Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 08:06:19 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 [187] 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 ... 744 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool  (Read 2033162 times)
kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 01, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
 #3721

Um - it's the actual coinbase field itself - the same place where you put all that other random data.
If you can randomly throw merged mining data it there, you should be able to add a 4 byte fields in there that you can roll instead of the ntime field.
I'm not sure what I'm missing here?

You could easily roll something in the coinbase script,  yes, but it wouldn't result in a valid p2pool share. The miner would need to be smart enough to update the data in the last txout, which is impractical.
But the software already has to do this every time a share changes (or a block changes) or new transactions are added.

Why can't it do it every time it completes a nonce range?

From the point of view of the merkle tree, it's only one side that needs to be recalculated (unless you are adding more transactions or using different transactions)

Again I don't see what I am missing here that makes this impossible.

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481270779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270779
Reply with quote  #2

1481270779
Report to moderator
1481270779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270779
Reply with quote  #2

1481270779
Report to moderator
1481270779
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270779

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270779
Reply with quote  #2

1481270779
Report to moderator
btharper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389



View Profile
November 01, 2012, 06:42:55 PM
 #3722

Um - it's the actual coinbase field itself - the same place where you put all that other random data.
If you can randomly throw merged mining data it there, you should be able to add a 4 byte fields in there that you can roll instead of the ntime field.
I'm not sure what I'm missing here?

You could easily roll something in the coinbase script,  yes, but it wouldn't result in a valid p2pool share. The miner would need to be smart enough to update the data in the last txout, which is impractical.
But the software already has to do this every time a share changes (or a block changes) or new transactions are added.

Why can't it do it every time it completes a nonce range?

From the point of view of the merkle tree, it's only one side that needs to be recalculated (unless you are adding more transactions or using different transactions)

Again I don't see what I am missing here that makes this impossible.
You're missing a semi-truck barreling down the road at you. The coinbase rolling that P2Pool uses is different because of the way p2pool payouts happen. While it may not be impossible having miners roll the coin base (and by extension, the whole merkle tree) may be harder. I don't know enough to elaborate but you seem to be completely ignoring what forestv is saying.

Given what else was said and assuming the other issues can be worked out stratum may be a better choice then, mostly because of bandwidth. GBT and Stratum both offer some modification to the coinbase (GBT through "coinbase/append" flag and Stratum through how the coinbase is always built to identify each miner).

Maybe it would be worth adding a "transaction/compact" flag to the GBT request and allow it to respond with just the merkle branches instead of the full transactions. If my logic isn't too far off that would close the gab between GBT and Stratum based on bandwidth usage.
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
November 01, 2012, 07:03:23 PM
 #3723

Maybe it would be worth adding a "transaction/compact" flag to the GBT request and allow it to respond with just the merkle branches instead of the full transactions. If my logic isn't too far off that would close the gab between GBT and Stratum based on bandwidth usage.
Might as well just use Stratum in that case, as you've negated the main benefit of GBT (decentralization).
As long as we're talking p2pool though, might as well use another pool entirely, since decentralization is the main benefit of p2pool Wink

Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591



View Profile WWW
November 01, 2012, 07:06:05 PM
 #3724

Might as well just use Stratum in that case, as you've negated the main benefit of GBT (decentralization).
As long as we're talking p2pool though, might as well use another pool entirely, since decentralization is the main benefit of p2pool Wink
But if you're just using Stratum for communication between p2pool and your mining software, centralization isn't a problem.

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
btharper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389



View Profile
November 01, 2012, 07:30:26 PM
 #3725

Maybe it would be worth adding a "transaction/compact" flag to the GBT request and allow it to respond with just the merkle branches instead of the full transactions. If my logic isn't too far off that would close the gab between GBT and Stratum based on bandwidth usage.
Might as well just use Stratum in that case, as you've negated the main benefit of GBT (decentralization).
As long as we're talking p2pool though, might as well use another pool entirely, since decentralization is the main benefit of p2pool Wink
If you're mining on your own P2Pool instance it's not an issue anyway. If you're mining on someone else's P2Pool instance then you're already becoming more centralized.

It does defeat some of the ideological niceties of GBT, but it's still an optional flag (Stratum has similar from what I've heard, though it's off by default, instead of on by default with this proposed compact flag).
Luke-Jr
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100



View Profile
November 01, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
 #3726

Might as well just use Stratum in that case, as you've negated the main benefit of GBT (decentralization).
As long as we're talking p2pool though, might as well use another pool entirely, since decentralization is the main benefit of p2pool Wink
But if you're just using Stratum for communication between p2pool and your mining software, centralization isn't a problem.
In that case, neither is bandwidth Wink

If you're mining on someone else's P2Pool instance then you're already becoming more centralized.
Not if it was using GBT. But obviously with p2pool's 10 second altchain blocks, the protocol used by GBT today is unreasonable.

It does defeat some of the ideological niceties of GBT, but it's still an optional flag (Stratum has similar from what I've heard, though it's off by default, instead of on by default with this proposed compact flag).
No, it's currently not possible to use GBT in a centralized setup. Stratum has recently added a similar feature, but it still has overhead for decentralized use.

kano
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1932


Linux since 1997 RedHat 4


View Profile
November 01, 2012, 08:52:53 PM
 #3727

Um - it's the actual coinbase field itself - the same place where you put all that other random data.
If you can randomly throw merged mining data it there, you should be able to add a 4 byte fields in there that you can roll instead of the ntime field.
I'm not sure what I'm missing here?

You could easily roll something in the coinbase script,  yes, but it wouldn't result in a valid p2pool share. The miner would need to be smart enough to update the data in the last txout, which is impractical.
But the software already has to do this every time a share changes (or a block changes) or new transactions are added.

Why can't it do it every time it completes a nonce range?

From the point of view of the merkle tree, it's only one side that needs to be recalculated (unless you are adding more transactions or using different transactions)

Again I don't see what I am missing here that makes this impossible.
You're missing a semi-truck barreling down the road at you. The coinbase rolling that P2Pool uses is different because of the way p2pool payouts happen. While it may not be impossible having miners roll the coin base (and by extension, the whole merkle tree) may be harder. I don't know enough to elaborate but you seem to be completely ignoring what forestv is saying.

Given what else was said and assuming the other issues can be worked out stratum may be a better choice then, mostly because of bandwidth. GBT and Stratum both offer some modification to the coinbase (GBT through "coinbase/append" flag and Stratum through how the coinbase is always built to identify each miner).

Maybe it would be worth adding a "transaction/compact" flag to the GBT request and allow it to respond with just the merkle branches instead of the full transactions. If my logic isn't too far off that would close the gab between GBT and Stratum based on bandwidth usage.
Ah nope I see the problem.

If you implement it in p2pool, p2pool itself is also adding roll-n-time to the miner on top of what it is doing so the miner doesn't have to get work every nonce range.

Stratum block building is done by the miner, in p2pool it is done by the p2pool software only - so yeah the miner wont know the p2pool rule to add to Stratum block building.

So results so far is that p2pool is forced to use the roll-n-time hack - it has no other way to give out long term work to the miner with it's current design.

... you could throw some BTC to ckolivas to request a change to cgminer to support the p2pool rule addition to the stratum generation process ...
... an optional flag that p2pool sends to say it needs to add that extra change to the coinbase transaction generation

(Edit: of course a larger nonce in the block header would solve that Cheesy )

Pool: https://kano.is BTC: 1KanoiBupPiZfkwqB7rfLXAzPnoTshAVmb
CKPool and CGMiner developer, IRC FreeNode #ckpool and #cgminer kanoi
Help keep Bitcoin secure by mining on pools with Stratum, the best protocol to mine Bitcoins with ASIC hardware
tiberiandusk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 580


The North Remembers


View Profile WWW
November 02, 2012, 03:34:21 AM
 #3728

I'm running Win7 64bit with 12gb of RAM and a 3 core 3.0ghz processor and P2Pool is always losing connection to bitcoind. What can I do to keep bitcoin running properly?

edit I created a symbolic link to the Bitcoin folder in appdata and moved the blockchain stuff to a faster drive in my computer. I'll see if this helps.
I have linux VM w/2GB ram running two p2pools and 5 xCoind`s w/o any trouble Smiley
Try exclude bitcoin and p2pool directory form virus scanning.

Excluding from the virus scanner seems to have helped. It must have been rescanning the whole blockchain every time a new block was found.

Bitcoin Auction House http://www.BitBid.net BTC - 1EwfBVC6BwA6YeqcYZmm3htwykK3MStW6N | LTC - LdBpJJHj4WSAsUqaTbwyJQFiG1tVjo4Uys Don't get Goxed.
cabin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 205


View Profile
November 02, 2012, 03:32:01 PM
 #3729

What does "Punishing share for 'Block-stale detected!" mean? I gather it happens after a new block appears on the network.. but what is the punishment?

1Cabinz1RSccAbFx2DikYomSKeMupy7M6V
TheHarbinger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


Why is it so damn hot in here?


View Profile
November 02, 2012, 03:40:26 PM
 #3730

What does "Punishing share for 'Block-stale detected!" mean? I gather it happens after a new block appears on the network.. but what is the punishment?

Off with your head!

12Um6jfDE7q6crm1s6tSksMvda8s1hZ3Vj
stevegee58
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 783



View Profile
November 02, 2012, 04:33:10 PM
 #3731

What does "Punishing share for 'Block-stale detected!" mean? I gather it happens after a new block appears on the network.. but what is the punishment?

You must spank her well.  And after you have spanked her, you may deal with her as you like.  And then, spank me.

You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
forrestv
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 510


View Profile
November 02, 2012, 05:35:33 PM
 #3732

What does "Punishing share for 'Block-stale detected!" mean? I gather it happens after a new block appears on the network.. but what is the punishment?

First, this has always been done, but I've just recently made the message more visible. It used to be simply "Stale detected! (long hex number) < (long hex number)".

In order to punish the share, your node tries to orphan it by building on that share's parent instead of on top of it. If you find a share, you'll have made a fork, and other nodes will prefer your share to the original, since yours wasn't block-stale, resulting in the original share not being integrated into the chain.

1J1zegkNSbwX4smvTdoHSanUfwvXFeuV23
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 02:24:10 AM
 #3733

Did I miss something, can we use fpgas or asics with p2pool now?

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  OpenVPN 2GB Free  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591



View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 02:25:35 AM
 #3734

Did I miss something, can we use fpgas or asics with p2pool now?
Anything except for the current BFL Singles. Minirigs and the new ASICs should work fine.

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 02:26:22 AM
 #3735

Oh what changed?

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  OpenVPN 2GB Free  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591



View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 02:26:51 AM
 #3736

Oh what changed?
Nothing. That's the way it's always been. Although ckolivas did have to add the --bfl-range flag to cgminer to get it working with Minirigs.

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 02:27:27 AM
 #3737

how are the minirigs compatible but not singles?

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  OpenVPN 2GB Free  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
Krak
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 591



View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 02:34:23 AM
 #3738

how are the minirigs compatible but not singles?
I can't remember exactly. It's something to do with the newer Singles inside the Minirigs.

BTC: 1KrakenLFEFg33A4f6xpwgv3UUoxrLPuGn
bitpop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932


https://keybase.io/bitpop


View Profile WWW
November 03, 2012, 02:52:17 AM
 #3739

Ok cool

Reputation  |  PGP  |  DigitalOcean  |  OpenVPN 2GB Free  |  TorGuard  |  Ethereum Classic
Bitcoin: 3DSh6AnmvBpDJFUz2mnLirMLmTMcFs9nDm
Bitmessage: BM-2cXN9j8NFT2n1FxDVQ6HQq4D4MZuuaBFyb
rav3n_pl
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1320


Don`t panic! Organize!


View Profile
November 03, 2012, 11:00:58 AM
 #3740

how are the minirigs compatible but not singles?
I can't remember exactly. It's something to do with the newer Singles inside the Minirigs.
Device is incompatible to p2pool (hight stale ratio) when
- it is not dropping/gettineg new work instantly on longpool
- it is not returning share just after it fonud it

IE if single is making full nonce in about 10s and returning all shares it found after that time there is high chance that in mean time was longpool and all shares are stale/doa already.

1Rav3nkMayCijuhzcYemMiPYsvcaiwHni  Bitcoin stuff on my OneDrive
My RPC CoinControl for any coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=929954
My SatoshDice bot https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897685
Pages: « 1 ... 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 [187] 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 ... 744 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!