[1500 TH] p2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, Hop-Proof pool

[Xenotron]

?

"Authorization required".
Something wrong with login/password.
I got such messages when I tried to do merge mining with NMC. That time I didn't put rpcuser/password in bitcoin.cong file in Namecoin folder.

[Amph]

it's litecoin the same to bitcoin, to configure?
and what about the adress, is also the same?

[mdude77]

?

"Authorization required".
Something wrong with login/password.
I got such messages when I tried to do merge mining with NMC. That time I didn't put rpcuser/password in bitcoin.cong file in Namecoin folder.

I've also had this problem when the password is too long. 

M

[wacko]

2nd time this happens, a block mined by p2pool (LTC), and the reward is shared between the set of addresses all starting from "1" (like BTC addresses), how's it possible? Block #343029, found today at 13:48 UTC: http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/fcfb92180fb433cfd9d5f1bc5b587995232d72e6b5370d343265a8bbbb5ccd96

[gyverlb]

2nd time this happens, a block mined by p2pool (LTC), and the reward is shared between the set of addresses all starting from "1" (like BTC addresses), how's it possible? Block #343029, found today at 13:48 UTC: http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/fcfb92180fb433cfd9d5f1bc5b587995232d72e6b5370d343265a8bbbb5ccd96

Maybe someone configured a LTC P2Pool and connected it to a local Bitcoin node instead of a Litecoin node ? I'm a bit surprised it make it through P2Pool and a Litecoin node to be published on the P2P network though.

It was orphaned (maybe only some Litecoin nodes accept this kind of block and there's one of such active on LTC P2Pool).

[Xenotron]

it's litecoin the same to bitcoin, to configure?
and what about the adress, is also the same?

The same steps. But don't forget to add a copy of litecoin.conf in a data folder if it's not default one. Had big problems with that.

[gnomicide]

(LTC)
How long should I let it keep saying "Shares: 0" before I get concerned something is wrong?

Restarted p2pool and cgminer, and it was at 0 for ~8 hours yesterday, then miner crashed for some reason, and when I started it back up I got a share. Of course it's been 12 hours now and all payouts have been less than half what they were before it. Host downtime seems very punishing with p2pool.

[gnomicide]

Also, is there any way to filter out all the "Worker user submitted...", "Hash", and "Target" lines in the output? It just seems like spam, and the other messages are actually useful.

[forrestv]

2nd time this happens, a block mined by p2pool (LTC), and the reward is shared between the set of addresses all starting from "1" (like BTC addresses), how's it possible? Block #343029, found today at 13:48 UTC: http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/fcfb92180fb433cfd9d5f1bc5b587995232d72e6b5370d343265a8bbbb5ccd96

That's a bug in the block explorer you're using. There is no way for a Litecoin transaction to pay Bitcoin addreses - the network ID isn't even encoded in the block. All addresses in a block are just 160-bit hashes, without any identifying information.

[wacko]

2nd time this happens, a block mined by p2pool (LTC), and the reward is shared between the set of addresses all starting from "1" (like BTC addresses), how's it possible? Block #343029, found today at 13:48 UTC: http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/fcfb92180fb433cfd9d5f1bc5b587995232d72e6b5370d343265a8bbbb5ccd96

That's a bug in the block explorer you're using. There is no way for a Litecoin transaction to pay Bitcoin addreses - the network ID isn't even encoded in the block. All addresses in a block are just 160-bit hashes, without any identifying information.

You mean, it's a bug of explorer.litecoin.net? If so, then why is that block listed in the p2pool history? And why haven't I got any reward for it?

[forrestv]

2nd time this happens, a block mined by p2pool (LTC), and the reward is shared between the set of addresses all starting from "1" (like BTC addresses), how's it possible? Block #343029, found today at 13:48 UTC: http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/fcfb92180fb433cfd9d5f1bc5b587995232d72e6b5370d343265a8bbbb5ccd96

That's a bug in the block explorer you're using. There is no way for a Litecoin transaction to pay Bitcoin addreses - the network ID isn't even encoded in the block. All addresses in a block are just 160-bit hashes, without any identifying information.

You mean, it's a bug of explorer.litecoin.net? If so, then why is that block listed in the p2pool history? And why haven't I got any reward from it?

It's a real Litecoin-P2Pool block, but the Litecoin explorer is displaying Litecoin addresses as Bitcoin addresses for some reason. It appears to have been orphaned, so you didn't get a payout. The explorer displaying Bitcoin addresses and the block being orphaned might have some common cause, however..

[wacko]

It's a real Litecoin-P2Pool block, but the Litecoin explorer is displaying Litecoin addresses as Bitcoin addresses for some reason. It appears to have been orphaned, so you didn't get a payout. The explorer displaying Bitcoin addresses and the block being orphaned might have some common cause, however..

That makes sense, thank you for the answers.

[-ck]

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

[maqifrnswa]

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

Hey forrestv, do you want a Jalepeno? BFL_Josh will send you one if you'd like. You can find him here:
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/2164-demo-unit-forrestv-p2pool.html

[TurdHurdur]

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

Does a username like ckolivas/2000+10 help?

[forrestv]

Hey forrestv, do you want a Jalepeno? BFL_Josh will send you one if you'd like. You can find him here:
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/2164-demo-unit-forrestv-p2pool.html

I contacted him. Thanks for the tip!

[xhabit]

wow, very nice from bfl ...  iLike

[zvs]

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

the same thing happens with GPUs while using cgminer (not a cgminer problem, but stratum I would think)

i think i commented on that some months ago

minerd picks up the new work much quicker, and it is better to use phoenix for p2pool, or not use stratum

[zvs]

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

Does a username like ckolivas/2000+10 help?

no, because you'd still get the 6 new works every minute

the ratio of rejects to accepts would be the same

though, it would be nice if everyone over 5ghash or so did 2000 shares,  so people at lower rates may actually get something at some point

[-ck]

So I tried the current version of p2pool on a single 5.7GHz Jalapeño with cgminer connecting via stratum. This works out to about 80 diff1 shares per minute. It "works" in a sense of the word, without causing any weird errors or duplicating work that happen with the Avalon but there are huge lags between share submission and responses from p2pool after a while. Watching the CPU usage, I see a spike to 100% of one core whenever a block of transactions comes in and that coincides with the lag to respond to share submission, leading to more stale rejects if that occurs at the wrong time. The CPU in question is a 12 thread 3.4GHz CPU so it is clearly not underpowered. I suspect what happens on the Avalon is simply a grossly exaggerated form of this leading to misbehaviour.

the same thing happens with GPUs while using cgminer (not a cgminer problem, but stratum I would think)

i think i commented on that some months ago

minerd picks up the new work much quicker, and it is better to use phoenix for p2pool, or not use stratum

Yes using getwork with the jalapeño is actually better than using stratum, which is counter-intuitive and adds weight to the argument that there is a problem with p2pool's stratum implementation. Having said that, if forrestv can get one as a donation from BFL, that will benefit everyone because I'm sure there will be incentive on his part to investigate and develop further. Many people have approached me about rewriting p2pool from scratch in c, and as much fun as that sounds, I seriously don't have the time to support another project of this magnitude and would rather see the original author continue it.