DEMAND - 1st StratumV2 Mining Pool - SOLO

[neutraLTC]

DEMAND Bitcoin Mining Pool

dmnd.work
STRATUMV2 Solo mining (pooled mining coming soon). Build your own block template + tx sets.


Step-by-step Guide for StratumV2 Solo mining on  DEMAND

download (or build) patched bitcoind binaries from here https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/releases/tag/sv2-tp-0.1.2
⛏️⛏️After, click on bitcoin-sv2-tp-0.1.2-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz to download the patched bitcoind that support StratumV2 (this is the Linux binary)
⛏️⛏️https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/releases/download/sv2-tp-0.1.2/bitcoin-sv2-tp-0.1.2-arm64-apple-darwin.tar.gz (this is the MAC binary)
run the patched bitcoind with this command:
⛏️⛏️ ./bitcoind -sv2 -sv2port=8442 (you MUST use this port otherwise the proxy will not work)
⛏️⛏️you can add other flags if you need them
⛏️⛏️the node will not enter a ready state for mining until any block is found on the network.
⛏️⛏️⛏️Note: Once you launch the node and the chain is synced, you'll need to wait for a new block before launching the proxy.
wait for the chain to sync
download or build demand all in one proxy from here https://github.com/demand-open-source/stratum/releases/tag/DEMAND
⛏️⛏️Click on Release (right hand side) to find the proxy
⛏️⛏️This is the proxy: demand_all_in_one_sv2-x86_64-linux-gnu and download
⛏️⛏️⛏️NOTE: only available for MAC and LINUX
Once downloaded, run or execute it with ./demand_all_in_one_sv2-x86_64-linux-gnu -a bc1qxy2kgdygjrsqtzq2n0yrf2493p83kkfjhx0wlh <- this would be your valid bitcoin address where you would receive your mining reward
⛏️⛏️Multiple miners are able to mine to one address
Run it
As soon as you see INFO demand_solo_all_in_one::translator: Connected to Upstream! ....\
⛏️⛏️ point your miners to ip_address_of_the_machine_running_the_proxy:34255

Congratulations miner! You are now helping maintain bitcoin mining healthy and decentralized with StratumV2 DEMAND.

You may enter the command - - help for other options

You can skip all this and solo mine sv1 with this endpoint: mining.dmnd.work:1000

Thank you
DEMAND team


Please follow
twitter: @DEMAND_POOL (
And join our telegram group: https://t.me/DemandPool

[1715122880]

1715122880

[neutraLTC]

Stratum v2: Superior Security, Flexibility, and Performance

Bandwidth Consumption:
SV2 optimizes bandwidth by encoding messages in minimized binary and eliminating redundant messaging. Stratum V1's JSON-RPC protocol is 2-3x heavier due to human-readable text. SV2 reduces average network message size from ~100 bytes (unencrypted) to 48 bytes (encrypted), lowering infrastructure costs and enabling precise hashrate measurement.

Server CPU Load:
SV2 allows efficient caching and eliminates Merkle Root recomputation for each share submission. It enables header-only mining, significantly reducing server CPU load.

Job Distribution Latency:
SV2 separates mining prevhash and future job messages, allowing faster job distribution. This minimizes latency and increases efficiency in starting new block mining.

Binary Encoding:
SV2's binary encoding is optimized for efficient computation and networking, significantly reducing message size compared to Stratum V1's JSON-RPC.

Man-in-the-Middle Attack Prevention:
SV2 ensures data integrity and confidentiality with robust encryption (AEAD), protecting against hashrate hijacking and maintaining miner-pool privacy.

Eliminate Empty Block Mining:
SV2's efficient job distribution eliminates the incentive to mine empty blocks, reducing the likelihood of empty block propagation in the network.

Job Selection:
SV2 allows miners to choose their work, decentralizing mining and limiting pools' ability to censor transactions. This enhances Bitcoin's censorship resistance.

Header-Only Mining:
SV2's header-only mining protocol reduces bandwidth and CPU load, optimizing for speed and efficiency in large-scale mining operations.

Multiplexing:
SV2 enables multiple communication channels over a single connection, reducing infrastructure complexity and costs.

Implicit Work Subscription:
SV2 assumes implicit job assignment requests upon channel opening, eliminating unnecessary data transfers and improving protocol efficiency.

Native Version Rolling:
SV2 natively supports version rolling, enhancing the mining process by extending the search space and reducing new job distributions.

Zero-time Backend Switching:
SV2 facilitates efficient backend switching and job allocation from different pools, optimizing complex mining setups.

Same Connection - Different Jobs:
SV2's multiplexing allows transmission of data for different jobs over a single connection, reducing the need for multiple connections and simplifying infrastructure.

Source: Stratumprotocol.org

[DaveF]

Don't know if you saw my comment in the now locked thread:

Cool that you are doing this.
BUT, any reason you are not doing it on Testnet?
There might be some people who would point to your pool to figure things out but would want verification.
Doing it on mainnet is going to mean the odds of a block being found by people just figuring things out is just about 0.

-Dave

[fmerli]

Hi Dave,

SRI (Stratum Reference Implementation) already have a testnet infra that you can use for it.
pool: 89.116.25.191:34254
job declarator server: 89.116.25.191:34264
template provider:  89.116.25.191:8442

We are mining on testnet since more then one year and we fund a lot of blocks.
Here a telegram bot that keep tracks of them: https://t.me/+_ooR21QNH101NjE8

[kano]

Alas V2 is, by definition, transaction bias.

Not allowing all transactions in the blockchain is a very bad idea for the free open bitcoin transaction system.

Mara pool tried doing this and stopped because of the obvious expected backlash.

Not sure why anyone would want to promote this.

It doesn't give you more blocks on the blockchain, it allows you to do 2 things:
1) Remove transactions "you don't like" = transaction bias
2) Put cheaper transactions in your blocks = devalue bitcoin and get less reward mining

I highly suggest everyone to avoid this.

[philipma1957]

Alas V2 is, by definition, transaction bias.

Not allowing all transactions in the blockchain is a very bad idea for the free open bitcoin transaction system.

Mara pool tried doing this and stopped because of the obvious expected backlash.

Not sure why anyone would want to promote this.

It doesn't give you more blocks on the blockchain, it allows you to do 2 things:
1) Remove transactions "you don't like" = transaction bias
2) Put cheaper transactions in your blocks = devalue bitcoin and get less reward mining

I highly suggest everyone to avoid this.

Okay with crazy high tx numbers that we have now. could this set the bar higher?

Ie no fee under 400 sats a byte when fees are high and it cherry picks higher  by 50 %  would it be more likely to get a block with 3 btc in fees while a non biased one would be more likely to get a block with 2 btc in fees as it allows for low fees.


In my example above it would appear on the surface that he would hit fatter feed blocks.

Or am I simply wrong.

BTW if I am right his method is only good when fees are high.


right now if you set 120 sats as your cut off and I set no cutoff leaving it alone does he  hit higher fees  then the open non biased pool






I think he wants to leave that impression that his way results in bigger fees.


and I am asking is that true or false?

[kano]

Alas V2 is, by definition, transaction bias.
...

Okay with crazy high tx numbers that we have now. could this set the bar higher?

...

Using bitcoin core's command to getblocktemplate will (currently) maximise the fees in your block.

Any changes to that will reduce the total fees.

[DaveF]

Using bitcoin core's command to getblocktemplate will (currently) maximise the fees in your block.

Any changes to that will reduce the total fees.

As I like to say. Yes with a but or no with an however.

If you take a TX with a low fee that someone paid you to mine that brings the fees above what is in the mempool. I did not maximize my FEES but I maximized my PROFIT.
How much extra does VIABTC make with their paid accelerator?

So as a rule yes getblocktemplate will give you the best deal, but it is not absolute when you have other ways of getting BTC for mining.

But, FEES are not the only thing so it's not an absolute.

-Dave

[mikeywith]

If you take a TX with a low fee that someone paid you to mine that brings the fees above what is in the mempool. I did not maximize my FEES but I maximized my PROFIT.
How much extra does VIABTC make with their paid accelerator?

You are correct, but!!, This does not increase the profit for miners, in fact, it reduces it, only the pool would make more profit by scamming miners off their potential profit, the fact that Viabtc ignored my questions in the past shows that they do not share any of that profit with the miners, it's pretty much a scam if you ask me, which is one of the reasons why I stopped using them.

An example of using $ to keep things simple is if said pool charged $100 on a transaction that is paying $1 in fee on the blockchain while removing another transaction that was paying $50, you should pay the miners $49 out of that $100, otherwise the pool is stealing.

I have checked my daily payouts over and over again to see any mention of "acceleration profit", or at least an answer of some sort, I got none, so I could only assume that they keep all of it, so as far as miners are concerned any pool that doesn't use the default getblocktemplate is certainly paying them less.

Edit: to be even more fair to Viabtc i did contact them again asking the same question, this will be my last attempt.

[DaveF]

Yes, but here there are 2 things to keep in mind.
1) For now it's a solo pool so it's just you.

2) If they do go to a PPLNS or whatever in the future, this part of StratumV2 means the the miners, not the pool, control what goes into the block. So if I pay you to mine a TX and you mine it it's between you and the other users of the pool not the pool and it's users.

And yes, VIA probably keeps the fees.

-Dave

[mikeywith]

Yes, but here there are 2 things to keep in mind.
1) For now it's a solo pool so it's just you.

Ya I was talking about the general usage of it, not in regards to solo mining or this particular pool.

2) If they do go to a PPLNS or whatever in the future, this part of StratumV2 means the the miners, not the pool, control what goes into the block. So if I pay you to mine a TX and you mine it it's between you and the other users of the pool not the pool and it's users.

if 1 user gets lucky to hit a block that has a potential of 3 BTC in fee rewards but then because he is stupid or gets paid for doing so -- the other miners would end up losing profit, I mean if a single entity (a pool) can make you lose profit, it's only going to be worse when thousands of other users can do the same, I personally wouldn't use any pool that allows this -- I doubt anyone in their right mind would.

Transaction-biased blocks are only good for one purpose, the pool won't be able to censor certain transactions, but for this to actually work, other miners need to have a say in this, they need to accept the block template proposed by each other and to evaluate it otherwise, it will certainly fail and nobody would use them.

[kano]

Using bitcoin core's command to getblocktemplate will (currently) maximise the fees in your block.

Any changes to that will reduce the total fees.

As I like to say. Yes with a but or no with an however.

...

-Dave

No, I'm correct.

As I said, and will repeat, "maximise the fees in your block"

However, what you completely failed to point out was the fact that your non-block payments are ever so rare transactions.
They exist coz someone either underpaid the transaction fee, or simply wanted to pay less than the current block requirement.
If they paid the right fee they will be in a non-bias block.

So since these are so rare, and one of the two causes is people trying to pay less block fees, you aren't gonna be making it rich trying to find them.

Bitcoin is currently around 1/2 million transactions a day, these rare 'mistake' transactions and 'I want it cheaper' transactions are mostly irrelevant.
On top of that the 'I want it cheaper' transactions are clearly not gonna work to your advantage.

[Artemis3]

Imagine miners not wanting to push spam to the blockchain, this coming from the guy that falsely accused another person of c p, and said c p is being pushed spearheaded by the exploit publicly demonstrated by ordinals but followed by others...

In the end, you are against freedom, of people wanting to propose their own template blocks. You have for years been saying bad things about V2 and not even bother to see the code, which is even in your favorite game/meme social media known as Discord.

It happened exactly like i told you a couple years ago, keep looking the other way and saying falsehoods and lies. V2 is here to stay and is being adopted. That you are too lazy to do it in your pool, no one cares.

[DaveF]

Using bitcoin core's command to getblocktemplate will (currently) maximise the fees in your block.

Any changes to that will reduce the total fees.

As I like to say. Yes with a but or no with an however.

...

-Dave

No, I'm correct.

As I said, and will repeat, "maximise the fees in your block"

However, what you completely failed to point out was the fact that your non-block payments are ever so rare transactions.
They exist coz someone either underpaid the transaction fee, or simply wanted to pay less than the current block requirement.
If they paid the right fee they will be in a non-bias block.

So since these are so rare, and one of the two causes is people trying to pay less block fees, you aren't gonna be making it rich trying to find them.

Bitcoin is currently around 1/2 million transactions a day, these rare 'mistake' transactions and 'I want it cheaper' transactions are mostly irrelevant.
On top of that the 'I want it cheaper' transactions are clearly not gonna work to your advantage.

Which was why I said

I did not maximize my FEES but I maximized my PROFIT.

If you are REASONABLE in what you ask in terms of cost for acceleration you will get some people.
NO, you are not going to make tons more, but you will have the ability to make more coin.

You even said it yourself they are "mostly irrelevant" that is not "totally irrelevant"

I used to work with a commodities broker who went after the little sales more or less on his own time (not company time) everyone else looked for the whale. He took all the little trades he could get that generated pennies in terms of extra pay for him. Could probably made more as a dishwasher at the bar vs what he made doing this. BUT every once in a great while, since he did do these small trades a big one happened to come through one of those clients or friends of a client or so on.

So yes, for months and months like him you could be accelerating penny TXs for a few more pennies, but then someone who did fuck up and made a non RBF low fee TX is going to show up on your doorstep and ask for help and pay you a nice fee. Not a way to make a living, but a nice way to at times make more.

But, you have your pool you can run it your way. Others have their pools, they can run it their way.

I wish @neutraLTC best of luck and hope they succeed.

-Dave

[kano]

Imagine miners not wanting to push spam to the blockchain, this coming from the guy that falsely accused another person of c p, and said c p is being pushed spearheaded by the exploit publicly demonstrated by ordinals but followed by others...

In the end, you are against freedom, of people wanting to propose their own template blocks. You have for years been saying bad things about V2 and not even bother to see the code, which is even in your favorite game/meme social media known as Discord.

It happened exactly like i told you a couple years ago, keep looking the other way and saying falsehoods and lies. V2 is here to stay and is being adopted. That you are too lazy to do it in your pool, no one cares.

Delusioins dude

Your V2 transaction bias is the same idea as what Luke wanted with GBT instead of Stratum.
You're not even original.

No one ever implemented it in GBT (not even Luke) and GBT died.
Why? Coz it's censorship - a bad idea against the ideals of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin core simply gathers all transactions available and ensures you get the best fees in your block.

Wanting transaction bias - i.e. censorship of transactions - removing transactions you don't like - will mean lower fees on PPLNS pools.
I bet you wont point out on your pool that with V2, any blocks found will only contain the transactions allowed by the miners of the blocks found.
Your marketing spin (lies) will mean most your miners wont even realise this.
Though if your pool is already censoring transactions, I guess it doesn't really matter.
But even if you are not already doing it, it will be soon enough.

[Artemis3]

Just so you know, I'm not the operator of Braiins Pool nor i can make any decisions about it, but you are in yours. I think people being able to propose their templates is democracy which is the very opposite of censorship. If anything, it is moving down to the miners the choice of what block templates they like. Ocean and Demand by adopting V2 and experimenting with the block template proposal are showing the way for decentralization and freedom in my own personal opinion.

Because you are the sole owner of it, yes, you have the power to provide the same level of democracy. Its only unfortunate that you require registering an account for solo mining, but lets leave your own pool stuff in your own thread. I applaud Demand here.

[kano]

Just so you know, I'm not the operator of Braiins Pool nor i can make any decisions about it, but you are in yours. I think people being able to propose their templates is democracy which is the very opposite of censorship. If anything, it is moving down to the miners the choice of what block templates they like. Ocean and Demand by adopting V2 and experimenting with the block template proposal are showing the way for decentralization and freedom in my own personal opinion.

Because you are the sole owner of it, yes, you have the power to provide the same level of democracy. Its only unfortunate that you require registering an account for solo mining, but lets leave your own pool stuff in your own thread. I applaud Demand here.

Giving people freedom to censor transactions, is, obviously, still censorship.
Trying to put a marketing spin on it, doesn't change that.

Pools have this ability, but most of them realise the stupidity of reducing their income if they were to do this.
V2 opening bitcoin to censorship by default, so that govt's can more easily enforce rules on bitcoin mining, sounds like a really bad idea to me ...

[mikeywith]

I think people being able to propose their templates is democracy which is the very opposite of censorship.

Free market code selected transaction blocks is also perfect democracy, it's superior to human democracy, the code doesn't know who you are, whether you are sanctioned by the U.S, or anything about your transactions, it checks a set of rules to validate the transaction and if everything checks out -- you are in.

people-selected transaction blocks are subject to being biased because human beings are just emotionally driven creatures, a U.S based miners could ban all known Chinese addresses just for political bullshit, the Chinese miner could do the same to the American miner, and the list goes on, eventually, the nation/people with the most hashpower could end up censoring nations with less hash power or none at all, pretty much how the U.S sanctions other countries today.

Not saying they will always end up in a censorship -- but they can, unlike how things are with code based democracy.

Why replace code democracy with human democracy? any person who is rational enough and is driven by a business mentality would reject this, as a miner I want my pool to extract the most fees possible without being biased, I wouldn't give my hard-earned hashrate to someone with an unstable brain who would reject a transaction that pays 1000 sat per byte for whatever political reason while accepting other transactions with 1 sat/byte.

For a solo pool, it would work great, for PPLNS (bad idea) PPS+ (bad idea since the transaction fees are still going to be paid in PPLNS), and FPPS ( a bad idea for the pool -- miners won't be affected since fees are paid ).

[kano]

Using bitcoin core's command to getblocktemplate will (currently) maximise the fees in your block.

Any changes to that will reduce the total fees.

As I like to say. Yes with a but or no with an however.

...

-Dave

No, I'm correct.

As I said, and will repeat, "maximise the fees in your block"

However, what you completely failed to point out was the fact that your non-block payments are ever so rare transactions.
They exist coz someone either underpaid the transaction fee, or simply wanted to pay less than the current block requirement.
If they paid the right fee they will be in a non-bias block.

So since these are so rare, and one of the two causes is people trying to pay less block fees, you aren't gonna be making it rich trying to find them.

Bitcoin is currently around 1/2 million transactions a day, these rare 'mistake' transactions and 'I want it cheaper' transactions are mostly irrelevant.
On top of that the 'I want it cheaper' transactions are clearly not gonna work to your advantage.

Which was why I said

I did not maximize my FEES but I maximized my PROFIT.

If you are REASONABLE in what you ask in terms of cost for acceleration you will get some people.
NO, you are not going to make tons more, but you will have the ability to make more coin.

You even said it yourself they are "mostly irrelevant" that is not "totally irrelevant"

I used to work with a commodities broker who went after the little sales more or less on his own time (not company time) everyone else looked for the whale. He took all the little trades he could get that generated pennies in terms of extra pay for him. Could probably made more as a dishwasher at the bar vs what he made doing this. BUT every once in a great while, since he did do these small trades a big one happened to come through one of those clients or friends of a client or so on.

So yes, for months and months like him you could be accelerating penny TXs for a few more pennies, but then someone who did fuck up and made a non RBF low fee TX is going to show up on your doorstep and ask for help and pay you a nice fee. Not a way to make a living, but a nice way to at times make more.

But, you have your pool you can run it your way. Others have their pools, they can run it their way.

I wish @neutraLTC best of luck and hope they succeed.

-Dave

Sorry, you won't maximise your profit.
This is not some old guy getting pennies to manage cheap funds.
You are replacing good block fees with lower fees - that's a loss.

For the case were people are trying to save on txn fees, they wont save on fees if they pay you more than blocks currently require.
So in these cases (the vast majority) you are losing out.

You wont be getting more unless you are deceiving people.
Anyone can adjust their transaction to get it into a block.
RBF has been available for all transactions for a while now.
Child pays for Parent has been around way longer even.

Hoping people are ignorant of this and hoping they will pay you a fortune coz you won't tell them ... yep help make bitcoin look bad.
Yep most people will do anything for money ...

[Artemis3]

Why replace code democracy with human democracy? any person who is rational enough and is driven by a business mentality would reject this, as a miner I want my pool to extract the most fees possible without being biased, I wouldn't give my hard-earned hashrate to someone with an unstable brain who would reject a transaction that pays 1000 sat per byte for whatever political reason while accepting other transactions with 1 sat/byte.

You are not the others. This is the difference between a market, and a free market. You can choose not to buy the cheapest thing, or not do the highest profit trade. You may simply like the other stuff and nobody can force you to get the "most profitable" if you don't want to.

This is giving people choice, you are free to use it or ignore it. Nobody forces you what template you like. The pool can enforce their own preferences or leave it entirely to the miners.

You seem to not get the "optional" and "proposal" parts of block templates. What, do you think if the humans don't make a choice, there won't be anything? If you don't pick anything the usual still occurs. But now people are allowed to bias it as they see fit. To each their own, a truly free market.

As a miner solo with your node you always had this power, but the pools seized this, now its returning back to them. How can you even oppose this?

[mikeywith]

How can you even oppose this?

I don't -- i won't try to force anyone not to use it, all am saying is, as a miner I would NOT use a pool that allows human beings to generate their own biased template that would result in a loss of profit for me.

I also explained scenarios of which I would engage in creating my own templates, if all pools are forced to ban certain listed addresses, and said pool would pass the responsibility to me to un-censor those addresses, I would, I would also accept it if another miner does it for the sake of fighting forced censorship, but doing so for any other reason means you are guaranteed to make me lose profit and I do not want to lose money, I also don't know many people who are willing to.

The moment a miner sees his pool making 0.5 btc on fees while there is a potential of 5 btc sitting on their mempool, it would be pretty hard to keep the miner, no sales pitch in the world would fix that, money lost is money lost.

Solo pool, ya great idea -- not solo, i would pass.

Again, i am only stating my opinion, if others are willing to use pools that give users the ability to create transaction biased blocks, be my guest, this would allow the pool is use (that uses default block template) to make even more profit.

[DaveF]

How can you even oppose this?

I don't -- i won't try to force anyone not to use it, all am saying is, as a miner I would NOT use a pool that allows human beings to generate their own biased template that would result in a loss of profit for me.

I also explained scenarios of which I would engage in creating my own templates, if all pools are forced to ban certain listed addresses, and said pool would pass the responsibility to me to un-censor those addresses, I would, I would also accept it if another miner does it for the sake of fighting forced censorship, but doing so for any other reason means you are guaranteed to make me lose profit and I do not want to lose money, I also don't know many people who are willing to.

The moment a miner sees his pool making 0.5 btc on fees while there is a potential of 5 btc sitting on their mempool, it would be pretty hard to keep the miner, no sales pitch in the world would fix that, money lost is money lost.

Solo pool, ya great idea -- not solo, i would pass.

Again, i am only stating my opinion, if others are willing to use pools that give users the ability to create transaction biased blocks, be my guest, this would allow the pool is use (that uses default block template) to make even more profit.

For pooled mining it also depends on where fees are at the moment and how much is being given up.
Going from 5 to 0.5 is a big deal
Going from .1 to .99991 when spread across a few hundred miners is not even a worry.
What would be is going from X to 0 because someone made a mistake with the template and mined an empty block.

Everyone has their own pain point.

Makes you wonder if you can code the pool to say the optimal block was X but you did Y his cost Z. So now your reward is lowered by Z and given to the other miners.
This way if you paid me to mine your TX I keep the money and nobody else at the pool can complain since they got paid.

Just a thought.

-Dave

[mikeywith]

Makes you wonder if you can code the pool to say the optimal block was X but you did Y his cost Z. So now your reward is lowered by Z and given to the other miners.
This way if you paid me to mine your TX I keep the money and nobody else at the pool can complain since they got paid.

Just a thought.

-Dave

The idea is fine, it is doable, but, a big but would be the miner's actual reward that you can take to pay other miners, if a miner has a hashrate of say 1ph, that earns him 0.1 btc a day, then he sends a block template that loses 1 btc, even if they take his entire reward it won't cover the losses.

So the pool caps this by doing
If (X - Y =< Z )
{accepted}

Else {reject}

Z could either be his hashrate payout or other collateral.

It is doable, but it is a lot of work which could be avoided, so i don't think many pools will even consider doing it.

[Biffa]

This all sounds crazy to me. Maybe I just don't get it

It's gonna be the pool that ends up censoring the transactions surely? Individual miners, or even large farms of miners aren't going to give a fuck about what transactions go in where, they just want the maximum reward for spending all that money on equipment and electricity right?

If it was up to the invdividual miners, say if there are 1000 miners on a pool and 50% of them could not accept a midgetpornmeme transaction and 50% could, or even if there is one pool that doesn't accept a particular transcation but another 4 pools do, I mean whats changed?

So the pools are going to end up doing it, but will it make any difference, and if not why bother doing it unless its just to promote your own pool/code/software and cut some extra profit somewhere on the side for yourself as a company.

Maybe the pool will have a page where you can vote, but then who controls what the other pools do, if they all vote the other way then it doesn't matter.

[DaveF]

This all sounds crazy to me. Maybe I just don't get it

It's gonna be the pool that ends up censoring the transactions surely? Individual miners, or even large farms of miners aren't going to give a fuck about what transactions go in where, they just want the maximum reward for spending all that money on equipment and electricity right?

If it was up to the invdividual miners, say if there are 1000 miners on a pool and 50% of them could not accept a midgetpornmeme transaction and 50% could, or even if there is one pool that doesn't accept a particular transcation but another 4 pools do, I mean whats changed?

So the pools are going to end up doing it, but will it make any difference, and if not why bother doing it unless its just to promote your own pool/code/software and cut some extra profit somewhere on the side for yourself as a company.

Maybe the pool will have a page where you can vote, but then who controls what the other pools do, if they all vote the other way then it doesn't matter.

One of the things that StratumV2 CAN do is allow the individual miners to create their own block template. So you as a miner can submit a block that you want when you find a share that will mine a block.
(not a 100% accurate way of describing it but it works for this explanation) The other miners and the pool have zero say as to what is included in the block that you submitted.

Now.
1) It's a feature of Stratum V2 the pool does not have to support it.
2) As others have pointed out the block that the core client comes up with will maximize fees.

-Dave

[gitgab]

Since it's related to it, under the suggestion of @neutraLTC, I share my work also under this topic.

