Topic: SOLVED [Bitcoins.lc] Issue with invalid shares (10 BTC bounty) (Read 16733 times)
Ugh. Why wasn't it merged in a month ago?
Oh. This is an old and well known problem. Nothing to do with pushpool at all.
luke-jr worked around it in bitcoind with http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/w/bitcoind/luke-jr.git/shortlog/refs/heads/getwork_dedupe but there are other options for varying the coinbase as well.
I have opened a pull request to revert the offending commits: https://github.com/jgarzik/pushpool/pull/24
The problem lies in poclbm's support for X-Roll-NTime.
There are 2 patches for this applied to our source, first disable the header that allows X-Roll-Ntime.
And secondly disabling the support completely.
Seems to have fixed all issues we had.
jgarzik: The patch you merged that added support that, consisted of 2 commits for those two - we undid them.
Now - back to coding, our pool is growing extremely fast.
Sorry about the withhold of the solution. I'm all in for the sprit of the community, and all further patches will be publicly available at my own github.
We're _STILL_ having problems with low number of duplicates, but not even close to 5-6%.
Once again, sorry.
If you want to, donate the "bounty" to ius which works hard to help us out with both bugs and improvements.
There are 2 patches for this applied to our source, first disable the header that allows X-Roll-Ntime.
And secondly disabling the support completely.
Seems to have fixed all issues we had.
jgarzik: The patch you merged that added support that, consisted of 2 commits for those two - we undid them.
Now - back to coding, our pool is growing extremely fast.
Sorry about the withhold of the solution. I'm all in for the sprit of the community, and all further patches will be publicly available at my own github.
We're _STILL_ having problems with low number of duplicates, but not even close to 5-6%.
Once again, sorry.
If you want to, donate the "bounty" to ius which works hard to help us out with both bugs and improvements.
You talk well. But I do not understand anything. We must quit this business. In this I do not understand much.
The client will already complain if the clock is wrong by a lot. I think that should be enough. NTP is trivial to install, configure, and run on any OS.
The remaining duplicates are probably coming from the clock problem ArtForz found. Since you are running NTP on your server, I recommend patching bitcoind to disable the crappy clock adjustment.
The file is util.cpp, look for function GetAdjustedTime().
Change to:
That should probably end up in the official client, in case any devs are watching. If they really want to keep the clock adjustment even though NTP does a much better job, the getwork() function in rpc.cpp should be changed. pBlock->nTime needs to be set to nPrevTime, which increases monotonically, after the call to IncrementExtraNonce().
The file is util.cpp, look for function GetAdjustedTime().
Code:
int64 GetAdjustedTime()
{
return GetTime() + nTimeOffset;
}
{
return GetTime() + nTimeOffset;
}
Change to:
Code:
int64 GetAdjustedTime()
{
return GetTime();
}
{
return GetTime();
}
That should probably end up in the official client, in case any devs are watching. If they really want to keep the clock adjustment even though NTP does a much better job, the getwork() function in rpc.cpp should be changed. pBlock->nTime needs to be set to nPrevTime, which increases monotonically, after the call to IncrementExtraNonce().
Great point, I was wondering about that myself and can definitely see why it causes issues. Applying this to the official client with an NTP flag for those running right time may be worthwhile. Some PCs are great at it while others are poor because of hardware and/or software.
The remaining duplicates are probably coming from the clock problem ArtForz found. Since you are running NTP on your server, I recommend patching bitcoind to disable the crappy clock adjustment.
The file is util.cpp, look for function GetAdjustedTime().
Change to:
That should probably end up in the official client, in case any devs are watching. If they really want to keep the clock adjustment even though NTP does a much better job, the getwork() function in rpc.cpp should be changed. pBlock->nTime needs to be set to nPrevTime, which increases monotonically, after the call to IncrementExtraNonce().
The file is util.cpp, look for function GetAdjustedTime().
Code:
int64 GetAdjustedTime()
{
return GetTime() + nTimeOffset;
}
{
return GetTime() + nTimeOffset;
}
Change to:
Code:
int64 GetAdjustedTime()
{
return GetTime();
}
{
return GetTime();
}
That should probably end up in the official client, in case any devs are watching. If they really want to keep the clock adjustment even though NTP does a much better job, the getwork() function in rpc.cpp should be changed. pBlock->nTime needs to be set to nPrevTime, which increases monotonically, after the call to IncrementExtraNonce().
