P2pool: Decentralized, DoS-resistant, trustless, censorship-resistant pool.

[jtoomim]

2018-03-07 19:58:56.591097 > >>> Warning: A MAJORITY OF SHARES CONTAIN A VOTE FOR AN UNSUPPORTED SHARE IMPLEMENTATION! (v33 with 53% support)

This means you're not using the 1mb_segwit or feechecking code. You should switch to the feechecking code on Litecoin right now, because otherwise you will be rewarding someone who has been consistently mining invalid blocks and invalid shares since December.

Code: Select all

git remote add jtp2pool https://github.com/jtoomim/p2pool.git git fetch jtp2pool git checkout feechecking

The v33 hard fork will be coming on Litecoin soon, but not until after I've gotten the 1mb_segwit code merged into github.com/p2pool/p2pool. I have been manually delaying the v33 fork by telling my main mining node to vote for v17 shares despite running v33 code. However, while debugging the new feechecking code, I forgot to keep it voting for v17, so for a brief period of time the amount of v33 votes exceeded 50%, triggering that message.

[jtoomim]

The third commit in the feechecking series is now in my github and is running on all of my LTC nodes. It appears to be much more effective than the previous iteration, and is blocking about 50% of the naughty shares from LZzzELrQifCah5oafpNuCA6dLiyacVJNDa so far -- down to 0.5 LTC from 0.9 LTC. We need more hashrate to run it so that we can get rid of the rest. If you're mining Litecoin, please switch your nodes over to use it. If you're already on 1mb_segwit or feechecking:

Code: Select all

git fetch git checkout feechecking git pull

If you're still on p2pool master:

Code: Select all

git remote add jtp2pool https://github.com/jtoomim/p2pool.git git fetch jtp2pool git checkout feechecking

[Kiefff]

Jtoomim, do you ever feel there will be a time when p2pool LTC network will be too much for 1 Antminer L3+ to keep shares in the chain? I see now that sometimes a miner that has been on the pool for a week, drop to no shares in the chain with bad luck. Just asking because most seem to only own 1 unit a majority of the time. Also, looks like someone pushed us to 1TH briefly, crazy stuff.

[jtoomim]

I think a hard fork to change the chain parameters is in order for all chains, LTC included. Also in order is some optimization of the default share difficulty calculation. P2pool can handle a user with 1 L3+ a bit better if it just had different constants.

[Kiefff]

I think a hard fork to change the chain parameters is in order for all chains, LTC included. Also in order is some optimization of the default share difficulty calculation. P2pool can handle a user with 1 L3+ a bit better if it just had different constants.

How hard of a task is accomplishing all of that?

[jtoomim]

Harder than I currently have time for. It's probably about 20 hours of work for me.

[bitlock]

How do I tell which branch is actually running - it looks like i am on 1mb_segwit but not sure which branch code is using:

remotes/jtp2pool/1mb_segwit
or
remotes/master/1mb_segwit



Verion shows: Version: 15.0-98-g10f324f


I think i forced git to use jtp2pool/feechecking

git branch -a
* (detached from jtp2pool/feechecking)
1mb_segwit
master
remotes/jtp2pool/1mb
remotes/jtp2pool/1mb_hardforked
remotes/jtp2pool/1mb_new
remotes/jtp2pool/1mb_noretransmit
remotes/jtp2pool/1mb_segwit
remotes/jtp2pool/badblock
remotes/jtp2pool/fast_sha
remotes/jtp2pool/feechecking
remotes/jtp2pool/hardfork
remotes/jtp2pool/jtoomim_performance
remotes/jtp2pool/jtoomim_performance_rebased
remotes/jtp2pool/litecoindust
remotes/jtp2pool/lowmem
remotes/jtp2pool/master
remotes/jtp2pool/memory
remotes/jtp2pool/novacoin
remotes/jtp2pool/rav
remotes/jtp2pool/revert-1-jtoomim_performance
remotes/jtp2pool/sizechecking
remotes/jtp2pool/tmp
remotes/jtp2pool/worker_check
remotes/origin/1mb
remotes/origin/1mb_hardforked
remotes/origin/1mb_new
remotes/origin/1mb_noretransmit
remotes/origin/1mb_segwit
remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master
remotes/origin/badblock
remotes/origin/fast_sha
remotes/origin/feechecking
remotes/origin/hardfork
remotes/origin/jtoomim_performance
remotes/origin/jtoomim_performance_rebased
remotes/origin/litecoindust
remotes/origin/lowmem
remotes/origin/master
remotes/origin/memory
remotes/origin/novacoin
remotes/origin/rav
remotes/origin/revert-1-jtoomim_performance
remotes/origin/sizechecking
remotes/origin/tmp
remotes/origin/worker_check

thanks

[jtoomim]

guthub.com/p2pool/p2pool shouldn't have a 1mb_segwit branch. As far as I can tell, you have both origin and jtp2pool pointed at https://github.com/jtoomim/p2pool.git. You can verify this with a "git remote -v".

Your head is detached from feechecking, which means you are not on any branch. You're on some commit that came off of the feechecking branch, but I don't know what commit you're on.

I suggest:
git fetch origin
git checkout origin/feechecking
git remote remove jtp2pool

[jtoomim]

BCH block #520950 mined by p2pool (57 kB, 0.00484161 BCH fees):

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/blo ... fb9f8dc398

[jtoomim]

The naughty LTC miner is down to a reward of 0.07717149 LTC per block, or 0.3% of the total block reward, down from about 3% before we started running the feechecking code. This is much better. It's possible that the remaining shares are actually good. It's also possible that my code is unable to detect their naughtiness due to the hackish heuristic I used for calculating fees.

[PennStater]

I have noticed that on several nodes NOT running the jtoomim branch they are showing this warning on the index page:

Warning: A MAJORITY OF SHARES CONTAIN A VOTE FOR AN UNSUPPORTED SHARE IMPLEMENTATION! (v33 with 55% support) An upgrade is likely necessary. Check http://p2pool.forre.st/ for more information.

What does this mean, and could it possibly be causing any problems for miners on the jtoomim nodes? Are these nodes just confused since they're outdated?

Thanks!

[jtoomim]

pools/p2pool-decentralized-dos-resistan ... ac#p155106

It's not causing any problems except for that warning message on old (v17) nodes. I recommend upgrading to my code, though, as my code is faster, has fewer bugs, gets lower orphan rates, and is better at detecting invalid shares.

[bitlock]

Sorryy for the delay, issued your commands and this is what I have now, not really sure what I did to create that mess.

git branch -a
* (detached from 10f324f)
1mb_segwit
master
remotes/origin/1mb
remotes/origin/1mb_hardforked
remotes/origin/1mb_new
remotes/origin/1mb_noretransmit
remotes/origin/1mb_segwit
remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master
remotes/origin/badblock
remotes/origin/fast_sha
remotes/origin/feechecking
remotes/origin/hardfork
remotes/origin/jtoomim_performance
remotes/origin/jtoomim_performance_rebased
remotes/origin/litecoindust
remotes/origin/lowmem
remotes/origin/master
remotes/origin/memory
remotes/origin/novacoin
remotes/origin/rav
remotes/origin/revert-1-jtoomim_performance
remotes/origin/sizechecking
remotes/origin/tmp
remotes/origin/worker_check

thanks

[jtoomim]

That looks fine. 10f324f is the most recent commit on the feechecking branch. I don't know what you did to get yourself into a detached head state, but it probably doesn't matter.

[ikolu]

@jtoomim what happens when I connect many workers with the same payout address?
Does each worker works on its own share with the specific share diff or p2pool splits the share diff between them and they mine all together towards the same share?

Example:
3 miners with same payout address mining at a /6000 diff. -> Is each miner mining own its own share are /6000 or are they mining torwards the same share and each is mining at a /2000 diff?

Just very curious about that. That question links to another one related how the hashrate shows up and time to share decreases with multiple miners are using the same payout. But that is for another time!

Thank you so much,

[jtoomim]

jtoomimnet BTC block found a couple days ago: https://blockchain.info/block/000000000 ... b2fb59bebf

@jtoomim what happens when I connect many workers with the same payout address?
Does each worker works on its own share with the specific share diff or p2pool splits the share diff between them and they mine all together towards the same share?

In your example, each one is independently trying to find a nonce that solves the 6000 diff share. If you have 3x the hashrate, then your probability of finding a share is 3x higher over any given time period.

[yannarbraz]

@jtoomim
Hi, I was mining on P2POOL mainnet and now i would like to mine on JToomim
i have done the installation as indicated on this thread and everything seem to be perfect
BUT my miners doesn't works... I'm on Windows 10 and i set up my miners as i did previously on mainnet but it can't get work (pointing to 192.168.137.1:9332 and worker name with my BTC address)
could you please help me? do i have to set up a mining proxy or Something else?

EDIT
;;;; OK sorry i have found wtf was going on : my firewall was badly configured.. i have fixed that and now everything works! thanks a lot, you did great job with that pool

[k0gen]

It's not causing any problems except for that warning message on old (v17) nodes. I recommend upgrading to my code, though, as my code is faster, has fewer bugs, gets lower orphan rates, and is better at detecting invalid shares.

Tried updating my v17 mainnet node but your p2pool branch won't work with latest litecoin 0.15.1 - any plans adding support for latest litecoin version?

Thank You

[jtoomim]

Another invalid block mined by LZzzELrQifCah5oafpNuCA6dLiyacVJNDa:

http://explorer.litecoin.net/block/1ff5 ... ee0f0af5bf

LZzz is still getting paid by p2pool for mining invalid blocks about 15% of what he would be getting paid if he were mining valid blocks. We need more people to upgrade.

[jtoomim]

I have pushed changes to feechecking that allow it to work with Litecoin Core 0.15.1. These changes will probably also add support for Bitcoin Core 0.15 and later, but I haven't tested that.

[jtoomim]

Another jtoomimnet BTC block found (#514940), only 4 days after the previous one (#514382).

This block (#514940) was only 34 kB, but it came only 57 seconds after a Bitclub Network block that also wasn't full, so I think there just weren't enough transactions to fill it.

[k0gen]

I have pushed changes to feechecking that allow it to work with Litecoin Core 0.15.1. These changes will probably also add support for Bitcoin Core 0.15 and later, but I haven't tested that.

I just tried it and ...

Code: Select all

2018-03-25 09:49:46.849461 p2pool (version 15.0-99-gb6e6c2d) 2018-03-25 09:49:46.851573 2018-03-25 09:49:46.852501 Testing bitcoind RPC connection to 'http://127.0.0.1:10333/' with username 'litecoinrpc'... 2018-03-25 09:49:46.997706 ...success! 2018-03-25 09:49:46.998223 Current block hash: 3c1ffadc0efc55cd3b1bebe1bd5dd18988925286128d8b90757412983290ed9c 2018-03-25 09:49:46.998602 Current block height: 1391432 2018-03-25 09:49:46.998940 2018-03-25 09:49:46.999411 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:10332'... 2018-03-25 09:49:47.012509 ...success! 2018-03-25 09:49:47.012952 2018-03-25 09:49:47.013328 Determining payout address... 2018-03-25 09:49:47.014040 ...success! Payout address: LdXvhAvBarKKUXHmMeA1HJ3ZXUr7C7Zomu 2018-03-25 09:49:47.014386 2018-03-25 09:49:47.014862 Loading shares... 2018-03-25 09:49:47.015898 Share loading took 0.000 seconds 2018-03-25 09:49:47.016263 ...done loading 0 shares (0 verified)! 2018-03-25 09:49:47.016592 2018-03-25 09:49:47.016929 Initializing work... Fatal error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 588, in _runCallbacks current.result = callback(current.result, *args, **kw) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1184, in gotResult _inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1126, in _inlineCallbacks result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/python/failure.py", line 389, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb) --- <exception caught here> --- File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/main.py", line 191, in main yield node.start() File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1128, in _inlineCallbacks result = g.send(result) File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 237, in start self.set_best_share() File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 300, in set_best_share best, desired, decorated_heads, bad_peer_addresses, self.punish= self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.get_height, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value, self.feecache) File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 724, in think punish_aggressively = traditional_sort[-1][0][2] exceptions.IndexError: list index out of range

No go.

[ikolu]

I have pushed changes to feechecking that allow it to work with Litecoin Core 0.15.1. These changes will probably also add support for Bitcoin Core 0.15 and later, but I haven't tested that.

I just tried it and ...

Code: Select all

2018-03-25 09:49:46.849461 p2pool (version 15.0-99-gb6e6c2d) 2018-03-25 09:49:46.851573 2018-03-25 09:49:46.852501 Testing bitcoind RPC connection to 'http://127.0.0.1:10333/' with username 'litecoinrpc'... 2018-03-25 09:49:46.997706 ...success! 2018-03-25 09:49:46.998223 Current block hash: 3c1ffadc0efc55cd3b1bebe1bd5dd18988925286128d8b90757412983290ed9c 2018-03-25 09:49:46.998602 Current block height: 1391432 2018-03-25 09:49:46.998940 2018-03-25 09:49:46.999411 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:10332'... 2018-03-25 09:49:47.012509 ...success! 2018-03-25 09:49:47.012952 2018-03-25 09:49:47.013328 Determining payout address... 2018-03-25 09:49:47.014040 ...success! Payout address: LdXvhAvBarKKUXHmMeA1HJ3ZXUr7C7Zomu 2018-03-25 09:49:47.014386 2018-03-25 09:49:47.014862 Loading shares... 2018-03-25 09:49:47.015898 Share loading took 0.000 seconds 2018-03-25 09:49:47.016263 ...done loading 0 shares (0 verified)! 2018-03-25 09:49:47.016592 2018-03-25 09:49:47.016929 Initializing work... Fatal error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 588, in _runCallbacks current.result = callback(current.result, *args, **kw) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1184, in gotResult _inlineCallbacks(r, g, deferred) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1126, in _inlineCallbacks result = result.throwExceptionIntoGenerator(g) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/python/failure.py", line 389, in throwExceptionIntoGenerator return g.throw(self.type, self.value, self.tb) --- <exception caught here> --- File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/main.py", line 191, in main yield node.start() File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1128, in _inlineCallbacks result = g.send(result) File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 237, in start self.set_best_share() File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/node.py", line 300, in set_best_share best, desired, decorated_heads, bad_peer_addresses, self.punish= self.tracker.think(self.get_height_rel_highest, self.get_height, self.bitcoind_work.value['previous_block'], self.bitcoind_work.value['bits'], self.known_txs_var.value, self.feecache) File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 724, in think punish_aggressively = traditional_sort[-1][0][2] exceptions.IndexError: list index out of range

No go.

Same here!

[jtoomim]

Code: Select all

File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 724, in think punish_aggressively = traditional_sort[-1][0][2] exceptions.IndexError: list index out of range

I haven't seen this error on any of my nodes. Perhaps it's an issue that only shows up when syncing the share chain from scratch, and doesn't show up if you already have a share chain downloaded. I just now pushed a change that I hope will fix the issue. I can't be sure, though, since I haven't reproduced the issue myself, so maybe it's caused by something else. This change has not been fully tested.

[k0gen]

Code: Select all

File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/data.py", line 724, in think punish_aggressively = traditional_sort[-1][0][2] exceptions.IndexError: list index out of range

I haven't seen this error on any of my nodes. Perhaps it's an issue that only shows up when syncing the share chain from scratch, and doesn't show up if you already have a share chain downloaded. I just now pushed a change that I hope will fix the issue. I can't be sure, though, since I haven't reproduced the issue myself, so maybe it's caused by something else. This change has not been fully tested.

Just tried a fresh install on my sandbox and can report that it is working fine with no errors beside the old one (I thought this was fixed already?):

Code: Select all

2018-03-26 11:34:10.280327 Joining p2pool network using port 9326... Unhandled Error Traceback (most recent call last): Failure: twisted.internet.error.DNSLookupError: DNS lookup failed: address 'vps.forre.st' not found: [Errno -2] Name or service not known. Unhandled Error Traceback (most recent call last): Failure: twisted.internet.error.DNSLookupError: DNS lookup failed: address 'litecoin-p2pool.com' not found: [Errno -2] Name or service not known. 2018-03-26 11:34:10.815060 ...success! 2018-03-26 11:34:10.815540 2018-03-26 11:34:10.816284 Listening for workers on '' port 9327... 2018-03-26 11:34:12.511967 ...success! 2018-03-26 11:34:12.512420 2018-03-26 11:34:12.512769 Started successfully!

Anyways we have a go for latest Litecoin 0.15.1

Excellent work!

[doingit77]

Currently have 30GH/s pointing to P2Pool LTC,

1. Where can I direct the hashpower (which branch) to re-inforce it decentralized nature and help eliminate bad actors mentioned in this thread.
2. Should I be running https://github.com/ilsawa/p2pool-jtoomim with LTC Wallet 13.2 or 15.1 ?
3. What is the version 17 listed on p2pool.in that is recommended for upgrade?
4. What is the best practice when dealing with difficulty? Seems to be all over the place, Have single 500mh/s getting .03 and 1.5gh/s getting .05

Please review this thread, I want to provide the correct information to my poolers. https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoinmining ... _earnings/

The network has been blocking once a day after the difficulty jump, hoping that is not related to the codebase but I'm sure it just a dry patch, Its more fun when we block..

[jtoomim]

The ilsawa code does not have the changes I made that check for invalid work. The best repo to use is mine. The branch with the code to check for invalid work is called feechecking.

git clone https://github.com/jtoomim/p2pool.git
cd p2pool
git checkout feechecking

0.15.1 works fine now with the feechecking branch. 0.13.2 also works fine.

p2pool.in is out of date. Forrestv has not been maintaining the project for quite a while.

[jtoomim]

I moved about 1 PH/s from BTC to BCH. The BCH p2pool now has about 2.25 PH/s of hashrate, and the jtoomimnet BTC p2pool has about 10 PH/s.

[k0gen]

I'm getting this errors once in a while:

Code: Select all

Error in DeferredResource handler: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/util/deferred_resource.py", line 24, in render defer.maybeDeferred(resource.Resource.render, self, request).addCallbacks(finish, finish_error) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 150, in maybeDeferred result = f(*args, **kw) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/web/resource.py", line 250, in render return m(request) File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1274, in unwindGenerator return _inlineCallbacks(None, gen, Deferred()) --- <exception caught here> --- File "/usr/local/lib/pypy2.7/dist-packages/Twisted-15.4.0-py2.7-linux-x86_64.egg/twisted/internet/defer.py", line 1128, in _inlineCallbacks result = g.send(result) File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/web.py", line 198, in render_GET res = yield self.func(*self.args) File "/home/k0gen/p2pool/p2pool/web.py", line 470, in <lambda> new_root.putChild('graph_data', WebInterface(lambda source, view: hd.datastreams[source].dataviews[view].get_data(time.time()))) exceptions.KeyError: 'incoming_peers'

I did a little clean up in :

p2pool/networks/litecoin.py

(deleted the forre.st:9338 vps.forre.st:9338 litecoin-p2pool.com:9338)

Is it correct that we are connecting to bitcoin nodes using 9338 port?

[jtoomim]

Forrestv's code used a default port of 9338 for the LTC p2pool p2p connection and 9327 for the LTC p2pool worker port. I decided that was stupid, and switch the default p2p port from 9338 to 9326 in my code. This means that when connecting to forrestv nodes from a jtoomimnet node or vice versa, you need to specify their port.

I have never seen the "exceptions.KeyError: 'incoming_peers'" error before. Are you using a custom web UI?