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

[mdude77]

* Stratum support in the P2Pool protocol. Stratum mining will be enabled in a future patch to v9.

I think this is great news, allowing p2pool to scale to any size in the future, taking a lot of load off the local p2pool software itself, allowing it to concentrate on the business of getting those blocks and transactions out ASAP. Sending higher difficulty targets to the miner will take it even further.

I agree.  What I'm curious about is how it's there, but not enabled, and why?

M

[1713286585]

1713286585

[1713286585]

1713286585

[1713286585]

1713286585

[1713286585]

1713286585

[forrestv]

* Stratum support in the P2Pool protocol. Stratum mining will be enabled in a future patch to v9.

I think this is great news, allowing p2pool to scale to any size in the future, taking a lot of load off the local p2pool software itself, allowing it to concentrate on the business of getting those blocks and transactions out ASAP. Sending higher difficulty targets to the miner will take it even further.

I agree.  What I'm curious about is how it's there, but not enabled, and why?

I simply haven't written the code for a Stratum server yet. Getting support into the P2Pool protocol and everyone switched over so it will work once implemented was the priority.

[kano]

* Stratum support in the P2Pool protocol. Stratum mining will be enabled in a future patch to v9.

I think this is great news, allowing p2pool to scale to any size in the future, taking a lot of load off the local p2pool software itself, allowing it to concentrate on the business of getting those blocks and transactions out ASAP. Sending higher difficulty targets to the miner will take it even further.

I agree.  What I'm curious about is how it's there, but not enabled, and why?

I simply haven't written the code for a Stratum server yet. Getting support into the P2Pool protocol and everyone switched over so it will work once implemented was the priority.

Heh - I was arguing that it should just work then got corrected (pointed out I was wrong) and worked out why back here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg1311688#msg1311688

You now seem to be saying it will 'just' work

Implementing Stratum in P2Pool without adding the extra p2pool coinbase rules to the miner will be no different to using GetWork as far as I see.
Since without those rules, the only thing the miner can do is roll the nonce and the time.
So in reality it will just be 'getwork' not 'stratum' going to the miner.

You will still only be using roll-n-time in the miner until the miner knows the P2Pool rules to add to Stratum - since stratum updates the secondary nonce in the coinbase but of course doesn't update anything else in there, since for non-share chain, nothing else is required - but for p2pool you do have to change something for the share-chain (I've no idea exactly where it is in there)

[forrestv]

Heh - I was arguing that it should just work then got corrected (pointed out I was wrong) and worked out why back here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg1311688#msg1311688

You now seem to be saying it will 'just' work

Implementing Stratum in P2Pool without adding the extra p2pool coinbase rules to the miner will be no different to using GetWork as far as I see.
Since without those rules, the only thing the miner can do is roll the nonce and the time.
So in reality it will just be 'getwork' not 'stratum' going to the miner.

You will still only be using roll-n-time in the miner until the miner knows the P2Pool rules to add to Stratum - since stratum updates the secondary nonce in the coinbase but of course doesn't update anything else in there, since for non-share chain, nothing else is required - but for p2pool you do have to change something for the share-chain (I've no idea exactly where it is in there)

It didn't just work - It required a change to P2Pool's rules to allow a 4-byte nonce in the last txout script. I mentioned the possibility here:

However, I discovered yesterday that Stratum is flexible enough to roll any data in the coinbase transaction at all, though, so rolling something in the last txout script is probably possible (though it would require a change to P2Pool's rules).

[kano]

Heh - I was arguing that it should just work then got corrected (pointed out I was wrong) and worked out why back here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=18313.msg1311688#msg1311688

You now seem to be saying it will 'just' work

Implementing Stratum in P2Pool without adding the extra p2pool coinbase rules to the miner will be no different to using GetWork as far as I see.
Since without those rules, the only thing the miner can do is roll the nonce and the time.
So in reality it will just be 'getwork' not 'stratum' going to the miner.

You will still only be using roll-n-time in the miner until the miner knows the P2Pool rules to add to Stratum - since stratum updates the secondary nonce in the coinbase but of course doesn't update anything else in there, since for non-share chain, nothing else is required - but for p2pool you do have to change something for the share-chain (I've no idea exactly where it is in there)

It didn't just work - It required a change to P2Pool's rules to allow a 4-byte nonce in the last txout script. I mentioned the possibility here:

However, I discovered yesterday that Stratum is flexible enough to roll any data in the coinbase transaction at all, though, so rolling something in the last txout script is probably possible (though it would require a change to P2Pool's rules).

So a hard p2pool fork?

Sorry I guess I'm just too used to BTC devs running screaming every time a hard fork is mentioned ... so I didn't think that's what you were referring to.

[mdude77]

So a hard p2pool fork?

Sorry I guess I'm just too used to BTC devs running screaming every time a hard fork is mentioned ... so I didn't think that's what you were referring to.

Most of the p2pool upgrades that I've seen are hard forks:

P2Pool release 9.0 tag: 9.0 hash: 2cb4d8381e179f71ea2075cdce948ea83cf0dc55

HARDFORK: Upgrade is required! Hardfork will happen after 95% of the pool's hash rate has upgraded. Everybody having not upgraded will be split off into a tiny P2Pool.

M

[twmz]

So a hard p2pool fork?

Sorry I guess I'm just too used to BTC devs running screaming every time a hard fork is mentioned ... so I didn't think that's what you were referring to.

Most of the p2pool upgrades that I've seen are hard forks

It's less severe than a bitcoin hard fork because worst case, you are just left solo mining.  It's not like you are on a different bitcoin blockchain and can't spend your money anymore.

[kano]

So a hard p2pool fork?

Sorry I guess I'm just too used to BTC devs running screaming every time a hard fork is mentioned ... so I didn't think that's what you were referring to.

Most of the p2pool upgrades that I've seen are hard forks

It's less severe than a bitcoin hard fork because worst case, you are just left solo mining.  It's not like you are on a different bitcoin blockchain and can't spend your money anymore.

Except that all your unpaid shares are worth nothing once the fork disappears.

[Clock Loop]

Accessing http://127.0.0.1:9332/static/share.html
Causes bug in main program, will output this to cmd window.

Code:

2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > Error in DeferredResource handler:
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\util\deferred_resource.pyc", line 24, in render
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 134, in maybeDeferred
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\web\resource.pyc", line 216, in render
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1187, in unwindGenerator
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > --- <exception caught here> ---
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1045, in _inlineCallbacks
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\web.pyc", line 195, in render_GET
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\web.pyc", line 318, in <lambda>
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\web.pyc", line 278, in get_share
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > exceptions.ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 16: ''

How fast should a miner ask for updates from P2 pool?    I can do 1ms to 10,000 ms.

ALSO, if you want to parse the text window output for keywords to cause actions, you can use a program called : SCANCODE

[aadje93]

got 5,07 bitcoin in 12 hours of mining   (~4,5ghs, estimated by p2pool 0,62-0,80/24hr)

Mystery solved:  That's not 5 BTC in 12 hours.  It's 5 BTC in 26 hours

dont count the one from the 10:11 i am counting from 18:00 > ~6:00 wich is around 12hours

[aadje93]

got 5,07 bitcoin in 12 hours of mining   (~4,5ghs, estimated by p2pool 0,62-0,80/24hr)

Mystery solved:  That's not 5 BTC in 12 hours.  It's 5 BTC in 26 hours

dont count the one from the 10:11 i am counting from 18:00 > ~6:00 wich is around 12hours

EDIT:

haha epic fail from me i see it now , my bad, but still nice reward with 4.2bitcoin in 14hours

[dishwara]

@aadje93: Hiding last 11 characters in address has no use.
Coz just by typing 1Es9aGi in search field of blockchain.info, will show full address & bitcoins.
https://blockchain.info/address/1Es9aGimor2fuHM1xMX4gA7w6t14PQ7NP3

Next time, hide first 11 characters.

[lenny_]

Accessing http://127.0.0.1:9332/static/share.html
Causes bug in main program, will output this to cmd window.

Code:

2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > Error in DeferredResource handler:
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\util\deferred_resource.pyc", line 24, in render
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 134, in maybeDeferred
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\web\resource.pyc", line 216, in render
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1187, in unwindGenerator
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > --- <exception caught here> ---
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "twisted\internet\defer.pyc", line 1045, in _inlineCallbacks
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\web.pyc", line 195, in render_GET
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\web.pyc", line 318, in <lambda>
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >   File "p2pool\web.pyc", line 278, in get_share
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 >
2012-11-12 22:28:29.704000 > exceptions.ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 16: ''

How fast should a miner ask for updates from P2 pool?    I can do 1ms to 10,000 ms.

ALSO, if you want to parse the text window output for keywords to cause actions, you can use a program called : SCANCODE

Confirming here as well. Newest p2pool from git + newest bitcoind from git, on Debian stable AMD64.

Code:

012-11-13 14:03:14.633558 > Traceback (most recent call last):
2012-11-13 14:03:14.633884 >   File "/home/x/p2pool/p2pool/util/deferred_resource.py", line 24, in render
2012-11-13 14:03:14.634099 >     defer.maybeDeferred(resource.Resource.render, self, request).addCallbacks(finish, finish_error)
2012-11-13 14:03:14.634293 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 125, in maybeDeferred
2012-11-13 14:03:14.634480 >     result = f(*args, **kw)
2012-11-13 14:03:14.634806 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/web/resource.py", line 210, in render
2012-11-13 14:03:14.635060 >     return m(request)
2012-11-13 14:03:14.635283 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1014, in unwindGenerator
2012-11-13 14:03:14.635476 >     return _inlineCallbacks(None, f(*args, **kwargs), Deferred())
2012-11-13 14:03:14.635660 > --- <exception caught here> ---
2012-11-13 14:03:14.635847 >   File "/usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 893, in _inlineCallbacks
2012-11-13 14:03:14.636031 >     result = g.send(result)
2012-11-13 14:03:14.636213 >   File "/home/x/p2pool/p2pool/web.py", line 195, in render_GET
2012-11-13 14:03:14.636394 >     res = yield self.func(*self.args)
2012-11-13 14:03:14.636575 >   File "/home/x/p2pool/p2pool/web.py", line 318, in <lambda>
2012-11-13 14:03:14.636874 >     new_root.putChild('share', WebInterface(lambda share_hash_str: get_share(share_hash_str)))
2012-11-13 14:03:14.637101 >   File "/home/x/p2pool/p2pool/web.py", line 278, in get_share
2012-11-13 14:03:14.637300 >     if int(share_hash_str, 16) not in node.tracker.items:
2012-11-13 14:03:14.637491 > exceptions.ValueError: invalid literal for int() with base 16: ''

[K1773R]

@aadje93: Hiding last 11 characters in address has no use.
Coz just by typing 1Es9aGi in search field of blockchain.info, will show full address & bitcoins.
https://blockchain.info/address/1Es9aGimor2fuHM1xMX4gA7w6t14PQ7NP3

Next time, hide first 11 characters.

wait u tell someone not do to a stupid thing, afterwards you tell him if you do the stupid thing a bit different its no longer stupid? sry but hiding first 11 characters dosnt help at all too...

[Aseras]

yeah you would need to hide the whole address and probably payments too because as I said you can look at the output of the blocks and figure out who someone is from payment amounts alone, or even a couple of letters of the address.

[cabin]

One small thing.. the links in the first post in this thread still point to version 8.2.. I guess it should be changed to 9 now?

[forrestv]

Accessing http://127.0.0.1:9332/static/share.html
Causes bug in main program, will output this to cmd window.