If you want to, donate the "bounty" to ius which works hard to help us out with both bugs and improvements.
http://blockexplorer.com/tx/6647483f1329e5fab259b5d5619a7c20a28d6b440a1d866d25971dba78001912
The problem lies in poclbm's support for X-Roll-NTime.
There are 2 patches for this applied to our source, first disable the header that allows X-Roll-Ntime.
And secondly disabling the support completely.
Seems to have fixed all issues we had.
jgarzik: The patch you merged that added support that, consisted of 2 commits for those two - we undid them.
Now - back to coding, our pool is growing extremely fast.
Sorry about the withhold of the solution. I'm all in for the sprit of the community, and all further patches will be publicly available at my own github.
We're _STILL_ having problems with low number of duplicates, but not even close to 5-6%.
Once again, sorry.
If you want to, donate the "bounty" to ius which works hard to help us out with both bugs and improvements.
There are 2 patches for this applied to our source, first disable the header that allows X-Roll-Ntime.
And secondly disabling the support completely.
Seems to have fixed all issues we had.
jgarzik: The patch you merged that added support that, consisted of 2 commits for those two - we undid them.
Now - back to coding, our pool is growing extremely fast.
Sorry about the withhold of the solution. I'm all in for the sprit of the community, and all further patches will be publicly available at my own github.
We're _STILL_ having problems with low number of duplicates, but not even close to 5-6%.
Once again, sorry.
If you want to, donate the "bounty" to ius which works hard to help us out with both bugs and improvements.
Did he pay for the fix, if so I find myself conflicted about whether or not it should be released. Maybe cover his cost plus what he lost and he should step up in the spirit of the community. You may want to go to the source of the fix and see if he will discuss since he posted his name earlier.
I'm offering to pay you 5BTC should you release a detailed explanation of the problem, and the fix. I don't even mine in your pool (I actually hopped on IRC the first day you started to give you a couple suggestions/features that I would have needed to join). This way, you are now splitting the cost and the entire community as a whole benefits.
Code:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
As one of the people who was trying to help track the bug down, I'm a little offended too with the "I'm going to withhold the fix", especially given that Pushpool is open source and cost a lot more than a day to develop.
I'm going to raise the bounty by another 2 btc for releasing the fix, but encourage you to just do the right thing instead of being mercenary and taking the money.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk30xMYACgkQaj+LAPvd0qQCtQCfQjbjz0HLky0RwIO6j1lqLw36
3fwAmwSbONdoFibFZ/jbZ/bjGE8RIf53
=m0/A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
As one of the people who was trying to help track the bug down, I'm a little offended too with the "I'm going to withhold the fix", especially given that Pushpool is open source and cost a lot more than a day to develop.
I'm going to raise the bounty by another 2 btc for releasing the fix, but encourage you to just do the right thing instead of being mercenary and taking the money.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk30xMYACgkQaj+LAPvd0qQCtQCfQjbjz0HLky0RwIO6j1lqLw36
3fwAmwSbONdoFibFZ/jbZ/bjGE8RIf53
=m0/A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I'm planning to keep that to me self, due to i think the other pools based on pushpoold will eventually face the same problem.
This issue costed the pool/me personally 10 BTC + a whole day of hard work with debugging, tcpdump and ~10 people that tried in all ways to help us.
This issue costed the pool/me personally 10 BTC + a whole day of hard work with debugging, tcpdump and ~10 people that tried in all ways to help us.
So... you won't even tell the author of pushpool?
pushpool certainly cost me a lot more than "10 BTC + a whole day of hard work."
Zip for donations or thanks, just people asking for free support all the time, too.
This has been bugging the crap out of me since I saw you refused to release the actual problem.
I'm offering to pay you 5BTC should you release a detailed explanation of the problem, and the fix. I don't even mine in your pool (I actually hopped on IRC the first day you started to give you a couple suggestions/features that I would have needed to join). This way, you are now splitting the cost and the entire community as a whole benefits.
Or heck, just PM me the problem and I'll write up the problem/solution myself after I test it in a dev environment.
