So for the first 5 blocks there is no PPLNS payments. There is only 1 BTC if you find a block.
It's the same as solo mining, but you get 1 BTC instead of 25 BTC for finding a block?
Payments start as soon as the first block is found. I had to talk to the programming team to clarify that for me, as I am not the one doing all the technical stuff. Describing how your "pool" pays in a way that isn't misleading, wrong or nonsensical can hardly be described as "technical stuff". It is the most basic of basics - either you know how your pool works & pays or you don't, & from what you've said so far here it's obvious you don't have any clue whatsoever. May I suggest you get your "programming staff" or your "technical team" or anyone with a vague idea of mining to open an account here & try to set the record straight once & for all, if only to save yourself any further embarrassment......  |
|
|
|
Quick help would be appreciated, because others might be connecting to my node and it's one thing to waste my own hash, but worse to waste someone else's. Thanks in advance.
What's your node address - I'll take a look. Also, whats your p2pool start up command? PM me if you prefer  |
|
|
|
Great work windpath - well above my pay grade Been skipping around various p2pool node finders, there's still a massive amount of nodes still mining on outdated p2pool v13  I'm surprised there hasn't been a flood of complaints about missing payments from the last block....I'm seeing so many peers still getting banned......  |
|
|
|
Good info - thanks. RE:
.....(although my node banned only blockchain.info for spam)
Did you find doing this beneficial? I've been thinking of doing something like this myself...... |
|
|
|
Kano - thank you for that, I wasn't aware that Matt had changed the start up syntax. However, like you say, it's not responding & as soon as I started it up it locked my system up completely requiring a full reset. Switched it off & disabled it again lol, is your libc REALLY broken??? I'm really not sure how thats possible...is this reproduceable?  I'm buggered if I know - it only happened the once too, so not reproducible I'm afraid. I still get a warning when compiling the latest version, but it does run now. I'm still getting plenty of this: 127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected) Thanks for adding the extra info to the web page Matt. I'm sure the attack situation must be wrecking your head somewhat, especially with noobs like me constantly asking silly questions! Your work is very much appreciated, & I for one will be throwing a tip or two your way as & when I can - thanks again  |
|
|
|
Hello everyone. Figured I'd ask if anyone here in the 020 community is from the UK? Later today I'm going to post up some more news. Give me a few hours though UK here. Not proud of it |
|
|
|
Were you able to get it compiled and built on your system? I had no problem updating and building. Of course, the relay isn't actually responding to anything at this point...
Yes, but with a system crash as soon as I started it......  Good news is I just compiled the latest release with only one warning & it's back up & running again The amount of received transaction sizes of 1347 & 906 is staggering though, & I don't seem to be sending any back at all - which I'm putting down to the attack I think. At least it's running again. Had my first bitcoind disconnect in nearly 20 hours a while ago too. Bummer. Back to the drawing board....... Edit: Plenty of this too: 127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (Transport endpoint is not connected) |
|
|
|
@p3yot33at3r: +1 to p2pool
Thanks phelix My thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
He changed the parameter order ...
You now should just:
./relaynetworkclient 127.0.0.1 8333
You can specify which server to use on the end, but it will automatically choose one if you don't, by running a ping test to find the closest.
Edit: note the relay isn't responding at the moment at all ...
Kano - thank you for that, I wasn't aware that Matt had changed the start up syntax. However, like you say, it's not responding & as soon as I started it up it locked my system up completely requiring a full reset. Switched it off & disabled it again |
|
|
|
I also continue to see bitcoind connection issues every hour or so
I just noticed Matt has released a new "dirty hack" relaynetworkclient for p2pool also - https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/RelayNodegonna try & compile it now & see if it helps any...... EDIT: Nope, it still won't run on 14.04 64bit - anyone else had any luck? It is running for me, ubuntu 14.x. compiled c++ from a clone off a github. That's what I done - no go. Are you using 32bit or 64bit? EDIT: Sorted, thanks kano |
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I think anything that makes merge mine-able altcoins more compatible with Bitcoin & easier to integrate has got to be a good thing - it would certainly reduce the hours spent searching through code to see if it was capable of being merge mined, there seems to be a lack of information on many altcoin threads as to weather they are or not. You're doing some great work btw domob - kudos! |
|
|
|
So, including BTC, I'm currently merge mining 11 coins BTC, DVC, FSC, HUC, I0C, IXC, NMC, GRP, UNO, CLC & WLC........any more for any more? Can you give a ball park percentage how much this increases your profit? Is there a good tutorial on how to set up merge mining? Hi phelix, No...... TBH I've never really seriously looked into the profitability side of it, for me it's all about bettering my Linux skills (or lack of ) while helping give stability & security to a few altcoins that may one day be "worth" mining - a hobby. After all, if it's purely profit people are after then home mining is the wrong game to be in atm...... I just find it very interesting & want to promote crypto as much as possible, I believe it's the future in one form or another & despise the current "system". Regarding the tutorial, I was working on an updated guide for noobs myself, but put it on hold due to the current network attack & problems with a couple of merge mined clients (HUC & XGG) - I didn't want people to think they had done something wrong when they hadn't, so decided to wait until those issues are fixed before publishing it. I was also thinking of posting a comprehensive list of all merge mined SHA256 coins with updated info, coin links & repos etc for p2pool users to use - but have had to postpone this for the same reasons. although it would be preferable if the OP would do that in this thread I think......? I see p2pool merge mining as the only way to stop the rot of large miner farm centralization & it's inherent problems, especially with all the scam pools popping up all over the place - so just want to increase new crypto miners awareness. Profit is not my driving force, thank goodness. I'm happy if I break even!  |
|
|
|
Hi Matt, I just tried compiling the latest "dirty hack" release: rig@rig:~/RelayNode/c++$ make -f Makefile clean; make -f Makefile
rm -f *.o crypto/*.o crypto/sha256_code_release/*.a crypto/*~ *~ *.exe relaynetworkclient relaynetworkterminator relaynetworkproxy relaynetworkoutbound relaynetworkserver relaynetworktest relaynetworkclient.exe
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o flaggedarrayset.o flaggedarrayset.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o utils.o utils.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o relayprocess.o relayprocess.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o p2pclient.o p2pclient.cpp
p2pclient.cpp: In member function ‘virtual void P2PRelayer::net_process(const std::function<void(const char*)>&)’:
p2pclient.cpp:103:44: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow]
if (connected.fetch_and(~CONNECTED_FLAGS) & CONNECTED_FLAG_REQUEST_MEMPOOL)
^
p2pclient.cpp: In member function ‘void P2PRelayer::request_mempool()’:
p2pclient.cpp:191:13: warning: large integer implicitly truncated to unsigned type [-Woverflow]
connected &= ~CONNECTED_FLAG_REQUEST_MEMPOOL;
^
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o connection.o connection.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o crypto/sha2.o crypto/sha2.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include -c -o client.o client.cpp
g++ -I. -g -DFORCE_LE -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=native -mtune=native -flto -std=c++11 -Wall -I/usr/include flaggedarrayset.o utils.o relayprocess.o p2pclient.o connection.o crypto/sha2.o client.o -Wl,--no-as-needed -pthread -lresolv -o relaynetworkclient When I try to run it, I only get this: Running 14.04 64bit. |
|
|
|
I also continue to see bitcoind connection issues every hour or so
Hi nonnakip, It's been nearly 12 hours since I implemented the bad IP block & I've had no bitcoind disconnects since doing so. I presume you've checked your logs for a similar repeat offender? Worth a try...... I just noticed Matt has released a new "dirty hack" relaynetworkclient for p2pool also - https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/RelayNodegonna try & compile it now & see if it helps any...... EDIT: Nope, it still won't run on 14.04 64bit - anyone else had any luck? |
|
|
|
BLOCK!!Phew.......
|
|
|
|
We can guarantee you it is not a scam.
That's what bitaffnet said too...... |
|
|
|
I dunno. It might be nothing, but I was going through my p2pool logs earlier & noticed the same IP over & over again that was connecting, submitting dodgy hash, getting banned for it then reconnecting again on a different port & doing the same thing all over again, constantly & repeatedly using a different port every time. My logs are full of the same IP, namely 219.239.31.11 - it's in China: 2015-07-06 06:14:57.151757 invalid hash for 219.239.31.11 'remember_tx' 748990 a9117513
2015-07-06 06:14:57.151874 Bad peer banned: ('219.239.31.11', 64888)
2015-07-06 06:14:57.155612 Lost peer 219.239.31.11:64888 - Connection was aborted locally, using.
2015-07-06 06:14:57.156126 > in download_shares:
2015-07-06 06:14:57.156218 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2015-07-06 06:14:57.156259 > Failure: twisted.internet.error.ConnectionAborted: Connection was aborted locally, using. Then reconnect on different port, request shares, submit bad hash, get banned again: 2015-07-06 05:13:49.929600 Incoming connection to peer 219.239.31.11:33919 established. p2pool version: 1400 '14.0'
2015-07-06 05:13:54.675766 invalid hash for 219.239.31.11 'remember_tx' 292502 69c836d4
2015-07-06 05:13:54.675885 Bad peer banned: ('219.239.31.11', 33919)
2015-07-06 05:13:54.676322 Lost peer 219.239.31.11:33919 - Connection was aborted locally, using.
Over & over, closely followed by a bitcoind disconnect. Note that whoever this is is using v14, so isn't getting banned by p2pool straight away. My logs are full of this IP using a different port every connection, submitting bad hash, requesting good then getting banned - so instead of waiting for 65535 banned connections to get through, I figured I'd just get rid, so I banned it at the router level firewall too. Since I did that a few hours ago I haven't had a single disconnect. Yet. Maybe I'm clutching at straws, but it just seems a bit weird that some China IP keeps flooding my node with shit so close to losing contact with bitcoind. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has this IP in their logs........ Or any other ideas of course, but check your logs anyway - see if you have the same IP as in my logs....... EDIT: Still getting this though :  |
|
|
|
I see there's a new push in git - good to go? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
