-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 19, 2016, 05:20:46 AM |
|
This never gets tired, even if it does misspell assembly
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
in2tactics
|
|
April 19, 2016, 06:24:40 AM Last edit: April 19, 2016, 02:20:48 PM by in2tactics |
|
This never gets tired, even if it does misspell assembly Priceless... Somehow, we got way off-topic.
|
Current HW: 2x Apollo, 2x Apollo BTC, 2x Apollo II Retired HW: 3x 2PAC, 3x Moonlander 2, 2x AntMiner S7-LN, 5x AntMiner U1, 2x ASICMiner Block Erupter Cube, 4x AntMiner S3, 4x AntMiner S1, GAW Black Widow, and ZeusMiner Thunder X6
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 19, 2016, 07:53:08 AM |
|
Priceless...
Somehow, we got way off-topic.
Not really. The point is p2pool was written in python when mining was just about building a simple shelf where it suited the job perfectly with the minimum amount of effort. Unfortunately these days building a simple shelf doesn't cut it.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
|
April 19, 2016, 08:38:49 AM |
|
This never gets tired, even if it does misspell assembly Extra lols at Haskell, functional programming is terrifying to contemplate (to non-professionals like me anyway). Bear in mind that they probably did know how to spell "assembly", it was more likely their typing that let them down. @in2tactics: it's actually easier just to say "I got it wrong". Neither you or I are infallible, it's all about the way you recover from your mistakes; gracefully, or haughtily. I get things wrong too. But I stop digging, immediately.
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
April 19, 2016, 01:48:23 PM |
|
This is classic!
|
|
|
|
in2tactics
|
|
April 19, 2016, 02:46:51 PM Last edit: April 20, 2016, 09:58:08 AM by in2tactics |
|
Priceless...
Somehow, we got way off-topic.
Not really. The point is p2pool was written in python when mining was just about building a simple shelf where it suited the job perfectly with the minimum amount of effort. Unfortunately these days building a simple shelf doesn't cut it. Point taken.
|
Current HW: 2x Apollo, 2x Apollo BTC, 2x Apollo II Retired HW: 3x 2PAC, 3x Moonlander 2, 2x AntMiner S7-LN, 5x AntMiner U1, 2x ASICMiner Block Erupter Cube, 4x AntMiner S3, 4x AntMiner S1, GAW Black Widow, and ZeusMiner Thunder X6
|
|
|
squidicuz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2016, 07:41:31 AM |
|
...anyway... When P2Pool learns that there's a new block, it mines empty blocks until bitcoind gives it a block template. The alternative to doing this would be to mine orphaned blocks rather than empty ones. :/ Check the times of the blocks: 2016-04-15 02:57:19.832312 UpdateTip: new best=0000000000000000052e336f67c1b0d339d5e7423595c60f169cd17bd24e5306 height=407354 log2_work=84.48832 tx=122495865 date=2016-04-15 02:57:07 progress=1.000000 cache=4.7MiB(5564tx) 2016-04-15 03:21:13.214595 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930 height=407355 log2_work=84.48836 1 tx=122495866 date=2016-04-15 03:20:49 progress=1.000000 cache=51.3MiB(16114tx)
Doesn't look like it was immediately after a new block... No. So, Why was that block empty? I checked the node that block was mined on and it should have been completely full. What gives??? 2016-04-14 23:21:00.883567 New work for worker! Difficulty: 5346.855749 Share difficulty: 9605175.641964 Total block value: 25.358216 BTC including 1748 transactions 2016-04-14 23:21:12.763410 GOT BLOCK FROM MINER! Passing to bitcoind! https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930 2016-04-14 23:21:12.782751 GOT SHARE! 1DwXFhwiBGdsiqBxCYopMNkqZmZZUegnd8 25d51930 prev f4281eee age 11.90s 2016-04-14 23:21:13.353501 Skipping from block 52e336f67c1b0d339d5e7423595c60f169cd17bd24e5306 to block 3828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930! 2016-04-14 23:21:13.403123 > Block submittal result: False (u'duplicate') Expected: True What do I have misconfigured? ._.
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 20, 2016, 07:54:07 AM |
|
No. So, Why was that block empty? I checked the node that block was mined on and it should have been completely full. What gives??? 2016-04-14 23:21:00.883567 New work for worker! Difficulty: 5346.855749 Share difficulty: 9605175.641964 Total block value: 25.358216 BTC including 1748 transactions 2016-04-14 23:21:12.763410 GOT BLOCK FROM MINER! Passing to bitcoind! https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930 2016-04-14 23:21:12.782751 GOT SHARE! 1DwXFhwiBGdsiqBxCYopMNkqZmZZUegnd8 25d51930 prev f4281eee age 11.90s 2016-04-14 23:21:13.353501 Skipping from block 52e336f67c1b0d339d5e7423595c60f169cd17bd24e5306 to block 3828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930! 2016-04-14 23:21:13.403123 > Block submittal result: False (u'duplicate') Expected: True What do I have misconfigured? ._. What's in your bitcoin.conf ?
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
squidicuz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2016, 08:16:49 AM |
|
What's in your bitcoin.conf ?
minrelaytxfee=0.0001500 blockmaxsize=919899 blockprioritysize=44308 limitfreerelay=6
I have found valid, tx containing blocks in the past.. Additionally, logs from bitcoind. The time shows in UTC here, would that matter? 2016-04-15 03:20:49 CreateNewBlock(): total size 919823 txs: 1748 fees: 35821561 sigops 3928 2016-04-15 03:21:04 CreateNewBlock(): total size 919890 txs: 1742 fees: 36105460 sigops 3945 2016-04-15 03:21:13 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930 height=407355 log2_work=84.488361 tx=122495866 date=2016-04-15 03:20:49 progress=1.000000 cache=287.3MiB(138792tx)
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 20, 2016, 08:44:28 AM |
|
What's in your bitcoin.conf ?
minrelaytxfee=0.0001500 blockmaxsize=919899 blockprioritysize=44308 limitfreerelay=6
I have found valid, tx containing blocks in the past.. Additionally, logs from bitcoind. The time shows in UTC here, would that matter? 2016-04-15 03:20:49 CreateNewBlock(): total size 919823 txs: 1748 fees: 35821561 sigops 3928 2016-04-15 03:21:04 CreateNewBlock(): total size 919890 txs: 1742 fees: 36105460 sigops 3945 2016-04-15 03:21:13 UpdateTip: new best=000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930 height=407355 log2_work=84.488361 tx=122495866 date=2016-04-15 03:20:49 progress=1.000000 cache=287.3MiB(138792tx)
You are sure it's your miner that found the block (I'm not familiar with if that message says you found the block or someone else did)? There's something screwy going on because your bitcoind is offering transaction based work just before you found the block of 910k Perhaps for whatever reason your p2pool client kept building empty block work indefinitely after the previous block through some bug. Is your p2pool code modified in any way?
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
squidicuz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2016, 09:00:37 AM |
|
You are sure it's your miner that found the block (I'm not familiar with if that message says you found the block or someone else did)? There's something screwy going on because your bitcoind is offering transaction based work just before you found the block of 910k Perhaps for whatever reason your p2pool client kept building empty block work indefinitely after the previous block through some bug. Is your p2pool code modified in any way?
Yup. Positive it was it. I have logs from miner as well. The p2pool node is not modified other than the front-end. The miner is an S7, and I have found valid blocks with tx in the block before. I was running bitcoin core 0.12 at the time.
|
|
|
|
-ck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4256
Merit: 1645
Ruu \o/
|
|
April 20, 2016, 09:03:06 AM |
|
You are sure it's your miner that found the block (I'm not familiar with if that message says you found the block or someone else did)? There's something screwy going on because your bitcoind is offering transaction based work just before you found the block of 910k Perhaps for whatever reason your p2pool client kept building empty block work indefinitely after the previous block through some bug. Is your p2pool code modified in any way?
Yup. Positive it was it. I have logs from miner as well. The p2pool node is not modified other than the front-end. The miner is an S7, and I have found valid blocks with tx in the block before. I was running bitcoin core 0.12 at the time. Then I'd have to say there was a lingering bug of some sort because somewhere in the 20 minutes it must have gotten the work info from bitcoind since bitcoind is saying it's generating GBT with the CreateNewBlock message. Check if you have the p2pool logs prior to that block find for some kind of unhappiness there.
|
Developer/maintainer for cgminer, ckpool/ckproxy, and the -ck kernel 2% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org -ck
|
|
|
squidicuz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2016, 09:28:26 AM |
|
Then I'd have to say there was a lingering bug of some sort because somewhere in the 20 minutes it must have gotten the work info from bitcoind since bitcoind is saying it's generating GBT with the CreateNewBlock message. Check if you have the p2pool logs prior to that block find for some kind of unhappiness there.
