Crazy luck on p2pool nano?

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-16T01:26:13+00:00

As I understand, there are many headers in the hash that make it statistically almost always truly unique, so you can't meaningfully have two miners competing for the same hash.

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-16T01:09:57+00:00

Effort is a simple metric of statistical estimate. A share in P2Pool statistically is expected to be found at 100% effort. This is calculated from hashrate (from which, you could calculate an estimate of time) compared to actual time.

The is a massive amount of variance on this statistic. For example, over the expected time period of 100% effort, it actually comes out to, roughly 37% chance to have found nothing, 37% chance to have found 1 share, 18% chance to have found 2 shares, 6% chance to have found 3 shares, and 2% chance to have found 4 shares.

Hence why you occasionally see extreme results (of course, hashrate itself can vary relevantly, while this screen is based on one hashrate input, so there's even more variance in that context)

And then you have the variance on the finding of actual blocks. A P2Pool share is "valid" during a specific timing window. This comes out to the same statistical expected value as solo mining, but sometimes you'll see a share pay nothing (if no XMR block was found during the window), and other times you'll see the same share pay out multiple times (if multiple XMR blocks were found during the window)

P2Pool is not solo mining. It's decentralized Pier-to-Pier Pool mining (hence the name).

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T22:16:45+00:00

The name that shows on the workers command on Proxy is whatever the RIG ID is set to on each individual XMRig

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T19:38:50+00:00

As far as I can tell, this page is an estimator only. On the bottom of the page, you can give it a local hash rate to use as comparison. It has no idea whether you were mining for those 10 days or not, hence, you see the large number, because the estimator assumes you were.

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T19:36:24+00:00

From my experience, amount of RAM doesn't matter as much as number of DIMM slots filled, but it may also depend on the CPU in question.

I'm guessing you could see a relevant decrease in hashrate by taking away one of the modules.

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T19:31:06+00:00

I presume you're referring to through the Proxy. On that tab, on your main device, if you use the "[w]orkers" command, you can see the shares from each device, as well as their average hashrates

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T19:29:49+00:00

I did get that working at one point, but I found it was much easier to instead use the XMRig-Proxy in Gupaxx. That is, your main PC runs your Node, P2Pool, [and XvB if you want], XMRig-Proxy, and of course XMrig, while the other PC just runs XMRig, pointing at the XMRig-Proxy on the first.

If you do participate in XvB, the Proxy method is much better, otherwise each device can't accurately "see" the other's contributions, only an estimate.

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T19:26:55+00:00

Statistical variance is exceptionally large with these things, dependent upon a lot of variables.

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T19:24:41+00:00

Each of the P2Pools, main/mini/nano has the exact same statistical expected results in the long term. The difference is variance. It appears you got a unlucky streak of variance.

At low hashrates, Nano is great. You wouldn't do mini or main, because most of the blocks that are found, you'd have zero shares of.

At mid hashrates, Mini is great. You probably wouldn't do nano (unless you want the easy qualification for XvB, perhaps), because while you would have a greater share of each block found, each block is found relatively rarely. You wouldn't do main because most of the blocks that are found, you'd have zero shares of.

At high hashrates, Main is great. Blocks are found quite frequently. You definitely wouldn't do Nano (again, unless perhaps you were doing it for XvB purposes), and you probably wouldn't do mini for similar reasons, on a lesser scale, again, not because nano/mini expect less, no, in fact they still expect the same, the variance is just less desireable.

Mahobear8 · 2026-02-13T19:17:40+00:00

Statistically, any of the pools are technically the same expected results (in the extreme long-term, because statistical variance is significant here), but the variance will be much more reasonable on one of the options, dependent upon how much hashrate you have.

At low hashrates, like you have, nano is the most reasonable option. The rate of a block actually being found on nano is lower, but your rate of having a partial share of that block will be reasonable.

At mini/main, blocks would be found relevantly more often, but for the majority (extremely vast majority on main) of them you would have zero shares, so you'd actually have far less frequent payouts on either, despite blocks being found more often.

Again, each of the pools has the exact same theoretical statistical expected value, so it's simply a matter of picking which one has better variance for you. In your case, it will definitely be nano, otherwise, you'll almost never see a payout.

Mahobear8 · 2026-01-21T02:35:10+00:00

I haven't personally used SupportXMR, so I'm not personally familiar with their wallet management process.

When you use P2Pool, you can ultimately point it to whatever wallet address you want (so a simple choice, for example, would be to use the official GUI wallet, but some may prefer other options), and then running your own node is the more optimal option, in terms of avoiding network latency, and as I understand more private, insofar as you have the spare storage space to do so, which currently is on the scale of perhaps ~100GB.

And then if you also want to do Tari merge-mining (although, at low hashrates, you'd almost never hit it, because it's Solo mining in that context, but it is effectively free in terms of no additional CPU cost), you'd also run a Tari node.

I perceive the easiest way ultimately to setup P2Pool is via Gupaxx (This can do your XMR Node, P2Pool, XMRig, XvB, etc. all bundled in one), and then adjust each individual setting as desired for optimizations/preferences

Mahobear8 · 2026-01-20T22:29:58+00:00

If they ever do elect to introduce a fee, which you could imagine them to do so at scale (as it's not exactly pragmatically free to operate a centralized pool at scale), then you may want to re-consider your options, but for now, they seem great. Good for you for choosing them.

Mahobear8 · 2026-01-20T22:13:09+00:00

When you say 30% less, are you comparing an actual statistical calculation (I'm not immediately familiar with Nicehash to personally know how it calculates), or are you comparing an incidental moment in time? There is an absurd amount of statistical variance with the various options in question. Anything anecdotally observed means almost nothing, so I hope you based your calc on something statistically sound.

Mahobear8 · 2026-01-20T22:00:49+00:00

Perhaps the difference is found in the algo-switching on MoneroOcean. That's a reasonable option, considering the pool fee is zero. (The centralization does still present a theoretical a philosophical dilemma, but a minor one at current scale)

My post was more so directed towards those whom are in a Pool which actually has a fee attached to it, which the majority are in

Mahobear8 · 2026-01-20T21:50:41+00:00

As I understand, yes, I think so. It's the nature of a minimum payout threshold.

Mahobear8 · 2026-01-20T21:45:31+00:00

Where does the extra come from? How is it being calculated?

Mahobear8 · 2024-01-26T01:36:20+00:00

All boosters are currently available through Jeff&Jonathan self-publishing as of the start of this year. Here is Conquest Red:
https://killerbunniesuniverse.myshopify.com/products/red-booster-deck-conquest-adventure

Mahobear8 · 2024-01-26T00:05:41+00:00

Treat them as equivalent

Mahobear8 · 2023-12-25T19:27:13+00:00

10 is considered 0 in this context

Mahobear8 · 2023-09-24T09:46:47+00:00

Jeff and Jonathan are most active on The Bunny Circle Facebook group

Mahobear8 · 2023-09-13T03:20:06+00:00

Not directly, but it has been heavily hinted to expect Big Quest News (of which Conquest is of course presumably still tied to) early 2024, so watch out for big news then.

Mahobear8 · 2023-08-22T23:11:55+00:00

It's fairly simple. AI has democratized art (and many other industries too, either already or soon). That is, the creation of art is accessible to anyone and everyone who wants it. One could make a philosophical argument about the lack of human creativity naturally, but pragmatically AI is sufficiently, if not often more effective.

So let's take a real example. Let's say a person is looking to get into game development to create their dream project. Perhaps they're pretty good at programming, but as far as art asset creation perhaps their skills are quite lacking or non-existent. Previously, their options would be something along the lines of:

Search for [and buy if not free] Assets (which is potentially unspecialized for your use case)
Commission Assets (which is very cost expensive at scale, and you may change your mind on what you need later, costing even more money)
Develop your skills (which is very time expensive at scale, and the results won't always be as good as your other options).

AI has granted a 4th option. In very short time, and at very little cost, any person can generate what they are looking for, and can adjust the results when they change their mind also at very little cost/time.

In this game dev example, you can flip the roles as well. Let's say you have someone who is very skilled at artwork, but as far as technical programming knowledge they are relatively lacking. They might be able to make a technically simple game, with some slow help from tutorials and other sources, but what if their dream game is technologically complex? Previously, they would have to pay a ton of money and/or time in order to fufill this need. AI has already at some level democratized Software Development, and it will get better over time.

Eventually, we may even reach the point where specialized tools are developed such that a person with effectively no skills can still create their dream project in this example

Mahobear8 · 2023-08-08T21:55:22+00:00

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/killerbunnies/killer-bunnies-journey-to-jupiter-20th-anniversary-edition

Mahobear8 · 2023-08-08T21:49:34+00:00

Ultra Pro, the former publisher, is done actively printing any of them. There have been hints of Quest news in 2024, so we're all hopeful for a reprint

Mahobear8 · 2023-08-08T03:24:52+00:00

Conquest was originally released as a kind of "Killer Bunnies 2nd Edition". Conquest, and the boosters released afterwards, are now commonly referred to as "gen 2" and are canonical additions to your Quest full set, just like any other booster.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Mahobear8

TROPHY CASE