Onyx Release & Mining Pools

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
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
Reactions: Light

Walter

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 17, 2014
234
220
103
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.
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.
 

JGCMiner

Active Member
Jun 8, 2014
364
217
113
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.
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
Reactions: moli

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
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...

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

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
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.
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v10-15-onyx-release.2683/page-9#post-25967
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
If you keep yelling for replacing one centralization with another centralization it's not going to help anything but just spamming this thread!
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
Reactions: camosoul

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
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.
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

illodin

Member
Apr 26, 2014
122
71
78
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.
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?
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
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?
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.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
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?
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....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: thelonecrouton

illodin

Member
Apr 26, 2014
122
71
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?
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
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...
I wonder if that dos spam had a lot to do with the inactive masternodes and causing pools to pay nothing.
 

camosoul

Grizzled Member
Sep 19, 2014
2,261
1,130
1,183
If handling something like a fully p2pool blockchain is going to break the network...
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
Reactions: tungfa

eth1

Member
Jul 1, 2014
40
64
58
Quebec, Canada
SuchPool.pw
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.

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.
 

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
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...
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.
 

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
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...
Can the miner still cheat by having his/her own customized MN?
 

eth1

Member
Jul 1, 2014
40
64
58
Quebec, Canada
SuchPool.pw
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.
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
Reactions: moli

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
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.
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
 

eth1

Member
Jul 1, 2014
40
64
58
Quebec, Canada
SuchPool.pw
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: moli

GermanRed+

Active Member
Aug 28, 2014
299
109
113
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.
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.
 

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
Cross-posted from BCT because I think it's relevant to development, and I agree with it:
eahmadov said:
Normally if a darkweb drug market accept your coin that would be a big deal and should have affected the price positively. We have adoption by not only one but two darkweb markets but price market doesn't give a shit about the news. Probably masternode operators are sick of seeing "tx_0_vout_1" and "not_detected" and they are dumping 1000drk at a time.

Everyone knows that we will not get 90% of pools switching to ONYX, yet we prefer to be in denial and stare at the charts like idiots hoping magically 90% will appear. There must be a better solution than being at the mercy of pools.

Unfortunately pools don't understand that their stubbornness hurting them as well. Darkcoin price should be around 20$ now but we are crawling around 2$ because of the damn struggle between MNs operators and pools. At 20$/DRK pools would still make more money even if the profit is split 50/50 with Masternodes.

If we cannot get pools to cooperate and upgrade fast every-time there is an update then this is gonna be a race to the bottom: price will continue to drop and we will see more and more masternode owners dumping their coins to cut their losses. Outcome: lose-lose!

Time to fucking wake up folks. Pools will go ahead and mine the next coin that is profitable. What is masternode operators going to do? Sell their investment for 0.001?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Light

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 4, 2014
346
256
233
Cross-posted from BCT because I think it's relevant to development, and I agree with it:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

splawik21

Yeah, it's me....
Dash Core Group
Foundation Member
Dash Support Group
Apr 8, 2014
1,966
1,327
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....
 

BrainShutdown

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 8, 2014
149
71
188
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?
Wafflepool is also not paying some blocks but I agree with you. After Waffle updates enforcement should be enabled
 
  • Like
Reactions: moocowmoo and Light

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
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.
 

darkwing

Active Member
Apr 8, 2014
149
110
103
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.
Mine through the masternode p2pool network?
 
  • Like
Reactions: moocowmoo

thelonecrouton

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 15, 2014
1,135
813
283
Mine through the masternode p2pool network?
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
Reactions: UdjinM6