I'm going to build a testing & benchmarking tool to evaluate Stratum v2 (SRI) protocol performances in different mining scenarios.
I made a draft documentation of the tool here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uckx4os7laxKkJIc8QBOm5HlQuKcEHkvQa4szlAqcM8/edit#heading=h.c4oi55seebkm.
I'd love to get as many feedback as possible from miners and pools operators. My goal is to validate the tool docs, especially the metrics mentioned there, before starting to build it.

I also created a survey to collect feedback and suggestions here: https://47r5o81bk9b.typeform.com/to/bBgHVBl3.
Feel free to share it with miners/pools you know, it would be really appreciated 🙏

Original topic discussion at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5481634.0

Thank you

[kano]

Well stratum is about 15MB a day - to compare to
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789369.msg41861265#msg41861265

[neutraLTC]

We have released an sv2 proxy called demand_all_in_one the binaries are available here:
https://github.com/demand-open-source/stratum/releases/tag/DEMAND

You can use it for testing the demand job declaration functionality, for now only available on the solo pool.

Since is not yet stable the proxy  fallback   to ckpool if it the user hash rate that read from the pool is 0 for more than 3 minutes.

In order to try block declaration you have to run a TP https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/releases/tag/sv2-tp-0.1.2

the is a patched bitcoin node so you run like it but you have to add the sv2 options
-sv2 -sv2port=8442  -sv2interval=30 -sv2feedelta=2000 port must be 8442

otherwise the proxy will not work
when the TP is ready you chain as synced and you see in the log sv2 thread start you can launch the proxy
the proxy require only one argument the address of your solo pool proxy_bin -a [address] for example demand_all_in_one_sv2-x86_64-linux-gnu  -a bc1qxy2kgdygjrsqtzq2n0yrf2493p83kkfjhx0wlh

then you can point your miners to ip_of_the_pc_that_is_runing_the_proxy:34255`

[neutraLTC]

Step-by-step Guide for StratumV2 Solo mining on  DEMAND

download (or build) patched bitcoind binaries from here https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/releases/tag/sv2-tp-0.1.2
⛏️⛏️After, click on bitcoin-sv2-tp-0.1.2-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz to download the patched bitcoind that support StratumV2 (this is the Linux binary)
⛏️⛏️https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/releases/download/sv2-tp-0.1.2/bitcoin-sv2-tp-0.1.2-arm64-apple-darwin.tar.gz (this is the MAC binary)
run the patched bitcoind with this command:
⛏️⛏️ ./bitcoind -sv2 -sv2port=8442 (you MUST use this port otherwise the proxy will not work)
⛏️⛏️you can add other flags if you need them
⛏️⛏️the node will not enter a ready state for mining until any block is found on the network.
⛏️⛏️⛏️Note: Once you launch the node and the chain is synced, you'll need to wait for a new block before launching the proxy.
wait for the chain to sync
download or build demand all in one proxy from here https://github.com/demand-open-source/stratum/releases/tag/DEMAND
⛏️⛏️Click on Release (right hand side) to find the proxy
⛏️⛏️This is the proxy: demand_all_in_one_sv2-x86_64-linux-gnu and download
⛏️⛏️⛏️NOTE: only available for MAC and LINUX
Once downloaded, run or execute it with ./demand_all_in_one_sv2-x86_64-linux-gnu -a bc1qxy2kgdygjrsqtzq2n0yrf2493p83kkfjhx0wlh <- this would be your valid bitcoin address where you would receive your mining reward
⛏️⛏️Multiple miners are able to mine to one address
Run it
As soon as you see INFO demand_solo_all_in_one::translator: Connected to Upstream! ....\
⛏️⛏️ point your miners to ip_address_of_the_machine_running_the_proxy:34255

Congratulations miner! You are now helping maintain bitcoin mining healthy and decentralized with StratumV2 DEMAND.

You may enter the command - - help for other options

You can skip all this and solo mine sv1 with this endpoint: mining.dmnd.work:1000

Thank you
DEMAND team