-Phil
I'm offering to pay you 5BTC should you release a detailed explanation of the problem, and the fix. I don't even mine in your pool (I actually hopped on IRC the first day you started to give you a couple suggestions/features that I would have needed to join). This way, you are now splitting the cost and the entire community as a whole benefits.
Or heck, just PM me the problem and I'll write up the problem/solution myself after I test it in a dev environment.
-Phil
I wonder how would, say, the linux project ends if anyone that spots and correct a bug would ask something to release the patch.
I'm not selling the fix, but other pool operators may contact me and we can negotiate something so both parts are happy.
That sounds pretty contradictory."I'm not selling this pile of drugs I've got, but if somebody wants some then they can contact me and we can negotiate something so both parties are happy".
Just to make things clear:
I'm not selling the fix, but other pool operators may contact me and we can negotiate something so both parts are happy.
AFAIK that's okey with the license to.
I'm not selling the fix, but other pool operators may contact me and we can negotiate something so both parts are happy.
AFAIK that's okey with the license to.
pushpool is released under GNU Public License version 2 (LICENSE)
Pretty sure this means if you make modifications to the code (especially for money), you are in breach of this unless you release these modifications to the community (but I'm not a lawyer, might be wrong!)
If you want to recoup the 10BTC 'cost' of fixing, then I would set up a new bitcoin address for donations related to this specific bugfix, once you reach 10BTC and bitcoins.lc have made the money back for the original payment to ius, then split the rest between bitcoins.lc and ius.
...on another note: bitcoins.lc seems to be fully up again. I would say that having approx an hour downtime since I started mining there on Tuesday seems pretty good, otherwise it's been totally stable - keep up the good work Jine!
Will
Pretty sure this means if you make modifications to the code (especially for money), you are in breach of this unless you release these modifications to the community (but I'm not a lawyer, might be wrong!)
If you want to recoup the 10BTC 'cost' of fixing, then I would set up a new bitcoin address for donations related to this specific bugfix, once you reach 10BTC and bitcoins.lc have made the money back for the original payment to ius, then split the rest between bitcoins.lc and ius.
...on another note: bitcoins.lc seems to be fully up again. I would say that having approx an hour downtime since I started mining there on Tuesday seems pretty good, otherwise it's been totally stable - keep up the good work Jine!
Will
The GPL puts you under no obligation to release source code you have changed, it only forbids him from redistributing it without the source code or from trying to sell the product at all; offering a bounty to fix an issue with the code is perfectly fine as far as the GPL is concerned and so long as he doesn't attempt to sell the fix to other pool owners he is perfectly fine.
pushpool is released under GNU Public License version 2 (LICENSE)
Pretty sure this means if you make modifications to the code (especially for money), you are in breach of this unless you release these modifications to the community (but I'm not a lawyer, might be wrong!)
Pretty sure this means if you make modifications to the code (especially for money), you are in breach of this unless you release these modifications to the community (but I'm not a lawyer, might be wrong!)
No, GPL forces you to release the source code only if you release a modified version of the software.
pushpool is released under GNU Public License version 2 (LICENSE)
Pretty sure this means if you make modifications to the code (especially for money), you are in breach of this unless you release these modifications to the community (but I'm not a lawyer, might be wrong!)
If you want to recoup the 10BTC 'cost' of fixing, then I would set up a new bitcoin address for donations related to this specific bugfix, once you reach 10BTC and bitcoins.lc have made the money back for the original payment to ius, then split the rest between bitcoins.lc and ius.
...on another note: bitcoins.lc seems to be fully up again. I would say that having approx an hour downtime since I started mining there on Tuesday seems pretty good, otherwise it's been totally stable - keep up the good work Jine!
Will
Pretty sure this means if you make modifications to the code (especially for money), you are in breach of this unless you release these modifications to the community (but I'm not a lawyer, might be wrong!)
If you want to recoup the 10BTC 'cost' of fixing, then I would set up a new bitcoin address for donations related to this specific bugfix, once you reach 10BTC and bitcoins.lc have made the money back for the original payment to ius, then split the rest between bitcoins.lc and ius.
...on another note: bitcoins.lc seems to be fully up again. I would say that having approx an hour downtime since I started mining there on Tuesday seems pretty good, otherwise it's been totally stable - keep up the good work Jine!
Will
The server is up but the pool is down now...
Please read this;
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=10121.msg200587
Thanks,
--
Regards, Jim
Jump to: