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

[idonothave]

case DOA

my node:
Local rate: 1.52TH/s (1.1% DOA) Expected time to share: 1.4 hours
Shares: 76 total (6 orphaned, 2 dead) Efficiency: 107.4%

de.ckpool.org node:
Local rate: 1.55TH/s (21% DOA) Expected time to share: 1.5 hours
Shares: 8 total (1 orphaned, 2 dead) Efficiency: 77.60%

there is SP20 running both

ping de.ckpool.org
PING de.ckpool.org (84.200.2.30) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=33.3 ms

[-ck]

case DOA

my node:
Local rate: 1.52TH/s (1.1% DOA) Expected time to share: 1.4 hours
Shares: 76 total (6 orphaned, 2 dead) Efficiency: 107.4%

de.ckpool.org node:
Local rate: 1.55TH/s (21% DOA) Expected time to share: 1.5 hours
Shares: 8 total (1 orphaned, 2 dead) Efficiency: 77.60%

there is SP20 running both

ping de.ckpool.org
PING de.ckpool.org (84.200.2.30) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=33.3 ms

Yeah that looks pretty sad doesn't it. Not sure why it's quite so bad but anyway let's call this experiment off for the time being shall we?

Thanks very much for testing, I may come back with more later.

[idonothave]

case DOA

my node:
Local rate: 1.52TH/s (1.1% DOA) Expected time to share: 1.4 hours
Shares: 76 total (6 orphaned, 2 dead) Efficiency: 107.4%

de.ckpool.org node:
Local rate: 1.55TH/s (21% DOA) Expected time to share: 1.5 hours
Shares: 8 total (1 orphaned, 2 dead) Efficiency: 77.60%

there is SP20 running both

ping de.ckpool.org
PING de.ckpool.org (84.200.2.30) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 84.200.2.30: icmp_seq=1 ttl=53 time=33.3 ms

Yeah that looks pretty sad doesn't it. Not sure why it's quite so bad but anyway let's call this experiment off for the time being shall we?

Thanks very much for testing, I may come back with more later.

I do not know how much part of DOA is proxy doing but you have probably running p2pool node with python but I am with pypy. It can does something.

[-ck]

I do not know how much part of DOA is proxy doing but you have probably running p2pool node with python but I am with pypy. It can does something.

I'll try changing it to pypy then. Restarting shortly.

EDIT: What package does pypy use for twisted? I get     from twisted.internet import defer, reactor, protocol, tcp ImportError: No module named twisted

[p3yot33at3r]

EDIT: What package does pypy use for twisted? I get     from twisted.internet import defer, reactor, protocol, tcp ImportError: No module named twisted

Here's what I used:

Code:

#p2pool uses twisted, and twisted uses zope.interface, and in order to install either one you need setuptools, so let's start with that:

wget https://bootstrap.pypa.io/ez_setup.py -O - | sudo pypy
sudo rm setuptools-18.3.2.zip

#Then zope.interface:

wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/z/zope.interface/zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz#md5=9ae3d24c0c7415deb249dd1a132f0f79
tar zxf zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz
cd zope.interface-4.1.3/
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r zope.interface-4.1.3*

#Then Twisted:

wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/T/Twisted/Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
tar jxf Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
cd Twisted-15.4.0
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r Twisted-15.4.0*

Hope you got loads of RAM, cos it sucks the living daylights out of it 

[-ck]

Here's what I used:

Code:

#p2pool uses twisted, and twisted uses zope.interface, and in order to install either one you need setuptools, so let's start with that:

wget https://bootstrap.pypa.io/ez_setup.py -O - | sudo pypy
sudo rm setuptools-18.3.2.zip

#Then zope.interface:

wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/z/zope.interface/zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz#md5=9ae3d24c0c7415deb249dd1a132f0f79
tar zxf zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz
cd zope.interface-4.1.3/
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r zope.interface-4.1.3*

#Then Twisted:

wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/T/Twisted/Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
tar jxf Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
cd Twisted-15.4.0
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r Twisted-15.4.0*

Hope you got loads of RAM, cos it sucks the living daylights out of it 

Thanks for that, firing it up now. It's an 8GB VPS.

