Merged mining + timetravel fix @19200 - must upgrade

doublec
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:47 am
os: linux
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by doublec »

nodemaster wrote: - BTC Miner is trying to find a solution for BTC share and applies solution with some minor (and fast) modification to NMC share
- If a solution is found it is send to the pool in question (or is the solution ALWAYS valid for both pools?)
The solution will not be valid for both btc and nmc. A solution is specific to a getwork response from a given namecoind. You can't 'getwork' from one namecoind, find a solution, and submit it to another namecoind for example.

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

moa wrote:Namecoin participants need to consider the possible long term systemic effects of merged mining on namecoin value also.
Not only long term. As soon as mining gets merged we'll see a massive increase in hashrate. The namecoin pools I know are:

* Bitparking
* NameBit
* MasterPool
* BitChomp (is itreally running, or not?)

Beside this pools found on http://www.namecoin.us/pools.php I only know of Magisters pool. Are there some more? Are those pools ready to take that massive amount of load? Or are merged miners supposed to solo mine on NMC? I guess most won't. Bitparking already has proved to be able to serve a massive amount of miners. AFAIR the server was just upgraded. My MasterPool is idling at the moment but can handle a few hundred Ghash at least. But after that I have to scale up. I don't know about the other pools, but I suppose even if they can handle more than this two pools each it won't be enough.

Perhaps I'm a bit too paranoid. And don't get me wrong. I'm on it for sure :mrgreen: But I think we should avoid to annoy merged miners just because the pools can't handle the load from the beginning.
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

doublec wrote:
nodemaster wrote: - BTC Miner is trying to find a solution for BTC share and applies solution with some minor (and fast) modification to NMC share
- If a solution is found it is send to the pool in question (or is the solution ALWAYS valid for both pools?)
The solution will not be valid for both btc and nmc. A solution is specific to a getwork response from a given namecoind. You can't 'getwork' from one namecoind, find a solution, and submit it to another namecoind for example.
Yeah stumbled across that before, but I thought he might have found a solution on that issue. So do we more or less divide hashing power? I can say to the miner like: Mine 20% NMC and 80% BTC? This won't make any sense as it won't make any change to the namecoind nessecary.

So has merged mining nothing to do with the miner, but with the namecoind? I. e. the namecoind uses a namcoin and a bitcoin blockchain crafting getworks for the miner with their solutions being applicable to both blockchains?
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

caston
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 12:40 pm

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by caston »

Have you looked into multicoin?

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24209.0

vinced
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 1:16 am

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by vinced »

I have merged mining implemented in two branches in https://github.com/vinced/namecoin :

namecoin-mergedmine - namecoin rebased on top of bitcoin 0.3.24 with merged mining
mergedmine - pure bitcoin version of merged mining

This version is for initial testing and evaluation.

To make it abundantly clear - merged mining requires the auxiliary chain (namecoin in our case) to change its validation code. This means a majority of the hash power must upgrade. The code is not ready for production yet. It was tested with poclbm and cpuminer, but not with pushpool.

Please read https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/blob ... -mining.md for more information. The above branches provide both parent and auxiliary chain patches. Only the auxiliary chain has validation changes.

You can test this with any chain as the parent, including bitcoin production. You just need the parent client to have the above patch to provide the getworkaux rpc call.

Merged mining will work with namecoin/bitcoin testnet as the auxiliary chain. Others on the testnet will reject your blocks unless they run the same code. That means that your blocks will end up orphaned unless you run a private net.

Please test and post feedback here.

How does block 24000 sound for launching this?
!v | Namecoin founder | https://dot-bit.org/

moa
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 6:13 am

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by moa »

So you are just going to ram this through without responding to any of the queries posted in your own thread?

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

vinced wrote: Please test and post feedback here.
First of all: great work! Thank you for this code. I just mangled all pieces onto one test mashine and came up with the following configuration:

Standard Phoenix Miner (phatk) || standard cpuminer -> stock github pushpoold -> merged-mine-proxy -> bitcoind && namecoind from namecoin-mergedmine

Seems to work flawless so far. I'll go and set up an alpha version of MasterPool.eu to hopefully support both blockchains soon for those who are interested in testing this code. Until now Im running without frontend. Both blockchains already generated a block on testnet :-D


namecoind getinfo:
{
"version" : 32451,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 10354,
"connections" : 2,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 0.19446934,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1310724558,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
namecoind listtransactions:
[
{
"account" : "",
"category" : "immature",
"amount" : 50.00000000,
"confirmations" : 1,
"txid" : "dee9959f35c53d12c8b7a986a885a7ac3b4afbb8e81a0567e3efb994a688a6a0",
"time" : 1310733218
}
]
bitcoind getinfo:
{
"version" : 32451,
"balance" : 0.00000000,
"blocks" : 30704,
"connections" : 8,
"proxy" : "",
"generate" : false,
"genproclimit" : -1,
"difficulty" : 502.92155041,
"hashespersec" : 0,
"testnet" : true,
"keypoololdest" : 1310725552,
"paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
"errors" : ""
}
bitcoind listtransactions:
[
{
"account" : "",
"category" : "immature",
"amount" : 50.00000000,
"confirmations" : 1,
"txid" : "2c82b8f66552085acf884016c0c036d35846c3f163f2d3d2691f690ca80bbdef",
"time" : 1310733589
}
]
vinced wrote: How does block 24000 sound for launching this?
Whoaa... ermm... good? ;-) I guess it is possible and more than enough time for pool operators but please give us a week or two in order to at least get an alpha version of the pools ready to see if everything is working fine. My biggest concern ATM is merged-mine-proxy. I'd really like to see the functionality added to pushpoold. Furthermore it would be great if it is possible to integrate merged mining patch into stock bitcoind.
moa wrote:So you are just going to ram this through without responding to any of the queries posted in your own thread?
Have a look at the documents. Most technical questions are answered there. The other issues need of course to be discussed. But ATM I see no major disadvantage by adding merged mining. What is your concern about it?
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

doublec
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:47 am
os: linux
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by doublec »

vinced wrote:I have merged mining implemented in two branches in https://github.com/vinced/namecoin
..
How does block 24000 sound for launching this?
Do you have a 'guide for dummies' on how this works? Just a general overview? Using 'namecoin' and 'bitcoin' instead of 'auxiliary' and 'parent' chain?

Block 24,000 seems too soon. It also clashes with the existing switchover. If there are problems with those changes it makes it harder to determine if it was that or the merged mining that is causing issues.

The design document mentions a python proxy. What's that for? Can you give a walkthrough of how things work with that? For example, I see the existing system as:

1) Miner calls getwork on namecoind
2) Attempts to find solution on result of 'getwork'
3) Submits solution to namecoind
4) Go back to 1

How does longpolling fit in with the new system? Do longpolling supported systems have to monitor both chains and get new work if either gets a new block?

nodemaster
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 12:46 pm
os: linux

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by nodemaster »

I just put my findings into the wiki: http://dot-bit.org/MergedMining

Please feel free to correct anything in there. I'm no native speaker and my wife is egging me to do family stuff, thus I am in a hurry :lol:

I hope this helps a bit. I'll fledge this out as soon as I have the time.
Access .bit domains with Firefox in 4 easy steps: https://masterpool.eu/proxy
MasterPool Namecoin Mining Pool

doublec
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 12:47 am
os: linux
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Merged mining block number

Post by doublec »

Assuming tests show that things work ok, I think sooner rather than later is better to activate it. This stops the uncertainty that might occur over the change and put people off using namecoin. 24,000 seems reasonable.

Post Reply