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

[-ck]

This never gets tired, even if it does misspell assembly

[1714047347]

1714047347

[in2tactics]

This never gets tired, even if it does misspell assembly

Priceless...

Somehow, we got way off-topic.

[-ck]

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.

[Carlton Banks]

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.

[windpath]

This never gets tired, even if it does misspell assembly https://i.imgur.com/GHxmrsR.jpg

This is classic!

[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.

[squidicuz]

...anyway...

Block....

Did P2Pool just mine empty block?

https://blockchain.info/block/000000000000000003828fbc61ad281aa2e298ed4a299abf36209a4725d51930

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:

Code:

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???

Code:

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]

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???

Code:

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 ?

[squidicuz]

What's in your bitcoin.conf ?

Code:

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?

Code:

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]

What's in your bitcoin.conf ?

Code:

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?

Code:

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?

[squidicuz]

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]

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.

[squidicuz]

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

Code:

2016-04-14 23:21:13.403123 > Block submittal result: False (u'duplicate') Expected: True

It may be some sort of bug.

[windpath]

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

Code:

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]

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:

Code:

Current block value: 25.29108692 BTC  

I am not sure what caused this.  Everything I check that could be of issue, seems okay.

[forrestv]

Hey squidicuz, I started an issue to track this problem: https://github.com/p2pool/p2pool/issues/305

Can you upload a more complete section of your P2Pool log file? Ideally an hour behind and forward or so?

[squidicuz]

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]

@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]

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".

[donatebitcointome]

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.