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

[squidicuz]

OK, you want conspiracy theory?

I'm going to venture a guess that it's these hundreds of v14 p2pool clients that keep connecting to my node that are responsible for the python exploit that's causing the bitcoind memory leak. I'm also going to guess that sandboxing the compiled version of p2pool mitigated the problem and they hit me with an EMP targeted at the resonance frequency of the inductors in my PSUs shutting down both my mining computers as show of force that they can shut me down any time they want.

Are you running the latest source from the github page?  There was a patch released post version 15 that fixed the connecting of version 14 peers.  That might be the issue you are having.  The swarm of remaining version 14 peers will keep on trying to connect and send you shares, creating problems on your node.

[1714169958]

1714169958

[1714169958]

1714169958

[Cassey]

you do not need to bind with every existing node. I run my node satisfied with 3 out 1 in connections and relaynode by Matt. I use github bitcoind with no conf change with <0.2s gbt latency (0.165s daily average just now, monthly average 0.188s) and github p2pool 15.0-11 keeping both in last version.

Good to know, thanks.  Over the past 24ish hours I've seen it vary from 6 out, 0 in to 7 out, 1 in.  No idea what drives that, but it sounds like those numbers are somewhat healthy.

The http://ngspoe.carpenter-farms.us:9332/static/ page is confusing me a bit.  As of this post, I've found 41 shares, 8 have been orphaned (which I kind of understand), but my payout should a block be found is forecasted at 0 btc?  Shouldn't I expect to get some small payout (my shares/totalshares * BTC reward)

[nicklello]

you do not need to bind with every existing node. I run my node satisfied with 3 out 1 in connections and relaynode by Matt. I use github bitcoind with no conf change with <0.2s gbt latency (0.165s daily average just now, monthly average 0.188s) and github p2pool 15.0-11 keeping both in last version.

Good to know, thanks.  Over the past 24ish hours I've seen it vary from 6 out, 0 in to 7 out, 1 in.  No idea what drives that, but it sounds like those numbers are somewhat healthy.

The http://ngspoe.carpenter-farms.us:9332/static/ page is confusing me a bit.  As of this post, I've found 41 shares, 8 have been orphaned (which I kind of understand), but my payout should a block be found is forecasted at 0 btc?  Shouldn't I expect to get some small payout (my shares/totalshares * BTC reward)

Cassey,

That figure is the fee payments that you would get... the expected earnings are listed further down the page against the coin address used by your miner(s)

[Cassey]

Cassey,

That figure is the fee payments that you would get... the expected earnings are listed further down the page against the coin address used by your miner(s)

Ah, that makes more sense.  Thanks!

[notbatman]

OK, you want conspiracy theory?

I'm going to venture a guess that it's these hundreds of v14 p2pool clients that keep connecting to my node that are responsible for the python exploit that's causing the bitcoind memory leak. I'm also going to guess that sandboxing the compiled version of p2pool mitigated the problem and they hit me with an EMP targeted at the resonance frequency of the inductors in my PSUs shutting down both my mining computers as show of force that they can shut me down any time they want.

Are you running the latest source from the github page?  There was a patch released post version 15 that fixed the connecting of version 14 peers.  That might be the issue you are having.  The swarm of remaining version 14 peers will keep on trying to connect and send you shares, creating problems on your node.

I can't figure out how to sandbox python, I'm unable to install the boost library on my MSYS build so I can't compile the source myself and forrest hasn't released an MSVC windows binary for latest commit yet.

Also I'm having issues fashioning tin foil helmets for my computers...

[windpath]

OK, you want conspiracy theory?

I'm going to venture a guess that it's these hundreds of v14 p2pool clients that keep connecting to my node that are responsible for the python exploit that's causing the bitcoind memory leak. I'm also going to guess that sandboxing the compiled version of p2pool mitigated the problem and they hit me with an EMP targeted at the resonance frequency of the inductors in my PSUs shutting down both my mining computers as show of force that they can shut me down any time they want.

Are you running the latest source from the github page?  There was a patch released post version 15 that fixed the connecting of version 14 peers.  That might be the issue you are having.  The swarm of remaining version 14 peers will keep on trying to connect and send you shares, creating problems on your node.

I can't figure out how to sandbox python, I'm unable to install the boost library on my MSYS build so I can't compile the source myself and forrest hasn't released an MSVC windows binary for latest commit yet.

Also I'm having issues fashioning tin foil helmets for my computers...

Have you considered docker? https://www.docker.com/

[notbatman]

And now I'm running my browser sandboxed...

[Cassey]

My p2pool node appears to be healthy, not seeing anything in the console output that looks weird.  The http://ngspoe.carpenter-farms.us:9332/static/ page looks fine, but I'm not seeing my node in http://poolnode.info/

It was there for the past day, just not seeing it now.  Any ideas?

Update:  next day, still not showing up.

Update2:  Seeing my minors fail over to their backup pool, briefly, several times an hour.  This ROUGHLY aligns with namecoin blocks being found by the failover site (e.g. block change requests).  I've also become concerned about the variance issue - I know that in theory it doesn't matter, but with multiple days per block, it feels like the difficulty change will unduly impact us.  Not sure I have the skills to run this pool effectively.

[windpath]

Important update for users of http://minefast.coincadence.com

Whether you use it as a backup node or primarily mine on minefast.coincadence.com please update your miners today!

We have an exciting announcement coming in the next few days, all I can say at this point is that the domain name will change.

To keep mining uninterrupted please update your miners to use the IP address of the server rather then the domain, the IP will remain the same during the switch and you will not have any downtime.

Set your miners pool URL to:

stratum+tcp://54.235.94.19:9332

Everything else remains unchanged.

[notbatman]

It's been a while but my hash rate graph has finally stopped looking like the EEG from a cardiac arrest patient. 

[idonothave]

if anybody interested to mine in central Europe, Czech republic, there is a node http://185.73.103.2:9332/
fee 0.9%, author donation 0.1%
johndoe stats @ http://185.73.103.2:9332/static/jd/

plans

to add spare hw to backup it using load balancing tools
to backup it via another independent internet connection
to build website @ sexy domain name

removed any fees from p2pool node http://185.73.103.2:9332

[SpAcEDeViL]

Hy,

i made a p2pool for the altcoin emark.

But the Block value is wrong, and i dont know how to correct this or all my variables are correct.

Right block value is 50DEM
in p2pool the block is 0.50DEM

The pool speed is wrong, too. i think i have the only pool running.....

https://miner-control.de/p2pool/emark/

Code:

from p2pool.bitcoin import networks

PARENT = networks.nets['emark']
SHARE_PERIOD = 24 # seconds
CHAIN_LENGTH = 7*24*60*60//10 # shares
REAL_CHAIN_LENGTH = 7*24*60*60//10 # shares
TARGET_LOOKBEHIND = 20 # shares
SPREAD = 15 # blocks
IDENTIFIER = '6012865EBAD2C803'.decode('hex') #654d61726b
PREFIX = ''.decode('hex')
P2P_PORT = 5556
MIN_TARGET = 0
MAX_TARGET = 2**256//2**32 - 1
PERSIST = False
WORKER_PORT = 5557
BOOTSTRAP_ADDRS = 'miner-control.de'.split(' ')
ANNOUNCE_CHANNEL = '#p2pool-alt'
VERSION_CHECK = lambda v: 60007 <= v
VERSION_WARNING = lambda v: 'Upgrade eMark to >= 1.1.0.0!' if v < 60007 else None

Code:

import os
import platform

from twisted.internet import defer

from .. import data, helper
from p2pool.util import pack


P2P_PREFIX = 'e4e8e9e5'.decode('hex')
P2P_PORT = 5556
ADDRESS_VERSION = 53
RPC_PORT = 6666
RPC_CHECK = defer.inlineCallbacks(lambda bitcoind: defer.returnValue(
            'eMarkaddress' in (yield bitcoind.rpc_help()) and
            not (yield bitcoind.rpc_getinfo())['testnet']
        ))
SUBSIDY_FUNC = lambda height: 50*210000000
POW_FUNC = data.hash256
BLOCK_PERIOD = 120 # s
SYMBOL = 'DEM'
CONF_FILE_FUNC = lambda: os.path.join(os.path.join(os.environ['APPDATA'], 'eMark') if platform.system() == 'Windows' else os.path.expanduser('~/Library/Application Support/eMark/') if platform.system() == 'Darwin' else os.path.expanduser('~/.eMark'), 'eMark.conf')
BLOCK_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX = 'http://85.214.246.63:3009/block/'
ADDRESS_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX = 'http://85.214.246.63:3009/address/'
TX_EXPLORER_URL_PREFIX = 'http://85.214.246.63:3009/tx/'
SANE_TARGET_RANGE = (2**256//2**32//1000000 - 1, 2**256//2**32 - 1)
DUMB_SCRYPT_DIFF = 1
DUST_THRESHOLD = 0.001e8

[p3yot33at3r]

Should probably ask in the emark thread in the altcoins section.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Is anyone running the Bitcoinclassic wallet with p2pool here? I was checking the github repo out & after seeing the trolling being done by a certain core dev & ex-pool admin it makes me want to start using it......

[windpath]

Should probably ask in the emark thread in the altcoins section.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Is anyone running the Bitcoinclassic wallet with p2pool here? I was checking the github repo out & after seeing the trolling being done by a certain core dev & ex-pool admin it makes me want to start using it......

It's not ready yet...

[p3yot33at3r]

It's not ready yet...

That's what I thought, I've compiled it on a NIX VM without issue to play with though - looking forward to seeing how it performs with p2pool compared to core.

[windpath]

It's not ready yet...

That's what I thought, I've compiled it on a NIX VM without issue to play with though - looking forward to seeing how it performs with p2pool compared to core.

Other than slowing down GBT latency a little if you choose 2MB should have 0 effect

[p3yot33at3r]

Other than slowing down GBT latency a little if you choose 2MB should have 0 effect

What news on your domain btw? - I'm intrigued 

[windpath]

Other than slowing down GBT latency a little if you choose 2MB should have 0 effect

What news on your domain btw? - I'm intrigued 

I'm really excited about it, but can't say much at this point, I'm hoping to be able to share more in the coming week

[notbatman]

It's been a while but my hash rate graph has finally stopped looking like the EEG from a cardiac arrest patient. 

Well it looks like illuminati team 'A' been working around the clock on a workaround to my sandboxing. Here you can see a definite correlation between the flood of v14 clients and orphaned shares:



While illuminati team 'B' has subverted the sandboxing of my web browser with a recent update. Here you can see the results of my visit to imgur.com:




Still I'm maintaining a steady hash rate with an efficiency of 111% despite all the work they've been putting in.

[windpath]

I know a lot of us use SSH to manage remote nodes, there was serious SSH security flaw identified, there is an easy short term fix: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20160114142733