That's expected - Just don't go to that page like that. The URL should always have a share hash on the end, like http://vps.forre.st:9332/static/share.html#00000000004506b7e27ad78c40fedc063bbe417936b99316856c0e7338ac5250 The error happening isn't harmful.

How fast should a miner ask for updates from P2 pool?    I can do 1ms to 10,000 ms.

Your miner should support long polling so that it doesn't have to do timed polling. Failing that, 100ms or lower, depending on how much overhead you can cope with.

One small thing.. the links in the first post in this thread still point to version 8.2.. I guess it should be changed to 9 now?

Thanks for telling me, I forgot. Fixed.

[Clock Loop]

Your miner should support long polling so that it doesn't have to do timed polling. Failing that, 100ms or lower, depending on how much overhead you can cope with.

I have the only cuda miner in existance. (rpcminer)
It seems that because the cuda cards aren't as efficient at hashing, the community has altogether abandoned cuda and any new miner support for nvidia and cuda cards.

Even if someone dares mention the evil "nvidia" they will get 5 hashes at the mast.  
The RPC miner defaults to 4000ms polling.

So this means that there are a ton of nvidia users out there with outdated miners (because they have been abandoned)
Unless they all use the switch -workrefreshms=100 their polling rates will stay at 4000ms.

Don't tell me to get ati cards, if I had that kind of money, id just design my own fpga/asic pcb and be done with it.
I use what I have.   Now if someone is willing to throw me bitcoins so I can buy two of the latest ati cards..go ahead, my address is in my sig.  
But then id need to purchase a gpu mod for my swifttech gpu cooler blocks.   And I'd have to re-run all my PEX coolant lines...etc...

I'd rather just use all the money and extra effort, by doing a fpga/asic design. (i used to do dsp/fpga design for milling machine controllers and drives)
 Why buy new vid cards if they are going to be as useless as nvidia in about a month or so.

[kano]

Your miner should support long polling so that it doesn't have to do timed polling. Failing that, 100ms or lower, depending on how much overhead you can cope with.

I have the only cuda miner in existance. (rpcminer)
It seems that because the cuda cards aren't as efficient at hashing, the community has altogether abandoned cuda and any new miner support for nvidia and cuda cards.

Even if someone dares mention the evil "nvidia" they will get 5 hashes at the mast.  
The RPC miner defaults to 4000ms polling.

So this means that there are a ton of nvidia users out there with outdated miners (because they have been abandoned)
Unless they all use the switch -workrefreshms=100 their polling rates will stay at 4000ms.

Don't tell me to get ati cards, if I had that kind of money, id just design my own fpga/asic pcb and be done with it.
I use what I have.   Now if someone is willing to throw me bitcoins so I can buy two of the latest ati cards..go ahead, my address is in my sig.  
But then id need to purchase a gpu mod for my swifttech gpu cooler blocks.   And I'd have to re-run all my PEX coolant lines...etc...

I'd rather just use all the money and extra effort, by doing a fpga/asic design. (i used to do dsp/fpga design for milling machine controllers and drives)
 Why buy new vid cards if they are going to be as useless as nvidia in about a month or so.

... fires up ./cgminer-2.9.3a -S noauto on his Fedora 17 desktop that has no ATI GPU's ... just a "nVidia Corporation G84 [GeForce 8600 GTS]"

Code:

cgminer version 2.9.3a - Started: [2012-11-14 13:34:07]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 (5s):5.573M (avg):5.979Mh/s | Q:8  A:0  R:0  HW:0  E:0%  U:0.0/m
 TQ: 0  ST: 4  SS: 0  DW: 1  NB: 1  LW: 0  GF: 0  RF: 0  WU: 0.0
 Connected to au.ozco.in with LP as user miku
 Block: 00c71a0928a7dbbf3922906b...  Started: [13:34:07]  Best share: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 [P]ool management [G]PU management [S]ettings [D]isplay options [Q]uit
 GPU 0: 6.077M/8.046Mh/s | A:0 R:0 HW:0 U:0.00/m I: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will also point out that CoinLabs also has a cuda miner ...

--

Meanwhile regarding your rant full of inaccurate information ... if you spent the money of your electricity bill, that you using mining on the nVidia card, to buy BTC, you'd get more BTC and also help increase the price of BTC ... and reduce Carbon output at the same time

[Clock Loop]

Meanwhile regarding your rant full of inaccurate information ... if you spent the money of your electricity bill, that you using mining on the nVidia card, to buy BTC, you'd get more BTC and also help increase the price of BTC ... and reduce Carbon output at the same time

But if I didn't mess around with these miners, and learn all about this stuff, and just purchased the BTC,
 i would be like ever other noob who hasn't a clue of how and why bitcoin is a better option than our current Federal Reserve System.
(corrupt officials can't exactly counterfeit BTC)

Like I said I am not here to mine, just to learn about the whole process, and what exactly is being "mined"

I disagree that my COMMENT was complete inaccurate, but my time and electrons are worth more than to argue with you over something that I already know.
There are no good cuda miners for windows, and the rpcminer was last updated nov of 2011.

And I am not going to switch to linux just to try a different miner (you show cg miner)  
I tried cgminer with opencl and my hash rates were 1/2 of the cuda miner, and it used 75% cpu while using 100% of both gtx460 cards.
Rpcminer uses almost no cpu while using 100% of both gtx460cards.

The coin labs miner looks like its a mod of rpcminer. Plus is looks like you must use coinlabs to use their miner.
Why would you tell me to use a miner that requires me to use a different pool...  
I am posting in the P2Pool because that is what I want to use, im not going to switch to a different pool just so I can use a special miner.
If the miner won't even work with the thread topic(P2 Pool), don't mention it, its useless info.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99523.0

My point that I was trying to make is ati owners can choose between like 10 different miners, but nvidia get what...   2?
(if you call cgminer even viable, at the horrid performace it does)

Tell ya what lets agree to disagree, because you attack my post and say its full of crap basically, but then you mention that I must switch to linux... to use cgminer...  cgminer sucks with nvidia..   or use coinlabs miner, which IS rpcminer/requires you to leave p2pool...  

But hey, everyone ignore me cause all this is completely inaccurate.


So lets make some use out of this post...

If i set my refresh rate to 100ms, at my low has rate (150mh/s) won't I never find a share because my GPU's don't have enough time on the current block to find any shares?
Doesn't the refresh rate REQUIRE a minimum hash rate to find any share or block?
What would increasing my refresh rate to say 1000ms do?
Give me potential dead/orphan shares? (local dead on arrival)

I have tried refreshrates of 100ms, 750ms, 4000ms, 8000ms...
If I go longer refresh rates (above 1000ms) then I will get lots of dead on arrival, but I find that my share # goes up.
 Some arrive as dead, orphans, but more show up as good shares.
If I set my refresh rate to say 100ms... I find that I produce NO shares, no dead, and no orphans, in a 24hour period.
If I set it to 750ms, I find I can produce 1 share every 4-8 hours or so.
If I increase it to around 4000ms I have lots of local dead on arrival, with even more shares than a lower refresh rate.  (but more dead and orphan shares show up.

I guess I don't fully get it all, but my understanding is that if you set the refresh to a longer rate, you might produce old shares.
But having some dead/orphan shares is better than none at all.    So it seems that people with lower hash rates should use longer polling?
They may get more dead, but at least they will get something.  
 I found that not all were dead, only say 10% were dead when I had a polling rate of 4000ms.
So what gives, does polling rate depend on your overall hash rate?

What I notice, is with very low polling rates(100ms or less), I produce no shares at all.   Even if I run it for two days.
But if I set it to 750ms or longer, I will produce about 1 share every 4-8 hours.
And if I set it to about 5000ms, I will produce about 1 share every 2-4 hours(with 25% of those shares ending up as dead/orphans)

So does polling rate depend on hash rate, if you want to produce any shares at all...(dead/orphan/good)