Luke-Jr [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2012-03-03 📝 Original message:On Saturday, March 03, ...
📅 Original date posted:2012-03-03
📝 Original message:On Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:51:34 PM Geir Harald Hansen wrote:
> Long polling as currently implemented in pools has a race condition.
> Does the miner reconnect first or does another block change happen
> first? "Double" block changes are common with merged mining and I'm
> doing all sorts of tricks in my pool backend to reduce this problem.
How would you suggest addressing this? I presume if a share solves blocks on
multiple chains, you just longpoll once when that's successful?
> How about another entry "longpollid" in long poll responses. The last
> seen longpollid should be included by the client in future long poll
> requests. This enables the server to see if the client has missed any
> block changes. The ID could perhaps be submitted in an HTTP header
> (X-LongPollID?) if we wish to keep the JSON-RPC params empty, or params
> could hold an object with a key "longpollid". Could be a string or
> number, like "workid".
Hmm, the problem is that adding any parameters to getmemorypool itself breaks
compatibility with bitcoind 0.5, and using HTTP headers makes it HTTP-specific
again. Any ideas?
> Another useful value in the getmemorypool response would be "height", so
> the miner can include the correct height in the coinbase. I would like
> that in bitcoind as well. One JSON-RPC call instead of two, and no race
> condition between getmemorypool and getblocknumber.
Good catch. Should this be required (since it might be necessary for future
Bitcoin blocks), or just "should" for compatibility?
> It should be explained how target vs. fulltarget works.
What is unclear about this?
> Perhaps some things should be optional for a client to implement?
Doing this safely needs some way for clients to communicate capabilities to
the server, which has the problem of passing parameters to getmemorypool.
> I think "noncerange" is of limited use and there's a good chance of getting
> the endianness wrong.
There is no mining hardware to date that exhausts even half the nonce space,
so I'd really prefer to see this as a required feature on the miner side. On
the other hand, it's merely an extension for getwork, so I can see the problem
so long as we're using getwork proxies.
Luke
📝 Original message:On Saturday, March 03, 2012 6:51:34 PM Geir Harald Hansen wrote:
> Long polling as currently implemented in pools has a race condition.
> Does the miner reconnect first or does another block change happen
> first? "Double" block changes are common with merged mining and I'm
> doing all sorts of tricks in my pool backend to reduce this problem.
How would you suggest addressing this? I presume if a share solves blocks on
multiple chains, you just longpoll once when that's successful?
> How about another entry "longpollid" in long poll responses. The last
> seen longpollid should be included by the client in future long poll
> requests. This enables the server to see if the client has missed any
> block changes. The ID could perhaps be submitted in an HTTP header
> (X-LongPollID?) if we wish to keep the JSON-RPC params empty, or params
> could hold an object with a key "longpollid". Could be a string or
> number, like "workid".
Hmm, the problem is that adding any parameters to getmemorypool itself breaks
compatibility with bitcoind 0.5, and using HTTP headers makes it HTTP-specific
again. Any ideas?
> Another useful value in the getmemorypool response would be "height", so
> the miner can include the correct height in the coinbase. I would like
> that in bitcoind as well. One JSON-RPC call instead of two, and no race
> condition between getmemorypool and getblocknumber.
Good catch. Should this be required (since it might be necessary for future
Bitcoin blocks), or just "should" for compatibility?
> It should be explained how target vs. fulltarget works.
What is unclear about this?
> Perhaps some things should be optional for a client to implement?
Doing this safely needs some way for clients to communicate capabilities to
the server, which has the problem of passing parameters to getmemorypool.
> I think "noncerange" is of limited use and there's a good chance of getting
> the endianness wrong.
There is no mining hardware to date that exhausts even half the nonce space,
so I'd really prefer to see this as a required feature on the miner side. On
the other hand, it's merely an extension for getwork, so I can see the problem
so long as we're using getwork proxies.
Luke