot new features. It needs to run on 20yr computers by people who intend to audit every line of code before running a wallet. The reference wallet should only have features which are necessary, and P2Pool isn't strictly 12:28:58 necessary. 12:30:47 The necessary functions are: run a node, send/receive money, mine a block. Everything else is extra, and those should come in other software projects 12:31:39 also, to connect to p2pool, you also need to sync the sidechain (does not take long, but has additional cases) 12:31:53 privacy wise it has different meanings compared to solo mining as well 12:32:44 your Primary Address would be exposed, in addition to peer ips attached to that. 12:33:20 * someone to safely use Monero. 12:34:08 ^ Ah good point on the primary address exposure. I take back my previous +1 for adding p2pool to the wallet. 12:34:22 "My point is not that P2Pool..." <- P2Pool mining has become strictly necessary to avoid centralization of mining. Otherwise, death. People don't keep a full node, they go to centralized pools. This has become more important than checking every line of code. Let them make P2Pool mining a separate application - I don't mind, but as simple as solo mining in a wallet (one button). 12:34:22 If you do not introduce p2pool mining into the official Monero wallet on a par with solo mining, then people will continue to mine on simple pools, killing the decentralization of the Monero network and enriching the owners of simple pools. The p2pool miner in the Monero wallet is the only way to motivate people to keep a full node on their computers. I support that p2pool mining in general should become the main one for Monero. 12:36:05 DataHoarder: You can do this from a non-core wallet 12:36:12 non-core? 12:36:40 yes, p2pool documentation explains you should make a different address for all this 12:37:22 I might be mistaken, but is it not monerod (not the wallet) the part that mines even on GUI? 12:37:36 given https://monerodocs.org/interacting/monerod-reference/#mining 12:38:21 so now official monerod would need to also sync the p2pool sidechain, which is its own complex piece of code 12:39:05 > <@aksion:matrix.org> P2Pool mining has become strictly necessary to avoid centralization of mining. Otherwise, death. People don't keep a full node, they go to centralized pools. This has become more important than checking every line of code. Let them make P2Pool mining a separate application - I don't mind, but as simple as solo mining in a wallet (one button). 12:39:05 > If you do not introduce p2pool mining into the official Monero wallet on a par with solo mining, then people will continue to mine on simple pools, killing the decentralization of the Monero network and enriching the owners of simple pools. The p2pool miner in the Monero wallet is the only way to motivate people to keep a full node on their computers. I support that p2pool mining in general should become the main one for Monero. 12:39:05 Your perspective only applies to miners. As someone who runs Monero GUI on a 15yr old laptop, I cannot run P2Pool (another blockchain). P2Pool is great, but it is not part of the "strictly necessary" base functionality 12:42:19 Making a separate GUI for p2pool and linking to it prominently on getmonero.org seems like a nice compromise. 12:42:39 As in a standalone p2pool gui. No wallet. 12:42:46 ^ I am working on that 12:42:50 chad[m]1: Yes, but people like you don't keep a full node, and use those who do, which is unfair. Then let's introduce a commission for those who connect to a third-party node, so that those who contain at least somehow recoup the costs of maintaining a full node and decentralization and network responsiveness. 12:42:53 Just p2pool with buttons. 12:43:04 made an installer for p2pool on windows, it opens monerod and p2pool stuff 12:43:23 Oh that's awesome DataHoarder! Thanks 12:44:26 it's this, linked on p2pool.io / p2pool.observer as well https://github.com/WeebDataHoarder/p2pool-nsis 12:44:43 GUI will take longer cause I hate GUIs and Windows :) 12:46:05 Fair, I also hate making GUIs. 12:46:38 aksion[m]: People like me definitely do run full nodes. For privacy reasons. Not sure where you are getting your info from 12:48:45 chad[m]1: Well, well...on a 15-year-old laptop? You yourself wrote that you advocate for the convenience of those who have a 15-year-old laptop, so that it is easier for them, and not for those who hold and contain a node. 12:52:13 People who run a 15 year old laptop should be able to run a wallet and node 12:52:44 Would I recommend mining on the 15 yr old laptop? Hell no. 12:54:44 chad[m]1: I don't mind if they don't turn on mining and don't keep a full node on a 15-year-old laptop, but then let them pay a commission to those who contain it for them (to whom they connect to a remote node). Those who support the security and operability of the network 12:54:58 Full nodes sadly require a large SSD (expensive), high bandwidth/no data cap, and difficult to run via Tor without IP leaks. But a wallet with a remote node should support all hardware (my daily driver is a 8 year old laptop for example). 12:55:17 anarkiocrypto[m], run it over whonix, ip leaks solved 12:55:21 People with old hardware generally don't have the money to pay a remote node fee. 12:55:40 Many people run remote nodes to voluntarily support the network, not for profit. 12:55:53 large SSD (expensive) 12:56:00 it's not like we are in 2010 anymore either 12:56:20 Would be dope if there was a Monero version of this: https://azte.co/ 12:56:24 With my hardware, even regular Whonix Workstation tasks are slow. Plus I can't afford to buy a large SSD and the sync over Tor would take multiple days with my fairly slow internet. 12:56:26 largish ssds can be found reasonably cheap these days 12:56:31 Anything above $50+ is expensive for me. 12:57:20 Anyway, this is irrelevant to the P2Pool discussion (I'm happy with a simple wallet connected to an onion remote node, no mining or full node). 12:57:55 p2pool also needs some custom configuration to provide full features, like huge pages 12:59:12 mandelbrot42[m]: Redeem directly in Monerujo and/or Cake wallet 12:59:36 anarkiocrypto[m]: We are not talking about profit, we are talking at least about non-losses для тех кто содержит полную ноду 13:01:23 Then put a donation address somewhere. Running a full node isn't a business, it is supporting the network. Bitcoin full node operators also aren't paid. 13:01:58 aksion: No need to fix what isn't broken. There are plenty of full nodes being run on a volunteer basis. Also, why are you liking your own posts? That's unseemly. 13:03:46 For example, Seth runs a full node (with onion remote node) and has a donation address here: https://blog.sethforprivacy.com/about/#my-recommended-privacy-tools 13:04:08 So if you use his remote node, you can choose to send a donation. 13:05:41 This is better than gatekeeping remote node access (which is intended for people who can't run a full node, e.g. due to finances, hardware, internet, etc. limitations, who may not be able to afford a remote node fee). 13:06:00 Rucknium[m]: Why is it indecent? There is a "like" function...I really like my posts. 13:06:00 But with posts like yours and your position, you only kill decentralization and people's desire to support Monroe. Everyone knows that there should be a lot of full nodes. Many people can be motivated to keep a full node either by the commission of those who connect to them as to a remote node, and/or by the possibility of p2pool mining at least 13:08:55 aksion: "Everyone knows that there should be a lot of full nodes." Show me an academic paper that supports this conclusion. From a mathematical point of view, having lots of nodes can slow down block propagation, depending on certain factors. I am unaware of any rigorous work in this area, however. 13:15:40 p2pool doesn't really work 13:15:42 is the problem 13:15:50 you have to fix the issues with it first 13:15:52 it can't scale 13:16:40 To strengthen the stability of the Monroe network and eliminate the centralization of mining as a phenomenon, it is necessary to completely eliminate the possibility of mining in pools programmatically. The main way of mining for Montero is to make p2pool mining. Make a convenient p2pool mining miner on the official website of Montero 13:20:33 s/Montero/Monero/, s/Montero/Monero/ 13:20:36 aksion, keep your conversation in one place. reposting across multiple channels will piss off the people you are trying to convince. 13:21:21 s/Monroe/Monero/, s/Montero/Monero/, s/Montero/Monero/ 13:23:13 BusyBoredom[m]: Thanks! I just switch when I reply to messages, and have already lost which place is the main one 13:30:23 yanmaani: can't scale? 13:30:36 please describe the issues you found with it 13:30:53 note specifically, Monero P2Pool's 13:40:28 DataHoarder: monero has a block time of 2 minutes, if I'm not mistaken 13:40:40 correct 13:40:48 the minimum feasible block time for PoW is something like 5 seconds, give or take 13:40:54 below that level, you get crazy orphan rates 13:41:00 p2pool has uncles 13:41:05 10 seconds atm 13:41:21 this means p2pool has a max gearing ratio of 120/5 = 24x 13:41:25 80% to uncle, 20% for whoever added the uncle 13:41:43 also difficulty increases as more join p2pool 13:41:53 so you end up with similar uncle sizes 13:41:54 yes, that's your problem 13:42:10 on last window 13:42:12 : 2160 blocks (+69 uncles) 13:42:12 because if the difficulty is 1/24 of the mainchain difficulty, which it would be with 100% adoption 13:42:29 then that's not really that much better than solo mining 13:43:16 it is better than solo mining, more even payments, and you can always have multiple p2pools (it already supports so). There are some drawbacks, but it scales already 13:43:26 sech11 can probably speak a bit about that 13:43:40 it is "better than solo mining", but not better than pool mining. 13:43:45 it is pool 13:43:52 so it's an altruistic action. we all know how that goes 13:43:57 it's PPLNS, last n shares 13:44:01 yeah ok I mean centralized pool mining, come on now 13:44:29 hello which exchange do you recommend to use? 13:44:51 in the end with current limits, unless centralized pools lower their min yanmaani, you will always get paid out first on p2pool 13:44:58 zogiqa[m]: fiat or crypto? 13:45:26 DataHoarder: yes, but there's other issues in terms of efficiency etc. Basically, p2pool only really works if a tiny percentage use it 13:45:28 both 13:45:28 cannot really beat the current ~0.00029 min per payout, instant, without a fee 13:45:34 yanmaani: What's preventing multiple independent P2Pools from running? Then effective difficulty will not be that high. 13:45:44 remember, again yanmaani, you can have many p2pools 13:45:49 it works if everyone uses it 13:45:52 or if a few use it 13:46:01 There's a good reason that big miners aren't really doing that for bitcoin 13:46:02 or even if there are many mini-p2pools 13:46:04 because it's less profitable 13:46:09 Rucknium[m]: that sort of works, yes 13:46:16 original p2pool there had no uncle support either ;) 13:46:35 DataHoarder: yeah OK, but riddle me this 13:46:37 I have a suggestion on how to make Monero instantly the most popular in the World. 13:46:37 Let's give each person on Earth an equal number of coins (not anonymously), so that people can start mutual settlements. It won't make anyone richer or poorer. But there will be mutual settlements in Monero. Those who want anonymity - let them buy or mine for themselves additionally. 13:46:54 miners are on something like 20% profit margin 13:47:01 on Monero? 13:47:01 pools take like 1% 13:47:10 DataHoarder: on bitcoin 13:47:29 so for every $100 of revenue, $20 of profits 13:47:38 anyhow, I'm responding to the "p2pool can't scale" argument 13:47:38 without the pool fee, that would be $21 13:47:53 there are no technical reasons why it can't scale, and sure, low hashrate miners 13:47:55 so they'd grow profits by 5% 13:48:04 they can take a while to find a share 13:48:08 why don't big miners fund p2pool development? 13:48:15 but so do they take a while on PPLNS pools 13:48:21 and they will not hit min withdrawal limits 13:48:43 DataHoarder: But PPLNS can run arbitrarily small shares, because it's all in a database. There's a reason not everyone uses p2pool. 13:48:46 so even while p2pool grows, they will hit their minimums sooner 13:49:05 it's not impossible, but it's less profitable 13:49:17 is it less? no 13:49:56 I mean, the p2pool for monero has been also funded by an actual pool operator that closed after it was released 13:51:53 you can reduce share size on p2pool, and even support "Dynamic" sizes (this is NOT implemented atm). That would just give you more outputs to deal with, so at the moment it works alright. Let me calculate one second if everyone used p2pool, and given 100% blocks found over current PPLNS window are p2pool's, what would be the average payout it hits 13:52:01 "hello which exchange do you..." <- localmonero.co 13:53:01 zogiqa[m]: tradeogre for crypto 13:54:24 alright yanmaani for 60 blocks across the ~6h pplns window of p2pool, you would get on average during it with only one share about 0.021 at once 13:54:42 DataHoarder: running multiple p2pools is what you need, but the problem is that with too many p2pools, each p2pool has quite a large variance 13:54:45 indeed at that point you would split into a few p2pool networks for lower hashrate 13:54:54 yep too many vs a few 13:55:13 this has been discussed extensively on p2pool channels btw, where at least two "makes sense" 13:55:21 still better than solo mining :) 13:55:37 also, centralized pools can directly mine to "p2pool" 13:55:41 "better than solo mining" is not a reasonable goal 13:55:43 they reduce their own variance 13:55:52 > "better than solo mining" is not a reasonable goal 13:55:55 has to be the most economically viable 13:56:04 it's a very nice goal already achieved, and economically viable 13:56:10 reduced my variance quite a bit 13:56:16 even on centralized pools 13:56:17 e.g. second to none 13:56:27 not "economically viable", but "the most economically viable" 13:56:49 I'm 15% up from even profit switching, but that's just pure luck 13:57:10 payouts are the same, on average 13:57:32 why does "economic viability" enter here, when you get paid out the same, but quicker via p2pool (Reduces variance) 13:57:44 again 13:57:50 you claim it does not scale 13:58:02 DataHoarder: evidently they are not being paid the same, or else everyone would use it 13:58:08 while it seems it scales pretty well and adjust fine to such changes 13:58:33 using multiple p2pools exposes you more to the cross-pool variance, where you also have the risk that your 2% p2pool won't find a block. 13:59:09 with same average payout either way 13:59:27 average payout is not the only thing 13:59:29 variance matters to 13:59:32 o 14:00:00 yep, variance decreased since I joined p2pool, though maybe I should give it a bit more 14:00:07 only a month and a half 14:00:10 DataHoarder: you can't compare to solo mining 14:00:19 you have to compare to centralized pool mining 14:00:28 I do both 14:00:34 I'm comparing against MO 14:00:40 has someone written a simulator for this btw? 14:01:25 simulator for? 14:01:40 p2pool variance under different conditions 14:02:06 if you're looking at something the scale of bitcoin for example, we have: 14:02:22 It's simple probability, solo mining will take the longest time to equal out, then p2pool, then centralized pools, but all will (in the long run) have roughly the same payouts. 14:02:24 $47MM / 24h 14:02:49 p2pool still "feels" worse than centralized mining for small miners as payouts are less frequent, but we can't fix psychology. 14:02:52 sethsimmons: right. and if the purpose of pooled mining is to reduce variance, maybe you can see the problem with p2pool :) 14:03:04 that's not a matter of psychology, that's legit business risk management 14:03:05 sethsimmons: payouts to their wallet, or in UI 14:03:06 ? 14:03:14 This is an education problem, p2pool has fixed the technical issues with solo mining by allowing a decentralized way to reduce variance. 14:03:30 Now people just need to understand what that means and why it's worth switching (if they care at all about Monero as a tool). 14:03:34 sethsimmons: alleviated them somewhat, but not resolved them 14:03:35 if it's to their monero wallet, I have observed payments are earlier on p2pool due to lower thresholds 14:03:42 you're presuming altruism 14:03:54 yanmaani: No, it reduces variance massively. 14:03:57 and that people will introduce variance for the sake of strengthening the network 14:04:00 You're comparing to large centralized pools. 14:04:12 My variance is down from my old small centralized pool. 14:04:16 sethsimmons: yes, but not 100%. Centralized pools are still better, for the miners. 14:04:25 Yes I am. That's what the miners are comparing it to. 14:04:30 yanmaani: There is also an economic incentive - 0% fees. 14:04:45 sethsimmons: right. are you familiar with the kelly criterion? 14:04:45 yanmaani: Yes 14:05:00 Which is why p2pool will likely never be 100% (or close) of the network hashrate, but that's fine. 14:05:16 But remember -- you're not comparing equal things. 14:05:21 yanmaani: Blatantly false 🙂 14:05:34 Large centralized pools reduce variance more than p2pool but charge fees. 14:05:50 Smaller centralized pools offer similar or worse variance. 14:06:03 Variance will not effect payouts over the long run between p2pool and even large centralized pools. 14:06:07 yanmaani: No. 14:06:43 sethsimmons: so say you're a business. you want to maximize your probability of being the largest business 14:07:01 the way you do this is by maximizing the geometric growth rate 14:07:13 e.g. E[ln(value)] 14:07:25 this is usually used for gambling 14:07:26 RPC-Pay would be more useful if it worked like P2Pool 14:07:29 say I have two bets 14:07:37 1: 50% chance of getting 2.1x my money 14:07:41 p2pool has managed to create something that is better for Monero and better for miners. That is incredible, and the only remaining piece is getting past the psychology of variance. 14:07:47 2: 1% chance of getting 200x my money 14:08:13 Large miners benefit as well from p2pool as they can ensure no custodial risk and lessen profit losses due to fees, while not needing to trust centralized infra for their uptime. 14:08:34 naively, my best bet is to bet 100% of bankroll on (2). But that has a high risk of bankruptcy. But if we're optimizing the log bankroll growth rate, we can reach more intelligent conclusions. 14:09:03 this gives us, this is the key point, a way to compare "apples and oranges" 14:09:05 I mined 4 or 5 Monero blocks already for p2pool 14:09:12 e.g. what fees are "worth it" to reduce what variance 14:09:28 from that point, you can see why centralized mining is worth it in some cases. 14:09:50 sethsimmons: but nobody actually lives "in the long run". In the short run, I have bills to pay. 14:10:52 Correct me if I'm wrong, but variance only matters for intermittent miners / pool hoppers, right? Long term miners do not care about variance (at least not the difference between small pool/p2pool/large pool) 14:11:08 I don't think you're seeing the mining landscape properly. There are 3 major entities:... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/1840e2e894ad1db3a5bd45310c62fc3cb1a6fa4b) 14:11:22 chad[m]1: Yes. 14:11:51 yanmaani: You're a hobbyist miner who cares about daily/hourly payout variance for bills? 14:12:01 chad[m]1: yeah, you're wrong unfortunately 14:12:48 yanmaani: Educate me. Why does variance matter to a business who will commit permanent hashrate for a long time? 14:12:48 > <@sethsimmons:monero.social> I don't think you're seeing the mining landscape properly. There are 3 major entities:... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/995f100ab8189f7f2acdb7678d697fdf3c40ab85) 14:13:22 yanmaani: Kelly criterion does not apply universally. Its applicability is dependent upon the entity's utility function. See the "Criticism" section of the Kelly criterion Wikipedia page. 14:13:31 chad[m]1: if they're running very large hashrates, then variance is of little concern, but if they're running modest hashrates, it can be 14:13:39 this can be mathematically calculated 14:13:45 chad[m]1: The few small miners that care just need to be educated on how it doesn't matter over the long run. If they choose a centralized pool with fees for variance purposes we've failed in education and marketing. 14:13:50 yanmaani: If you want to discuss risk analysis, I can do that all day. 14:13:58 chad[m]1: It does matter, but a large business op won't rely on a public pool unless they're a pretty small op. 14:13:59 * Educate me. Why does variance matter to a business who will invest continuous hashrate for a long time? 14:14:08 say you invest $2k into mining gear. and then you have bad luck 14:14:13 oops! there comes the bankruptcy 14:14:28 Enter, p2pool. 14:14:38 yanmaani: Right. For risk neutrality, variance doesn't matter at all. 14:14:39 sethsimmons: Yes, just programmatically prohibit simple bullets, leave the only basic P2P, and who wants solo 14:14:45 Yet again, p2pool solved the technical problem. Now we just need to solve the psychological and educational problem. 14:15:07 yanmaani: $2k miner would be served plenty well by p2pool, likely daily payouts at worst. 14:15:08 Rucknium[m]: doesn't depend on the utility function strictly, because log utility function has more than intuitive justification. 14:15:26 sethsimmons: at current network conditions yes 14:15:31 And that's the current small p2pool chain. 14:15:45 This is all much ado about nothing. 14:15:47 Rucknium[m]: in the real world, hardly anyone is risk neutral 14:16:04 yanmaani: "log utility function has more than intuitive justification" What do you mean by this? 14:17:12 Rucknium[m]: If you have N agents, and they can make bets, and they're all given the same options, and all judge the probabilities the same, then as t->infinity, the probability that the one with log utility function is the richest one goes to 1. 14:17:22 There are a lot of risk-loving people in cryptocurrency. They prefer solo mining. 14:17:44 polite synonym for gambling addict lol 14:17:58 but yeah, true. if you're into gambling, solo mining is your thing 14:20:58 If you zoom out to years (as a business would), a business who invests $2k into equipment, but experiences %50 variance month over month, will be equally profitable to an identical business with only %15 variance. The more important difference will be fees 14:21:33 chad[m]1: businesses do not "zoom out to years" 14:22:40 So your proposed business expects to invest $2k in equipment, make ROI in a month, and then sell their equipment? 14:22:56 s/bullets/pools/ 14:22:59 What business is not planning for long term profitability? 14:24:48 chad[m]1: this depends on the variance. some amount is OK, some amount isn't 14:24:50 Ok, so many things to address here lol: 14:24:50 1) $2k is nothing, that isn't a business 14:24:50 2) A real large mining op acting as a business has no issues with daily payouts vs hourly, that variance is negligible 14:24:50 3) p2pool would work fine for even this oddly tiny business to ensure they don't have massive variance 14:25:06 but if you're running p2pool on bitcoin right now, this is not really suitable 14:25:15 2k is i would say a large hobbyist 14:25:27 we are not talking bitcoin here, but monero one, which has uncle blocks thankfully 14:25:37 allowing it to scale for quick blocks :) 14:25:49 I wouldn't even say "large" hobbyists 14:26:47 Exactly, DataHoarder, this p2pool implementation is excellent and solves many of the issues that caused Bitcoin p2pool to fail. 14:27:18 you basically need a two numbers to calculate this: probability that you make a share and probability that share gets paid out 14:27:19 Right now variance is minimal and excellent even for quite small miners, as it grows in usage we can start new chains that can accommodate different size miners. 14:28:03 If someone is mining on their lappy at home, their variance will be pitiful anyways on acentralized pool. 14:28:03 All sizes of miners can be served well by p2pool. 14:28:08 problem with "many small p2pools" is that as p(make share) gets bigger, p(payout) gets smaller 14:28:23 has someone made a simulator for this? 14:28:56 No, go for it. 14:31:10 Give me the problem outline and I will write an R simulation for it. I can even make a browser-based GUI with R Shiny 14:33:54 Seems like with this stuff you could easily compute everything analytically, however. No need to run a numerical simulation. 14:35:09 new website for Monero Means Money! https://moneromeans.money 14:35:43 Rucknium[m]: if you have 50 p2pools with 2% hashrate each, so 100% p2pool adoption, 2 minute blocktimes for monero, and 10s blocktimes for p2pool, what's the probability a miner with X% of network hashrate gets paid out after Y days of mining? 14:36:40 for example, 0.001% of network hashrate and 1 month 14:36:54 yanmaani: 50 pools of the same size is a pointless exercise. 14:37:02 "we are not talking bitcoin here,..." <- where can I read about those "uncle blocks"? 14:37:05 sethsimmons: why so? 14:37:07 There would be a cascading range of sizes, most likely. 14:37:08 the term is pretty foregin to me. 14:37:44 mechanic41turk[m: "uncle" blocks usually known from Ethereum https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/39329/in-ethereum-what-is-an-uncle-block 14:38:00 mechanic41turk[m: Just this for p2pool specifically: Uncle blocks are supported to avoid orphans - all your shares will be accounted for! 14:38:16 sounds good 14:38:19 but what's the catch? 14:38:23 allows your share of work to be counted, and an incentive for people to include them 14:38:33 uncles are valued 80%, 20% goes to finder 14:38:55 yanmaani: Thinking about it more I guess that could be a realistic scenario. 14:39:07 sethsimmons: OK, one pool of 2% and 98% of whatever 14:39:10 mechanic41turk[m: more complexity, but it's basically a free lunch 14:39:23 yanmaani: makes me skeptical 14:39:34 but if so, I'll take my free lunch. 14:40:13 Just because I don't understand how I digest my lunch doesn't mean I will reject to eat it. 14:40:20 mechanic41turk[m: given only one block with the same "height" can exist, other uncles are added further down the line to denote they "existed", adds PoW weight to that chain :) 14:40:24 It's just ensuring work is counted, that's it. There's nothing crazy to it. 14:40:54 interesting 14:40:57 It's especially advantageous because it only affects the p2pool sidechain, not the mainchain, so no need to have orphan block logic on the main chain. 14:41:09 It's a win-win 😀 14:41:22 very nice 14:41:46 if it's not clear, an uncle block is an orphaned block that is counted in some way for payouts. 14:42:04 if I walk this through in my head, I get: p2pool gearing ratio 120/10 = 12x. there's 50 p2pools. 12*50 = 600. so share difficulty is 1/600 of mainnet difficulty 14:44:18 we gotta get every other centralized pool to re-invent themselves as another p2pool 14:44:59 1440m/24h. so 720blk/d. 100% share = 720blk/d avg, or 720*600 = 432'000 shares. at 0.001% of network, that's an average of 4.3 shr/d. there's a formula for translating that to p(> 0 shares). Is it just poisson? 14:45:18 XMRvBeast has already done so quite successfully, and have even transitioned their raffle for free hashrate to p2pool. 14:46:37 and each pool should naively do 600/50 = 12 blk/d. if each pool gets 432000/50 = 8640 shr/d, that's a 720 shr/b backlog to keep 14:46:46 btw p2pool having no fees does not work in practice 14:46:55 you get many more payouts that you will need to combine 14:47:02 I combined the first 21 p2pool payouts that I received 14:47:11 all where when I had just one share so this is a worst case scenario but one that a small miner will see often 14:47:14 the cost of sweeping those 21 outputs was 0.7% of the amount of tx 14:47:30 i think there's some theoretical issues with multiple p2pools 14:47:33 but haven't thought about it 14:47:39 but 720 share backlog seems reasonable tbh 14:47:56 like it's an engineering challenge but those numbers aren't prima facie fucked 14:48:12 nioc: That's still lower than centralized pools, but good call out. 14:48:42 some yes and some no :) 14:48:58 my last tx was 0.56% 14:49:14 "for example, 0.001% of network..." <- My preliminary results suggest nearly 100% probability of at least one payout occurring for the miner. Let me double check everything. Then I will post a Gist. 14:49:19 also more use of the blockchain 14:49:52 the bigger the miner the lower the "fee" 14:50:02 I mean, I do not simulations. This is an analytical solution. But Gist is nice for posting these things. 14:50:16 * I do no simulations 14:51:31 Rucknium[m]: yeah for 1 month I get it to naively 9.462629465836421e-57 14:51:33 of no payouts 14:51:50 assuming I did everything right 14:53:00 wonder if you could use p2pool as a 2nd layer solution 14:53:08 if you implemented smart contracts on it you could even do PPS 14:53:19 I get slightly different, but "nearly 100%" and "nearly 100%" are close enough. It pays to work out the math with these things :) 15:00:23 will Monero/Critical Decentralization Cluster be attending the remote CCC this year? 15:15:35 afaik CCC this year is canceled already 15:15:56 maybe there will be a digital one 15:16:09 ah you said remote - by apology :D 15:16:12 my 15:33:06 yanmaani p2pool can scale no problems 16:03:32 Been watching that squid games show, wonder how much Monero that would be 18:29:21 "Rucknium: yeah for 1 month I get..." <- Just catching up... So, does this mean that from a business perspective, a business looking to operate for at least several months would not be impacted by the variance between p2pool and a similarly sized centralized pool? 18:41:31 chad: I would say, "No, since (1) it depends on the assumptions, e.g. 0.001% of network hashrate still seems high for some miners, (2) The numbers we calculated is just 'get at least one payout', but it doesn't give the full distribution nor the variance (note that variance has a specific formula in statistics)... 18:42:25 "...(3) it doesn't account for the fact that different miners may have different risk/utility/whatever-you-want-to-call-it functions." 18:46:45 P.S. If you want to use the term "variance" in a general way rather than referring to a specific formula, the term "dispersion" is preferred. The corresponding term for mean/median/mode would be "central tendency". The more you know... 🌈 19:18:12 I guess the real test will be to see if businesses start building on p2pool or not :)