[idonothave]

Here's what I used:

Code:

#p2pool uses twisted, and twisted uses zope.interface, and in order to install either one you need setuptools, so let's start with that:

wget https://bootstrap.pypa.io/ez_setup.py -O - | sudo pypy
sudo rm setuptools-18.3.2.zip

#Then zope.interface:

wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/z/zope.interface/zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz#md5=9ae3d24c0c7415deb249dd1a132f0f79
tar zxf zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz
cd zope.interface-4.1.3/
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r zope.interface-4.1.3*

#Then Twisted:

wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/T/Twisted/Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
tar jxf Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
cd Twisted-15.4.0
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r Twisted-15.4.0*

Hope you got loads of RAM, cos it sucks the living daylights out of it 

Thanks for that, firing it up now. It's an 8GB VPS.

much better now

Local rate: 1.49TH/s (7.8% DOA) Expected time to share: 53.7 minutes
Shares: 2 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 120.0%

[e46btc]

Local rate: 1.49TH/s (7.8% DOA) Expected time to share: 53.7 minutes
Shares: 2 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 120.0%

Actually 53 minutes and 2 'live' shares are not enough for statistics.
For the best p2pool performance it is much better to run own local node near your miners, here is example:



This was private node with 100% fee for testing purposes.  Lower miners qty per one node works much better also.


The same node with remote miners with good connectivity and ping below 40ms give you also quite a lot of DOA hashrate about ~10% and more DOA shares also. But I never tried p2pool w/ ckproxy.. I think this kind of design issue..

[OgNasty]

I've been working with some experimental ckproxy code designed to consolidate multiple user logins into different upstream connections.

This makes me happy.

[-ck]

Local rate: 1.49TH/s (7.8% DOA) Expected time to share: 53.7 minutes
Shares: 2 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 120.0%

Actually 53 minutes and 2 'live' shares are not enough for statistics.
For the best p2pool performance it is much better to run own local node near your miners, here is example:

We're aware of that. This is an experiment on improving node performance for multiple miners.

[idonothave]

Local rate: 1.49TH/s (7.8% DOA) Expected time to share: 53.7 minutes
Shares: 2 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 120.0%

Actually 53 minutes and 2 'live' shares are not enough for statistics.
For the best p2pool performance it is much better to run own local node near your miners, here is example:



This was private node with 100% fee for testing purposes.  Lower miners qty per one node works much better also.


The same node with remote miners with good connectivity and ping below 40ms give you also quite a lot of DOA hashrate about ~10% and more DOA shares also. But I never tried p2pool w/ ckproxy.. I think this kind of design issue..

version 14?

[e46btc]

version 14?

This is not running now, just saved screenshot. 

ps: sorry for picture size, uploaded from tablet

[p3yot33at3r]

Was this "tremor in the force" when the changeover happened?:

 

Orphan rate has been rising steadily ever since - now at 25%?

Edit: 4 of my last 5 shares are orphaned also 

[windpath]

1 more block for BIP65 enforcement 949/950

https://chainquery.com/bitcoin-api/getblockchaininfo

Edit: and we are there:

Code:

			{
				"id": "bip65",
				"version": 4,
				"enforce": {
					"status": true,
					"found": 950,
					"required": 750,
					"window": 1000
				},
				"reject": {
					"status": true,
					"found": 950,
					"required": 950,
					"window": 1000
				}
			}

[e46btc]

We're aware of that. This is an experiment on improving node performance for multiple miners.

Sure I got this.
Another solution (or almost the same?) is also ckpool based, this may be not so elegant as yours but looks like it may work.

One guy asked me about how to configure ckpool in proxy mode for multiple users to deal with p2pool network.
As these users do not want to install and have Core wallet but they use online wallets which not accepts generated transactions.  So in this test enviroment ckpool works like a gateway and uses the single connection from ckproxy to p2pool network and single worker (payout address).  Is this the same what you doing?

In this case original Payout module and pplns_process() calculations of ckpool will be useless for this exact case (p2pool) and it need to be rewritten because ckpool will never know about solved p2pool Block and payouts will be never calculated based on received payout from p2pool network to specified address. But in case of single node owner with multiple miners (own devices) payout is not a problem. For different miners (persons) ckpool still can be  adopted for completely another payment module and another Block detection mechanism.  
PS: I do not ask you to do it for sure, just told it is possible if someone need this solution.

So.. This is local node w/ bitcoind, p2pool and ckpool on the same server, it is running well with no DOA shares for now and I am pretty sure only because this is LOCAL node but not remote.
I still do not have statistics for long period but for 12 hours now and just 2 workers but maybe it doesn't as soon as ckproxy running well . I have made conclusion for some time of using p2pool that it is necessary to have own local node with the shortest round trip delay, in this case DOA hashrate and DOA shares are minimal.   Another issue is GBT latency but this is not related to this particular task.

[wariner]

this change http://xtnodes.com/p2pool_configuration.php

work for new v4 ? or need different configuration for xt nodes?

[forrestv]

this change http://xtnodes.com/p2pool_configuration.php

work for new v4 ? or need different configuration for xt nodes?

You need to be upgraded to the newest P2Pool version (v15.0, to support v4 blocks/BIP65) and then also make that change (if you want to support Bitcoin XT).

[idonothave]

We're aware of that. This is an experiment on improving node performance for multiple miners.

Sure I got this.
Another solution (or almost the same?) is also ckpool based, this may be not so elegant as yours but looks like it may work.

One guy asked me about how to configure ckpool in proxy mode for multiple users to deal with p2pool network.
As these users do not want to install and have Core wallet but they use online wallets which not accepts generated transactions.  So in this test enviroment ckpool works like a gateway and uses the single connection from ckproxy to p2pool network and single worker (payout address).  Is this the same what you doing?

In this case original Payout module and pplns_process() calculations of ckpool will be useless for this exact case (p2pool) and it need to be rewritten because ckpool will never know about solved p2pool Block and payouts will be never calculated based on received payout from p2pool network to specified address. But in case of single node owner with multiple miners (own devices) payout is not a problem. For different miners (persons) ckpool still can be  adopted for completely another payment module and another Block detection mechanism.  
PS: I do not ask you to do it for sure, just told it is possible if someone need this solution.

So.. This is local node w/ bitcoind, p2pool and ckpool on the same server, it is running well with no DOA shares for now and I am pretty sure only because this is LOCAL node but not remote.
I still do not have statistics for long period but for 12 hours now and just 2 workers but maybe it doesn't as soon as ckproxy running well . I have made conclusion for some time of using p2pool that it is necessary to have own local node with the shortest round trip delay, in this case DOA hashrate and DOA shares are minimal.   Another issue is GBT latency but this is not related to this particular task.

does it mean that the best ever would be p2pool was mining to just one address and then as coins mature it would be redistributed? is not this what nasty is doing? if there was different payout mechanism implemented in p2pool it would probably solve a lot but we will hear again that it is way to lose control. so...

[wariner]

this change http://xtnodes.com/p2pool_configuration.php

work for new v4 ? or need different configuration for xt nodes?

You need to be upgraded to the newest P2Pool version (v15.0, to support v4 blocks/BIP65) and then also make that change (if you want to support Bitcoin XT).

yes i have p2pool v 15.0.1, but this work?:

https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/blob/master/p2pool/work.py

 - version=min(self.current_work.value['version'], 4),
 + version=536870919,

[forrestv]

yes i have p2pool v 15.0.1, but this work?:

https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/blob/master/p2pool/work.py

 - version=min(self.current_work.value['version'], 4),
 + version=536870919,

Yes.