hyc: would you say the config from xmrig enable_1g_pages.sh would suit both p2pool and xmrig randomx tasks on the same host?

i know i ask this every random n period, but why is it a bad idea to run a p2pool over tor / i2p?

is there some tuning of uncles and target blocktime that would allow the inherent latencies in those networks to sorta wash out?

OK. Now I have monerod and p2pool up and running and they both are synced.

Now I have downloaded the latest release of xmrig.

Do I have to change any of the lines in the config.json for the xmrig?

Like, do I have change the line 65, "algo": null ?

or the line below that, "algo": null

Ok. I changed the pool specification on config.json (on my miner laptop) to my raspi's local IP, 192.168.1.43:3333 and my miner laptop seems to have magically connected to my raspi.

<gingeropolous> "i know i ask this every random n..." <- I don't know about tor, but the latencies of i2p and the instability of its connections are definitely not suitable for p2pool and its 10 second target block time

```

Is this normal? My monerod reporting this.

Also, I am getting this on p2pool:

Isn't it weird that p2pool is reporting my hashrate as 0 H/s ?

Here is what my xmrig reports on my laptop:

Probably your difficulty p2pool.io/#faq

P2pool can only estimate your hashrate based on the valid shares you submit

And since the target difficulty is quite high, it will take you quite a while to find one

So this is not similar to cryptonote.social pool, in which, I get constantly valid hash submissions

ruek0293308600[m]: This might explain my issue.

However I don't know what is a good custom fixed difficulty for me

I don't know why I am even allowed to set a custom difficulty, as from bitcoin I know that the difficulty is decided by the network as a whole, not by a singular miner.

I usually set is so that I get results around 30 seconds

ruek0293308600[m]: Ok. So, on which line within config.json file do I enter my custom difficulty value?

If you're using a config, the user field e.g. `"user": "x+75000",`

ruek0293308600[m]: Thanks. I will try that.

Us 75000 a good value?

How should one judge the appropriateness of such a number?

Use your hashrate * 30

endor00[m]: Ok

That's the example in the faq, you can tune it to your liking as xmrig will reload as soon as you edit it

mechanic41turk[m]: Your average time to find a share is diff / your hashrate

And a good target time is 20-30 seconds

Hence hashrate * 30

Now I am getting non zero hashrate and nonzero hashes.

Am I like fooling my p2pool node this way? I still dont get how I can decide on my end on the amount of hashes submitted.

mechanic41turk[m, originally when I started on p2pool I didn't set any difficulty and just mined at the pool side difficulty, landed shares just as regularly as I did with a difficulty set, just meant p2pool status mostly showed 0h/s

my p2pool node still shows 0h/s as my xmrig-proxy doesn't have a set difficulty, but still getting shares and everything works as expected

pauliouk: i see.

s/id/is/

yup :)

nice to know its working though

merope, right, but the blocktime can be adjusted to 20 seconds or 13 seconds or whatever.

Sure, but the whole round-trip latency can go north of 10 seconds sometimes, not to mention the possibility of broken tunnels (which mean you might lose a valid share due to network issues)

which could be accounted for with a modded uncle penalty

of course the problem is you can't force the users to use the hidden networks

well, i guess u can if there's only i2p / onion addies in the peer list

and, this could have the effect of encouraging locality based networks to pop up

though perhaps this is more for when monero mining is performed by more people

tor is a risk I'd only consider if I had no other options to be fair

I struggle to get shares on the mini sidechain as it is, it'd hurt if I missed out on one because of network lag

how would network lag make you miss out on a share?

By the time you submit it, it has become stale. Or, by the time you get the new template, it has already been replaced by a new one

Keeping in mind that i2p can easily lag by several seconds

ok

Or your tunnel might get broken because one of your intermediary peers has gone offline, and it might take a minute or two to form a new one

I don't consider that latency. that's a lost connection.

Same difference, at the end of the day

I2p is nice for anonimity, but it's not a very fast networj

hmm fair point, but ya, my shares are too precious to me to risk it

my shares are giving my cat a warm place to nap. the rest is just whatever

proof of comfy cats

my cat prefers the laser printer on the top shelf :/

we can port randomx to postscript

keep the printer nice and toasty

heh, not a terrible idea - though something tells me the work to do that is more than its worth :)

;)

I have no idea what kind of performance modern laser printers are capable of anyway

but back in the m68k days, the printer CPU was equal to or faster than a desktop CPU

this is a geriatric SP100e - I doubt it has more than a 1970's calculator for a processor :P

I only use it for printing out pcb designs on OHP paper for etching

how much extra load does p2pool --no-randomx have on the monerod?

if for example, I were to run 50+ nodes for users?

on mine it's unnoticeable

but it really depends on how fast you submit shares

actual creditable shares. not fixed-diff shares for hashrate estimation

setting up a vps to host nodes for people struggling to get them running themselves. can't imagine there'd be much hashrate coming in :)

the impact of --no-randomx is every time a share that meets the p2pool difficulty is received, it's sent to monerod for validation

that still only happens once in a long while for typical miners

and means that p2pool doesn't hog ~2gb of mem

guess I'll need the monerod node running unrestricted though

yes and yes

if you don't want it open to the world, I would use an stunnel on both sides

<pauliouk> "setting up a vps to host nodes..." <- The problem with such a system is that people would have to fully trust you, because they would have no way to tell if you're legitimately running the p2pool node with their address in it, or your own

yup

not just hosting, but letting them see whats going on

just host the monerod, let them run their own p2pool

so they'll mine to an xmrig-proxy that connects to their node, that way I can give them miner stats

the idea is not to centralize p2pool instances...

its the whole "whats the point in p2pool if I can't port forward to let xmrvsbeast mine for me?!"

I mean... the whole point is that you can mine in a pool without having to trust a pool operator

You're just reinventing a pool with extra steps

yeah I have a feeling those that won't go the lengths required to get it running themselves don't care much about that

Might as well just run a traditional pool at that point

think of it as a try-before-you-buy

oddly enough bitcoin's p2pool allowed that kinda thing

allowed what?

What % of daily monero txs currently are from p2pool payouts ?

sethsimmons, no-body (not in this channel #p2pool-mini) is having issues with your docker setup when transition to the mini pool