upgrade Job Declaration and Mining Protocols #121

plebhash · 2025-01-17T23:05:13Z

close #120

changes:

rename JDP variant of SubmitSolution to PushSolution (to avoid confusion with TDP SubmitSolution)
replace "async" terminology with new JDP "modes": Coinbase-only and Full-Template
drop ShortIds and SipHash (as discussed in Make more clear how we use the block header to calculate the txs short ids (job declarator) #99)
add prev_hash field to DeclareMiningJob message
add version field to PushSolution message (fka SubmitSolution)
clarify description of nbits field of PushSolution message (fka SubmitSolution)
remove extranonce_size, min_ntime and version fields from SetCustomMiningJob message

for easier review, I recommend this Markdown rendering on my fork

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md

Sjors · 2025-01-24T07:35:27Z

I don't think it's wise to have two messages in the spec called SubmitSolution, defined in two different places and with different content. Imo they should either be unified and defined in one place, or one needs a new name.

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md

plebhash · 2025-01-24T13:57:45Z

I don't think it's wise to have two messages in the spec called SubmitSolution, defined in two different places and with different content. Imo they should either be unified and defined in one place, or one needs a new name.

I don't think it's possible to unify them, as one is meant for TP and the other for JDS (and each needs different parts of the solution)

I'm not opposed to renaming either one of them or both, but it would be good to get input from @Fi3 and @TheBlueMatt on this

05-Mining-Protocol.md

Fi3 · 2025-01-28T08:15:08Z

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md

@@ -75,45 +125,40 @@ Notably, if the pool intends to change the space it requires for coinbase transa
 | request_id                          | U32       | Unique identifier for pairing the response                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
 | mining_job_token                    | B0_255    | Token that makes the client eligible for committing a mining job for approval/transaction declaration or for identifying custom mining job on mining connection.                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
 | coinbase_output_max_additional_size | U32       | The maximum additional serialized bytes which the pool will add in coinbase transaction outputs. See discussion in the Template Distribution Protocol's CoinbaseOutputDataSize message for more details.                                                                                                                                                                 |
-| async_mining_allowed                | BOOL      | If true, the mining_job_token can be used immediately on a mining connection in the SetCustomMiningJob message, even before DeclareMiningJob and DeclareMiningJob.Success messages have been sent and received. If false, Job Declarator MUST use this token for DeclareMiningJob only. <br>This MUST be true when SetupConnection.flags had REQUIRES_ASYNC_JOB_MINING set. |


how the upstream communicate if the token is for coinbase-only mode or for full-template mode?

by simply allowing the connection to be established or not

when JDC sends SetupConnection, the DECLARE_TX_DATA bit flag is used to signal that it consents to revealing the txs... then it's up to JDS to decide whether this is ok or not

so we have 4 possible scenarios:

JDS allows Coinbase-only mode JDS does NOT allow Coinbase-only mode

JDC sets DECLARE_TX_DATA SetupConnection.Success SetupConnection.Success

JDC does NOT set DECLARE_TX_DATA SetupConnection.Success SetupConnection.Error (unsupported-feature-flags)

do you feel this still leaves room for unspecified scenarios?

I guess this is heavily based on the assumption that JDS will operate EITHER under Coinbase-only OR Full-Template, but not BOTH at the same time.

If we want to allow for JDS to operate under both at the same time, then I see how DECLARE_TX_DATA is not sufficient, as JDC wouldn't know under which mode the token is supposed to be used.

So I guess the question is: does this scenario make sense? Can JDS ever allow for both Coinbase-only and Full-Template at the same time? TBH it doesn't really make much sense in my head, but maybe I have some blindspot.

@GitGab19 what are your thoughts here?

I also think it doesn't make too much sense, but maybe @Fi3 meant something different so it's better to get clarifications from him on this

If we want to allow for JDS to operate under both at the same time, then I see how DECLARE_TX_DATA is not sufficient, as JDC wouldn't know under which mode the token is supposed to be used.

So I guess the question is: does this scenario make sense? Can JDS ever allow for both Coinbase-only and Full-Template at the same time? TBH it doesn't really make much sense in my head, but maybe I have some blindspot.

I guess I should retract what I said here.

it doesn't matter that JDS supports both modes.

if JDC sends SetupConnection with DECLARE_TX_DATA bit enabled, then it assumes the connection is operating under Full Template mode (and all tokens are allocated are allocated with that in mind)

yep before it was a token property so you could mix them but I guess it make more sense to define it connectionwise.

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md

Fi3 · 2025-01-28T15:00:25Z

I don't think it's wise to have two messages in the spec called SubmitSolution, defined in two different places and with different content. Imo they should either be unified and defined in one place, or one needs a new name.

make sense

Co-authored-by: Gabriele Vernetti <[email protected]>

these description fields were changed via 9b0e40b and it's an obvious mistake

GitGab19

ACK on my end 👍

Let's maybe wait a bit for @Fi3 input on the last opened discussion.

After that, it's good to go imo.

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch 3 times, most recently from d7dbd0b to 22fb563 Compare January 17, 2025 23:22

plebhash commented Jan 21, 2025

View reviewed changes

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch 6 times, most recently from c3baaca to 5583c11 Compare January 23, 2025 14:59

plebhash changed the title ~~[WIP] upgrade Job Declaration Protocol~~ [WIP] upgrade Job Declaration and Mining Protocols Jan 23, 2025

Sjors reviewed Jan 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Sjors reviewed Jan 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Show resolved Hide resolved

GitGab19 reviewed Jan 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch from d7d67d8 to 9c0c248 Compare January 24, 2025 13:21

plebhash marked this pull request as ready for review January 24, 2025 13:57

plebhash changed the title ~~[WIP] upgrade Job Declaration and Mining Protocols~~ upgrade Job Declaration and Mining Protocols Jan 24, 2025

Fi3 reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

05-Mining-Protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Fi3 reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

05-Mining-Protocol.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Fi3 reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

05-Mining-Protocol.md Show resolved Hide resolved

Fi3 reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Fi3 reviewed Jan 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch 2 times, most recently from 251067a to b16de1e Compare January 28, 2025 13:26

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch from b16de1e to dd64e06 Compare January 28, 2025 15:15

plebhash mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2025

JDS connects to wrong RPC port on Integration Tests stratum-mining/stratum#1418

Closed

plebhash and others added 6 commits April 1, 2025 19:23

clarify description of nbits field of SubmitSolution

48ecabc

remove extranonce_size field from SetCustomMiningJob

9a3128e

remove min_ntime from SetCustomMiningJob message

0fd5cf5

rename tx_hash_list to tx_ids_list and change type

fa8dfcf

Co-authored-by: Gabriele Vernetti <[email protected]>

rename SubmitSolution to PushSolution

2f65413

clarify coinbase_tx_prefix and coinbase_tx_suffix field descriptions

795371b

these description fields were changed via 9b0e40b and it's an obvious mistake

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch from de92ebf to 795371b Compare April 1, 2025 22:23

This comment was marked as resolved.

Sign in to view

GitGab19 added this to SV2 Roadmap 🛣️ Apr 2, 2025

github-project-automation bot moved this to Todo 📝 in SV2 Roadmap 🛣️ Apr 2, 2025

GitGab19 removed this from SV2 Roadmap 🛣️ Apr 2, 2025

GitGab19 approved these changes Apr 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch 6 times, most recently from 7e20c54 to 9b41e0e Compare April 2, 2025 18:55

clarify Coinbase-only vs Full-Template

ac73bee

plebhash force-pushed the upgrade-jdp branch from 9b41e0e to ac73bee Compare April 2, 2025 18:57

plebhash commented Apr 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TheBlueMatt reviewed Apr 7, 2025

View reviewed changes

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

06-Job-Declaration-Protocol.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

simplify Coinbase-only explanation

3ac918d

GitGab19 approved these changes Apr 8, 2025

View reviewed changes

GitGab19 merged commit a4738d0 into stratum-mining:main Apr 8, 2025

GitGab19 mentioned this pull request Apr 9, 2025

revert prev_hash optionality in DeclareMiningJob #127

Closed

This was referenced Apr 23, 2025

SetCustomMiningJob should have non-optional min_ntime #128

Closed

re-introduce min_ntime to SetCustomMiningJob (now as non-optional) #129

Closed

GitGab19 mentioned this pull request May 2, 2025

Clean up old IdentifyTransactions messages from Message-Types doc #131

Closed

	JDS allows Coinbase-only mode	JDS does NOT allow Coinbase-only mode
JDC sets `DECLARE_TX_DATA`	`SetupConnection.Success`	`SetupConnection.Success`
JDC does NOT set `DECLARE_TX_DATA`	`SetupConnection.Success`	`SetupConnection.Error` (`unsupported-feature-flags`)

upgrade Job Declaration and Mining Protocols #121

upgrade Job Declaration and Mining Protocols #121

Uh oh!

Conversation

plebhash commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Jan 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

plebhash commented Jan 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Fi3 Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

plebhash Jan 28, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

plebhash Jan 28, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

plebhash Mar 31, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

GitGab19 Apr 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

plebhash Apr 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Fi3 Apr 8, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Fi3 commented Jan 28, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as resolved.

This comment was marked as resolved.

GitGab19 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

plebhash commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

plebhash Jan 28, 2025 •

edited

Loading