Indeed. There is something wrong here, but I don't have much feedback other than empty block and logs that show processing work. Then the logs look normal except for 2016-04-14 23:21:13.403123 > Block submittal result: False (u'duplicate') Expected: True It may be some sort of bug.
|
|
|
|
windpath
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1258
Merit: 1027
|
|
April 20, 2016, 02:40:18 PM |
|
Then I'd have to say there was a lingering bug of some sort because somewhere in the 20 minutes it must have gotten the work info from bitcoind since bitcoind is saying it's generating GBT with the CreateNewBlock message. Check if you have the p2pool logs prior to that block find for some kind of unhappiness there.
Indeed. There is something wrong here, but I don't have much feedback other than empty block and logs that show processing work. Then the logs look normal except for 2016-04-14 23:21:13.403123 > Block submittal result: False (u'duplicate') Expected: True It may be some sort of bug. An easy check to see if transactions are being included in the default front end is to have a look at "Current Block Value", if it's 25BTC then no tx's are being included, if it's higher then they are.... http://minefast.coincadence.com:9332/static/
|
|
|
|
squidicuz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2016, 03:42:59 PM |
|
An easy check to see if transactions are being included in the default front end is to have a look at "Current Block Value", if it's 25BTC then no tx's are being included, if it's higher then they are.... http://minefast.coincadence.com:9332/static/Yup... Just grabbed this from the node: Current block value: 25.29108692 BTC I am not sure what caused this. Everything I check that could be of issue, seems okay.
|
|
|
|
forrestv (OP)
|
|
April 20, 2016, 05:11:17 PM |
|
Hey squidicuz, I started an issue to track this problem: https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/issues/305Can you upload a more complete section of your P2Pool log file? Ideally an hour behind and forward or so?
|
1J1zegkNSbwX4smvTdoHSanUfwvXFeuV23
|
|
|
squidicuz
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 58
Merit: 0
|
|
April 20, 2016, 10:29:26 PM |
|
Awesome, thanks!
However; My node has since overwritten that section of the log file. Is there another place older log data would be stored? :\
I will post the section that I have on the issue.
|
|
|
|
donatebitcointome
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
|
|
April 21, 2016, 05:55:04 AM |
|
@forrestv: Just some suggestion to let the p2pool node operator put prefix for the relay by message if it is achievable. maybe configurable with -btcsig parameter. -btcsig ABC, and it will come out "ABC P2Pool" in the blockchain.info relay by messge if that node found the block. if the node doesn't configure anything then it will come out default just "P2Pool"
|
|
|
|
jonnybravo0311
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1344
Merit: 1024
Mine at Jonny's Pool
|
|
April 21, 2016, 01:42:38 PM |
|
The "relayed by" on blockchain.info is driven by a JSON file, so that file would have to be updated with every p2pool operator's IP address. Probably not feasible.
However, the coinbase signature could be modified. That would identify the p2pool node if forrestv implemented it like you suggested. Base sig would be "p2pool". If a node operator started p2pool with your proposed -btcsig parameter, then the signature would be "xxxxxx p2pool".
|
Jonny's Pool - Mine with us and help us grow! Support a pool that supports Bitcoin, not a hardware manufacturer's pockets! No SPV cheats. No empty blocks.
|
|
|
donatebitcointome
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 48
Merit: 0
|
|
April 21, 2016, 03:53:29 PM |
|
The "relayed by" on blockchain.info is driven by a JSON file, so that file would have to be updated with every p2pool operator's IP address. Probably not feasible.
However, the coinbase signature could be modified. That would identify the p2pool node if forrestv implemented it like you suggested. Base sig would be "p2pool". If a node operator started p2pool with your proposed -btcsig parameter, then the signature would be "xxxxxx p2pool".
where does this coinbase signature appear at? If its not on relay by msg ? I did click the block number to see the information inside on blockchain.info website. There's nothing in there mention coinbase signature. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|