Stuck on TESTING bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1 ... #157
Comments
|
It would appear this happens only with some coins..... I managed to figure this out It is not related to the ports or firewalls, etc... I got the "incompatible" coins that got stuck on this message working! :-) |
|
can you tell me how you fixed it, have same problem with other altcoin.. |
|
@deeppurple72 Could you please share the solution? I am having the same issue on some Altcoins. Thanks! |
|
In p2pool/bitcoin/p2p.py try changing from |
|
I stuck on the same issue..! |
|
It took about a week of banging my head against the wall if it is a fork of PPCOIN --- then that coin will NEVER work until p2pool supports it. if its mixed-algo coins, i doubt they will work until p2pool supports it.... Some coins will not work, period. *** Some coins will. Some coins that "don't" easily work, can "work" I may in the future disclose detailed info on ***some coins that "don't" easily work, can "work" but i just got a website setup and running alot of new alt-coins not on any other p2pools Unless you are crypto-rich, and are willing to send me a generous amount of BTC or LTC, then But if you are poor like myself, then I'm afraid you will have to wait until I make some coins, or spend alot of time and frustration trying to figure it out on your own. I dont intend to be a jerk , and in time will share everything i know, but like i said, Or send me a "BOUNTY" of BTC / LTC if you want me to "sell out" right now. and yes, I do have alot of new coins on my website being mined if there are |
|
What a disappointing answer. Also, do you realize you damage the community as a whole with your attitude? Nevermind, enjoy your 0 nodes in 0 nodes out P2Pools (as they will hardly ever be in a P2Pool peer network unless you release some code). |
|
He is violating for sure... He is taking a free code which he has every right to use and modify for his benefit but I guess trying to sell it is way too far.. I wish you the best with your choise.. I will try to find what I'm looking on my own or with community help and when I solve it I'll post it here. |
|
@makishart I hope you don't mind my crossposting you this message I just wrote on @CartmanSPC thread on Bitcointalk. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=457574.msg5272900#msg5272900 |
|
Like I said, I will share with the community soon. There is a forum on bitcointalk.org about "HOW TO MAKE ALT-COINS WORK WITH P2POOL" Also, you will notice that I did NOT post any wallet addresses, as I did not seriously Let me run some pools for a few months so I can make a little something first, Also, you guys were very hard on me when I requested some kind of way to penalize and then you wonder why I suddenly don't feel so friendly? Hmmmm........ |
|
So ... let me see if I have this straight.. you are going to pre-mine alts using p2pool ? Why ? Most Alts just use the default client for whatever they are mining - it seems retarded to have a private PRIVATE (wink wink) P2POOL and then unleash it onto us simpletons ? |
|
@deeppurple72 I'm not familiar with the cloud-miners story, and I'm sorry people was hard on you. That said, selling info is indeed something else than selling GPL'd software without releasing the code. Thanks for making that poin clear. What's your pool URL? Maybe can I at least mine there some intersting new cryptos? |
|
Actually, most of the new coins have hit the exchanges already I dont create coins. I just made pools availible for some of the newer coins, There is no pre-mining of alt-coins... The reason I started a "private" peerless nodeless pools was because many of us This was the motivation behind an alternative "private" p2pools site... And when I do POST the INFORMATION it will include both NETWORK.PY files I thought it would be something FRESH to create an ALTERNATIVE p2pools site Alot of the newer cryptos hit cryptorush site, but I would hold on to and yeah, those guys were really hard on me re: the EXCESSIVE HASHRATES issue They have up to 40Mhs Scrypt Hashrates under 1 miner address and anyways, the site is a BETA and its WIP... and just to guess, it may be around late spring or summer 2014 that I will post Maybe if their was an "excessive Hashrate Penalty...." for 40Mhs Scrypt "pooled" miners |
|
Ever heard about the concept of variance? Those immensely powerful miners can hash with you, and you still get frequent tiny rewards for many blocks one after the other, or they can hash against you, and you get into a race where you and the small miners in your pool are at high risk of hashing an orphaned block. |
