Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1762. (Read 2761645 times)
Can CfB/JLP comment on VPS requirements for the new 0.5.3 code? If a hallmarked VPS with say, 30M on the account was running, how much mem would it need? (not my hallmark, BTW, Im hosting someones hallmark for them)
Now you confused me. Auto-rescan is supposed to happen or not? If yes, and you won't add GUI auto-recovery, it would be useful
to have at least a pop-up saying "Please reload this page to update transaction status" or something similar.
The re-scan happens as a recovery step when your client is intentionally being fed with wrong blocks and transactions by a bad peer. Then the blockchain is reloaded from the .nxt.bak files, the unconfirmed transactions discarded, and the peer blacklisted. But it is too complicated to also force the GUI to recover. Usually it is pretty obvious that something is wrong as the Recent blocks count becomes negative, there are lots of orphaned blocks and as you noticed thousands of bogus unconfirmed transactions. If a reload of the browser page fixes it, I think this is good enough for now.to have at least a pop-up saying "Please reload this page to update transaction status" or something similar.
Dgex has frozen my deposit for 364k nxt
Has this happened to anyone else? I am freaking out because its alot of BTC worth and they are saying something about fraud on their account.
I hope I get it back!
Has this happened to anyone else? I am freaking out because its alot of BTC worth and they are saying something about fraud on their account.
I hope I get it back!
It mean they are trying to protect their customer, so that is a good things.
They is always some false positive.
If you did nothing wrong, i guess everything will be okay
I hope so. I did nothing wrong
Dgex has frozen my deposit for 364k nxt
Has this happened to anyone else? I am freaking out because its alot of BTC worth and they are saying something about fraud on their account.
I hope I get it back!
Has this happened to anyone else? I am freaking out because its alot of BTC worth and they are saying something about fraud on their account.
I hope I get it back!
It mean they are trying to protect their customer, so that is a good things.
They is always some false positive.
If you did nothing wrong, i guess everything will be okay
We lock (locking method not clarified) not the account but all outgoing transactions which would exceed the cumulated outgoing nxt amount in a given time frame. So you can set this amount to whatever you want. (0 = complete 'lock of the account' for example)
Yes, I said that
Dgex has frozen my deposit for 364k nxt
Has this happened to anyone else? I am freaking out because its alot of BTC worth and they are saying something about fraud on their account.
I hope I get it back!
Has this happened to anyone else? I am freaking out because its alot of BTC worth and they are saying something about fraud on their account.
I hope I get it back!
We don't integrate some sort of CRC because of saving a tiny bit of memory in the core code and because sort-of-CRC could be done in a/the client, right?
No, because in the core and when sending across the network the transactions are already signed with the sender public key. Any corruption in the transaction content would automatically invalidate the signature.Sounds reasonable. And what are the options for the client software for user-made input-errors?
Spontanious idea: The client software can handle "#account" and "#account"+"account alias" receiver-adresses. The second could be checked by the client before it is signed. It would be convenient and the user felt kinda save.
Mmhh, other ideas please?
This is actually a really good idea. For large movers, like an exchange, they can require the user to enter their account number and an alias from that account. That would get rid, of all doubt, that the exchange/user made an input error. If there is no memory corruption issue (the devs say that cannot reproduce this), then this system should be golden.
The only problem I can see is: if someone buys from an exchange from the first time and does not have an existing account, he can't transfer to any account he wants. A solution is to only apply this account+alias rule to medium-large deposits/withdrawals. So a new user could, say, send 1 NXT to his new, super secure account, register an alias, and then send the rest of his funds with account+alias from the exchange to his account.
As for the Account Control, I like the idea of being able to restrict outgoing transactions. I think these two options would be very flexible:
- Maximum amount X per Y time-frame
- Timeframe allowed to send funds
With just these two parameters, you can, for example, set X = 0 to completely lock outbound transactions. For everything else, it's more convenient to have a self-defined limit for day-to-day transactions. If one really needs to make a large purchase (uncommon), then they can simply unlock their account, then re-lock after.
More choices, I like
We lock (locking method not clarified) not the account but all outgoing transactions which would exceed the cumulated outgoing nxt amount in a given time frame. So you can set this amount to whatever you want. (0 = complete 'lock of the account' for example)
Code:
Released 0.5.3:
http://download.nxtcrypto.org/nxt-client-0.5.3.zip
sha256: 23fc36fba166e00299003407169a26515e6d67c8094b5a06f9c795cc62ca83a7
Change log:
Fixed blockchain rescanning. Clear unconfirmed transactions on rescan.
Not fixed. NXT just did auto-rescan and afterwards 17,653 unconfirmed transactions are still on the list. Machine runs Win7 64-bit.
Now you confused me. Auto-rescan is supposed to happen or not? If yes, and you won't add GUI auto-recovery, it would be useful
to have at least a pop-up saying "Please reload this page to update transaction status" or something similar.
THANK YOU MIKAL
We need one exchange where we will be able exchange Nxt with LiqPay, WebMoney, QIWI, UKash, IDram, PayWeb, PayPal, EgoPay,Payza,Unionpay,SolidTrustPay,skrill,privat24,hd-money, w1,pecunix,Cosmic Pay,Instaforex, Neteller,pexpay,qiwi, Perfect Money, Paxum, C-gold, OKpay,etc.
Thanks
Mikal
Thanks
Mikal
We don't integrate some sort of CRC because of saving a tiny bit of memory in the core code and because sort-of-CRC could be done in a/the client, right?
No, because in the core and when sending across the network the transactions are already signed with the sender public key. Any corruption in the transaction content would automatically invalidate the signature.Sounds reasonable. And what are the options for the client software for user-made input-errors?
Spontanious idea: The client software can handle "#account" and "#account"+"account alias" receiver-adresses. The second could be checked by the client before it is signed. It would be convenient and the user felt kinda save.
Mmhh, other ideas please?
This is actually a really good idea. For large movers, like an exchange, they can require the user to enter their account number and an alias from that account. That would get rid, of all doubt, that the exchange/user made an input error. If there is no memory corruption issue (the devs say that cannot reproduce this), then this system should be golden.
The only problem I can see is: if someone buys from an exchange from the first time and does not have an existing account, he can't transfer to any account he wants. A solution is to only apply this account+alias rule to medium-large deposits/withdrawals. So a new user could, say, send 1 NXT to his new, super secure account, register an alias, and then send the rest of his funds with account+alias from the exchange to his account.
As for the Account Control, I like the idea of being able to restrict outgoing transactions. I think these two options would be very flexible:
- Maximum amount X per Y time-frame
- Timeframe allowed to send funds
With just these two parameters, you can, for example, set X = 0 to completely lock outbound transactions. For everything else, it's more convenient to have a self-defined limit for day-to-day transactions. If one really needs to make a large purchase (uncommon), then they can simply unlock their account, then re-lock after.
More choices, I like
So, big players with big wallets and big transaction volumes will end up not paying any fees, whereas the small fish will have to pay fees. Is this a likely scenario, and if so is it a problem?
The outcome is the same as if they paid fees and included not their transactions into forged blocks.I can see that is the case if the block would otherwise be full. In that case, putting your own transactions in and getting/paying zero fees means missing out on a bunch of other people's fees. But if the block you're forging isn't full then you are always best to include as many of your own transactions into your own forged blocks, so you get to perform fee-less transactions. Or is scaling done such that blocks would always be full, once nxt gets full momentum?
Guys, will the decentralized exchange be able to support sports betting? How would this work?
Is a third party needed?
Could he be in stealth mode?
Is a third party needed?
Could he be in stealth mode?
I HAVE A NEW ASSIGNMENT FOR YOU!!!
The IP address is listed as static (which means tellas.gr would have no problem identifying your guy) and is on several spam block lists.Please delete your post mate, he is clear..
Damn, rickyjames is like an internet superhero.
What happened in the old version when the account number was pasted twice, so it read 1295619013897570058912956190138975700589 ?
In the old version 1295619013897570058912956190138975700589 would be interpreted as 6667516829191161453. Now it gives an error.What does it meanon log? 
That it is done rescanning the blockchain after an error.Code:
[2014-01-08 19:28:58.571] ...Done
Code:
Released 0.5.3:
http://download.nxtcrypto.org/nxt-client-0.5.3.zip
sha256: 23fc36fba166e00299003407169a26515e6d67c8094b5a06f9c795cc62ca83a7
Change log:
Fixed blockchain rescanning. Clear unconfirmed transactions on rescan.
Not fixed. NXT just did auto-rescan and afterwards 17,653 unconfirmed transactions are still on the list. Machine runs Win7 64-bit.
I HAVE A NEW ASSIGNMENT FOR YOU!!!
The IP address is listed as static (which means tellas.gr would have no problem identifying your guy) and is on several spam block lists.Please delete your post mate, he is clear..
Damn, rickyjames is like an internet superhero.
I HAVE A NEW ASSIGNMENT FOR YOU!!!
The IP address is listed as static (which means tellas.gr would have no problem identifying your guy) and is on several spam block lists.Please delete your post mate, he is clear..
Jump to: