Welcome to the Dash Forum!

Please sign up to discuss the most innovative cryptocurrency!

Onyx Release & Mining Pools

Discussion in 'Development Tech Discussion' started by thelonecrouton, Oct 21, 2014.

  1. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    I think we need to face the fact that the rapid evolution of Darkcoin, and mining pools, are simply not a good fit and never will be. Each step forward takes weeks longer than it would if miners were under direct MN control.

    Centralised pools are a ball and chain for progress, and an outright security liability, plain and simple.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Walter

    Walter Active Member
    Masternode Owner/Operator

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2014
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    201
    Trophy Points:
    103
    I agree, a necessary evil as it stands... It's interesting to see the forces of economics at work here though! Centralisation and control go hand in glove with the desire and means to increase profit so it's going to be a difficult problem to solve.
     
  3. JGCMiner

    JGCMiner Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2014
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You may be right, but in this instance the problem seems to be with Darkcoin -- as even the pools that are quick to update are have still having issues...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    What amazes me is that coins that have no mining anchor still manage to make such little real progress compared to DRK. But think how much easier Evan's life would be as a developer if he wasn't constantly having to wait weeks on end for pools to get with the program.

    Keep miners, just make them mine on Masternode pools: the centralisation issue goes away, the enforcement issue goes away, the updating issue goes away...

    True, but currently, rolling out a fix is still a tedious pain in the arse as we're dependent on pools to implement it.
     
  5. moli

    moli Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    1,837
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v10-15-onyx-release.2683/page-9#post-25967
     
  6. moli

    moli Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    1,837
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    If you keep yelling for replacing one centralization with another centralization it's not going to help anything but just spamming this thread!
     
    #6 moli, Oct 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2014
  7. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    If you can't see the difference between 3 pools controlling 52% of the nethash vs. that nethash being distributed across 1000 Masternodes then I don't know what to say to you. Clue: one is a hell of a lot less centralised than the other.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. camosoul

    camosoul Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    Mining pools result in extreme centralization, and as we have seen, major hurdles in deployment and wilfull defiance.

    I humbly suggest that priority list == InstantX, IP Obfuscation, MNs become fogpool.

    Solo mining was all satoshi envisioned. The major flaw of mining pool hashpower consolidation has never been addressed on PoW or PoW/PoService hybrids. It's become ubiquitous that we have come to accept this serious problem as the norm instead of doing something about it.

    MN [del]cloud[/del]fogpool may not be as decentralized as satoshi's original idea of everyone solo mining, but we know damn well that there is no way to avoid hashpower consolidation. Having 2 to 4 entities in power is far more consolidated than a few thousand masternodes. Stratum update: the MN mining cloud automatically adjusts your input node to the fastest/balanced input point to the cloud (fog). Since it is developed after IP Obfuscation, it's just a node ID...

    The clearnet has the cloud.

    DRK has the fog. Maybe we'll have DRK TOR on the to-do list again someday...

    Fog: Quite a bit more down-to-earth than the Federal Reserve's pie-in-the-sky guvpaper. FRN's are the new Junk Bonds.

    So much awesome new stuff that has never been done before...

    I believe latency will become the real reason that we don't see ASICs on DRK...
     
    #8 camosoul, Oct 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
  9. illodin

    illodin Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    78
    I don't know shit about p2pool, but what if someone sets up a masternode, and then offers people mining through his MN less fees, so miners have incentive to mine using his MN. Wouldn't this still possibly allow him 50%+ of the hash, and if so, would it matter in a p2pool?
     
  10. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    P2pool negates any 51% concerns. Why it isn't mandatory is beyond me, it would be a win for everyone. Centralised pools are a giant liability with every coin, not just DRK. They offer no advantage to anyone except pool ops, who could just as well be making their 1% or whatever running a p2pool node.
     
  11. camosoul

    camosoul Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    Who says he has that much control over it?

    Let the MNs come to a consensus, and send the mining client's hashpower to the MN ID of the network's choosing. Those failing to submit from the specified MN ID get orphaned, so nobody can override it...

    Internal p2pool, but with a few more checks and balances.

    Official DRK mining software ships with client. Make the things modular... Hashing module, protocol module... Hash on X11, use fogminig protocol... Give it a DRK address and push the button. The MNs sort out everything else. How's that for lowing the barriers of entry for mining, while also distributing it much more akin to the model of solo mining than any crypto has ever seen since the first day BTC was instamined on CPU....
     
    #11 camosoul, Oct 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  12. illodin

    illodin Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2014
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Cool.. another question - if everyone's p2pool mining, wouldn't this explode the blockchain with the amount of transactions it generates? Or can we use another blockchain just for the mining payouts, and move coins from the mining blockchain to the drk main blockchain when a full 1 DRK for example has been mined?
     
  13. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    If handling something like a fully p2pool blockchain is going to break the network, we're screwed anyway and can kiss InstanTX and mass adoption goodbye.

    3000 and growing Masternodes a year from now, lightweight (eg. electrum) clients/servers... if Mastercard can cope then so can we. People may need to upgrade their crappy t1 instances though... but not for a while, a single old Celeron could handle the whole BTC + DRK blockchain, and probably a dozen others, simultaneously. Go count how many transactions per minute there are... for chunks of silicon that operate in GHz, it ain't that big of a deal.

    edit: been running masternode list on 15.14, not seeing many (any) :0's any more...
     
    #13 thelonecrouton, Oct 21, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  14. oblox

    oblox Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes Received:
    537
    Trophy Points:
    183
    I wonder if that dos spam had a lot to do with the inactive masternodes and causing pools to pay nothing.
     
  15. camosoul

    camosoul Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2014
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,130
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    Why would this happen? Why would it even be mentioned?

    If a meteor falls out of the sky and jams itself up my butt, I'm screwed... But, you know, it's really not the sort of thing I worry about...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. eth1

    eth1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    58

    I would be totally against using a masternode as the pool wallet for the moment. I am operating a few masternodes aswell, and so far the stability of the masternode system doesn't make me want to use one as the pool central wallets.

    Once the bugs are sorted out, that could be an idea.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  17. GermanRed+

    GermanRed+ Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like the the idea but how we can migrate from centralized pools to fogpool? If I understand it correctly, the network can split if the miners don't agree.
     
  18. GermanRed+

    GermanRed+ Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can the miner still cheat by having his/her own customized MN?
     
  19. eth1

    eth1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    58
    It can, and that's still good. The miners have a word to say here, they are the ones paying the masternodes as far as I can remember right? Doing so further centralises the masternode side of things, but having two separate entities is good for decentralisation imo.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. moli

    moli Grizzled Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    3,261
    Likes Received:
    1,837
    Trophy Points:
    1,183
    You're wrong... I'm with lostcrouton here... Masternodes are owned by 1000+ individuals, while pools are owned by only 3 individuals.. Clue: MN is less centralized, get it?
    :D:D
     
    • Like Like x 2
  21. eth1

    eth1 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2014
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    64
    Trophy Points:
    58
    1000+ individuals? I have 5 myself, I know some who have multiple mn's too, lot more... yea rite!

    Also, there can only be so much masternodes while there can be unlimited supply of pools.
     
    #21 eth1, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  22. GermanRed+

    GermanRed+ Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there any hard limit on the number of pools/mn's? I think having pools and masternodes are just the same. What we need is one single decentralized pool which make sure no one can cheat by having many pools/mn's. Please correct me if I am wrong.
     
  23. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    Cross-posted from BCT because I think it's relevant to development, and I agree with it:
     
    #23 thelonecrouton, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
  24. Light

    Light Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2014
    Messages:
    346
    Likes Received:
    256
    Trophy Points:
    233
    I don't understand how we can wait for 90% compliance when there is a hostile pool (top 4th on drk.mn) taking advantage of the lack of enforcement and controlling 10.40% of the mining. Are we fooling ourselves by setting 90% goal or waiting for weeks while benign masternodes are loosing profit?
     
    #24 Light, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2014
    • Like Like x 3
  25. splawik21

    splawik21 Grizzled Member
    Dash Core Team Foundation Member Dash Support Group Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    Trophy Points:
    1,283
    With new wallet version I would give only 3 days MAX! to update, who will not will get orphans thats all. If someone decides to have a pool he need to be on time with updates etc...
    Month for updating to get enforcment on is IMHO not a good move....
     
    • Like Like x 4
  26. BrainShutdown

    BrainShutdown Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    188
    Wafflepool is also not paying some blocks but I agree with you. After Waffle updates enforcement should be enabled
     
    • Like Like x 2
  27. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    Centralised pools are a complete perversion of Satoshi's intent. The sooner they are eradicated the better. And if Darkcoin comes up with a viable means of doing so (we could have have one - decentralised mining via Masternodes) we'll be a hell of a lot better off in all ways.

    It would also be excellent PR: Darkcoin solves the 51% problem that hangs like the Sword of Damocles over the head of every other cryptocurrency.
     
    • Like Like x 6
  28. darkwing

    darkwing Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2014
    Messages:
    149
    Likes Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Mine through the masternode p2pool network?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  29. moocowmoo

    moocowmoo Bovine Bit-flipper
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2014
    Messages:
    483
    Likes Received:
    603
    Trophy Points:
    263
    Dash Address:
    XmoocowYfrPKUR6p6M5aJZdVntQe71irCX
    I would love to see this providing we can estimate bandwidth usage against existing implementations.
     
  30. thelonecrouton

    thelonecrouton Well-known Member
    Foundation Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2014
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    813
    Trophy Points:
    283
    Or have MNs function as normal pools, whichever works best. But require all mining to happen via MNs one way or another.

    Misbehaving MNs can be booted instantly. As things exist now, misbehaving pools have us all at their mercy.
     
    • Like Like x 1