|
yes. But even p2pool.org gets orphaned blocks too. not too many orphans on my pools, but it does happen from time to time... |
|
I think you are talking about orphaned shares, I am talking about orphaned blocks. |
|
yes, im speaking of orphaned blocks too. |
|
using the listtransactions "" option sometime you will see a category: Orphan thats the orphaned blocks |
|
Let me rephrase it: |
|
OK.... Lets say one of the "easy" low diff. pools has a measily 3 to 5 Mhs scrypt pool hashrate when a "pooled" miner has over 90% of the pools hashrate, it cuts everyone else throats! the 40Mhs "miner" makes your GPU look like a CPU in relationship. |
|
from a pool OP's POV, the BIG miners ( or Pooled-miners using 1 address ) find more blocks but they usually target the "easy" pools ( some of which they should just outright solo-mine directly) ... It upsets most of the patron miners I care more about patrons, than the pool fees from that big hasher, who just shows up to |
|
Well, then you should simply implement payment rules which penalize the strong miners that do pool hopping, so that they are forced to stay on the pool long enough for the smaller ones to gaing benefit of the low variance given by the strong miners. But I won't say more, or I might risk to lose my advantage. Feel free to ask me more in several months ;) |
|
I begged for an option like that!!!!! here is a link to that issue: #170 it was deemed a "ludicrous" request and that penalties would hurt p2pool and |
|
....im staying out of this conversion :) ....but wanted to point out that p2pool.org is also closed for most of the coins it has listed. That is against the spirit of P2Pool as there are no "peers" to speak of. I suppose that is fine but unfortunately misleading in the case of p2pool.org due to the domain name. What coin was giving the error? Will take a look when I have time. |
|
Well, perhaps if some other LITTLE guys similar to myself would like to my issues are p2pool.org and those cloud-miners |
|
Because in a P2Pool the payments are delegated to the blockchain itself, I am not sure that there is a way to "penalize" faster miners. There is however a combination of several strategies in terms of parameters that I can think of, which might go to a great length in discouraging the big miners from either hopping or joining the pool. I am more than happy in helping you solving your issues in a spirit of mutual collaboration when you can help me in turn. 2014-01-26 00:20:57.184478 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:8338'... The --debug flag gives me these additional infos: I did all the tests you did and it's exactly the same scenario. I had the issue with: Catcoin, Sexcoin, Nyancoin, and Florin so far. |
|
@deeppurple72 your not the only one to have issue with p2pool.org! I wouldn't care that they run mostly closed p2pool nodes but doing so with that domain name is misleading. You should have a chain length of 24 hours so your loyal miners get the benefit of big miners when they come on board. |
|
@CartmanSPC +1 |
|
@r1979 nyancoin has the issue? I might make the time to look into it just because of the name :) |
|
r1979, help me with the excessive penalty rules, |
|
@deeppurple72 now that we shared our thoughts, information, intuitions, and ideas with you, could you please also help us and share with us how you solved the testing p2p port issue? |
|
I am guessing that the work.py needs to be patched is this possible? I know very little .py |
|
can you assist with the .py code as described above? |
|
Next to @CartmanSPC suggestion of making sure to have the period set to 24 hours, here are my other suggestions:
|
|
Also, before creating such a hard fork of the P2Pool sowtware I'd try as much as possible to tweak the parameters without messing up with the code. If that's the case of changing the code, we should first understand how it works in detail and then solve the issue with something better than a "if...elseif...else" loop. |
|
Of course I can help you in tweaking the settings. |
|
@deeppurple72 run separate p2pool versions in different folders. That way you can try it out on only the coins you want. @r1979 is right about the share period as even with the patch p2pool will have a minimum share diff partly based on that value. You may also want to look at increasing the spread. Consider forking from the main git so we can review your values and give you suggestions. Also, realize that p2pool was created to be used by individual miners not as a "public" pool. A lot of these changes are being made to accommodate it's use as such. 🎱 I would suggest MPOS if that is your intention. (Insider info: the MPOS team is considering a version that uses p2pool as it's backend) |
|
@deeppurple72 also, in order to see per miner the share diff and expected time to share apply this patch: donSchoe/p2pool-n@776fe66 Good luck! |
|
There is already a "proxy" to p2pool being developed similar to what r1979 mentioned: |
|
I am sorry to hear that there is a solution, but they will not share it at the moment. i've been searching on same issue too: |
|
Another example using the patches Cartman mentioned: http://vtc-us-east.royalminingco.com:9171/static/ (Note that the whole VTC network uses my patch to assign user difficulty based the user's speed and not the local node's combined speed.) |
|
p2pool/network.py bitcoin/network.py: if the P2P_PREFIX in the network.py files DO NOT match the coin's message prefix, you can find the correct P2P_PREFIX values by looking at the coin's source code here is an example of nyan's main.cpp: // The message start string is designed to be unlikely to occur in normal data. take the 0xfc, 0xd9, 0xb7, 0xdd , remove the 0x and turn it into also, RPC_CHECK=defer.inlineCallbacks(lambda bitcoind: defer.returnValue( sometime there may be a space in the RPC_CHECK ( "nyancoin address") Value dumpprivkey(const Array& params, bool fHelp) of course, this info was posted in the bitcointalk.org forum about how to get alt-coins to work with p2pool..... try this and see it it works for you.... I believe p2pool.org also has nyan p2pool on its site. nyan might not work for you if you "copied and pasted" another coin settings in the p2pool network.py files, but didnt change the P2P_PREFIX again, if the P2P_PREFIX does not match the MAIN.CPP pchmessage "prefix", |
|
i use different ports other than the coin's defaults in my nyancoin.conf |
|
the copy and paste for the rpcdump.cpp had greater than & less than symbols so it didnt show up right in the post above: dumpprivkey "nyancoin address" it what it should have show btw let me know, R1979, if this helped you to get NYAN working |
|
quote I am sorry to hear that there is a solution, but they will not share it at the moment. i've been searching on same issue too: I think THIS may be A DIFFERENT ISSUE ... IT IS NOT the "STUCK on TESTING P2P PORT....." issue so don't assume that I have a solution for this! Apples & Oranges. I have shared info about nyan - maybe you should take a look at it and Also, not all coins will work with p2pool, so maybe you are trying to get a coin for example, I cannot get paycoin to work, or chaincoin, and many others |
|
ive applied the SHARE DIFF by HASHRATES patch.... testing it now... Thanks |
|
@deeppurple72 Thanks for the info. I'll have a careful look at it tomorrow and let you know if it worked. |
|
@deeppurple72 I had no problems adding nyancoin using the guide on BTCTalk (did not look at what you posted above). Have updated my github with it. FYI, your subsidy is wrong (they changed it..should be 500000). RPC_PORT should be 33700. Your values in conf_file are wrong other than darwin. Prefix does not have to be the same as p2p_prefix...any random 19 digit number converted to hex will work. Not sure why you guys had any problems :) |
|
no, the 8 digit p2p_prefix MUST match the coin's src code.... example: P2P_PREFIX='fcd9b7dd'.decode('hex'), this is the crucial value needed for p2p messaging...... the p2pool prefix doesnt matter.... that was NOT the prefix i was talking about! also, i use custom ports in some coin's .conf.... i use a "template" to create network.py files i use linux, so i didnt change the windows part. this ISSUE was for STUCK ON TESTING bitcoind p2p port ..... the answer was P2P_PREFIX='fcd9b7dd'.decode('hex'), must = src code !!! |
|
IDENTIFIER='' |
|
IDENTIFIER CAN BE ANYTHING, BUT SHOULD MATCH OTHER P2POOLS IF YOU ARE CONNECTING TO NODES/PEERS.... PREFIX= the same P2P_PREFIX used in Bitcoin/network.py |
|
i tried the SET SHARE DIFF. TARGET BY LOCAL HASHRATES commit , it started new miners with TOO high diffs: the big hashers submitted shares and their target diffs became low... big hashers actually earned MORE and small hashers were "penalized" |
|
The only time a user will have a higher diff instead of a lower one when using my patch is if they are so slow they are going to generate transactions below the DUSTTHRESHOLD setting. Then they need bigger share targets so the shares they do get will pay them more than the dust setting. It's a feature, not a bug. The smaller miners aren't being penalized, over time as they eventually find shares those shares will have values high enough so their average earnings will be as expected. Miners are always welcome to override the dust threshold by mining with ADDR/DIFF. On a scrypt coin they could use ADDR/.000016 to guarantee they always get the lowest target they can (the global share minimum difficulty on the network) regardless of how small those payments are and regardless if the tx to spend those inputs is more than the dust they collect. |
|
So in truth, by giving those miners a lower target in the non-patched setting (since p2pool doesn't realize their payments are going to be under the dust threshold) the tiny miners are being penalized by getting dusty payments which will incur large tx fees to spend. |
|
so this problem is still unsolved.. i can not start any altcoin at the moment.. in the daemon debug.log we see so i changed the line in p2pool/bitcoin/p2p.py to and now it runs. you can find the correct "subver"-string for each altcoin with the "getpeerinfo" command. so you probably have to create a new copy of p2pool for each altcoin and change p2p.py accordingly. |
|
Or you can just make p2p.py read the subver string from the network definition file (defaulting to whatever it is right now if it's not present)... the entire point of having the network definition files is so you don't have to fork p2pool for each altcoin. If you need some additional flexibility, add it in a generic way. |
|
right.. thank you! do you have any further ideas to the altcoin-problem itself? should i try different values also for version, services, time, nonce, start_height.. or what could be the problem? |
|
Hmm.. P2Pool is either not able to connect to that port or connecting but On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:46 AM, buechling notifications@github.com
|
|
buechling, take a look at my repo for CSC. You can also see it running at xpool.net. |
Example:
2014-01-26 00:20:57.161751 p2pool (version 13.4-9-gaafc095-dirty)
2014-01-26 00:20:57.161869
2014-01-26 00:20:57.161961 Testing bitcoind RPC connection to 'http://127.0.0.1:10338/' with username 'x'...
2014-01-26 00:20:57.183947 ...success!
2014-01-26 00:20:57.184117 Current block hash: 956019dcff1ac2305136e203f25193d8bb7c89c9a4a10e8bd7e15a11a6ccf8ee
2014-01-26 00:20:57.184268 Current block height: 26194
2014-01-26 00:20:57.184363
2014-01-26 00:20:57.184478 Testing bitcoind P2P connection to '127.0.0.1:8338'...
2014-01-26 00:21:02.185001 ...taking a while. Common reasons for this include all of bitcoind's connection slots being used...
Some coins seem to get stuck at this point....
The network.py files are setup properly, using the PREFIX="" values
found in source code, the RPCPORT= & PORT= values from the coin's .conf file, firewall is turned off, etc....
using the netstat command, the coin shows it is indeed listening on that p2p port
netstat -anp | grep marscoind
tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:8338 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 4256/marscoind
tcp 0 0 192.168.0.6:59026 54.214.255.50:8338 ESTABLISHED 4256/marscoind
tcp 0 0 192.168.0.6:39424 178.132.204.95:8338 ESTABLISHED 4256/marscoind
tcp 0 1 192.168.0.6:39449 54.220.96.102:8338 SYN_SENT 4256/marscoind
tcp6 0 0 :::10338 :::* LISTEN 4256/marscoind
tcp6 0 0 :::8338 :::* LISTEN 4256/marscoind
tcp6 0 0 192.168.0.6:10338 192.168.0.100:48359 ESTABLISHED 4256/marscoind
The coind is listening on port 8338 (ipv4)
Why do some coins work, and others like this not?
It doesn't make any sense.
Several other alt-coins fail as well, such as paycoin, piratecoin, chaincoin, etc
getinfo reports:
{
"version" : 80602,
"protocolversion" : 70020,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 11050.00000000,
"blocks" : 26198,
"timeoffset" : 0,
"connections" : 2,
"proxy" : "",
"difficulty" : 0.01658436,
"testnet" : false,
"keypoololdest" : 1390689129,
"keypoolsize" : 101,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"mininput" : 0.00001000,
"errors" : ""
}
version 80602 protocol 70020
other coins with same version & protocol work however.
The ports are NOT in use by any other processes, and there is no
firewall blocking ports.
even tried different PORT=xxxx settings in the coin.conf & matching it in network.py
doesn't seem to make any difference.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: