Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 2228. (Read 2761637 times)
I really like the NXT logo on dgex.com the best.
so, when hallmarking my VPSs, is it necessary to unlock with any account? if so, does it matter what account it is? Id prefer to only use my passphrase on my PC here that I know is secure.
EDIT: and are our VPSs supposed to just be on 0.4.0 still?
EDIT: and are our VPSs supposed to just be on 0.4.0 still?
You can hallmark it with an account and not unlock that account.
Can no longer log in to my wallet. It just hangs after clicking unlock....
You're probably downloading the blockchain. You can try closing and reopening your browser.
so, when hallmarking my VPSs, is it necessary to unlock with any account? if so, does it matter what account it is? Id prefer to only use my passphrase on my PC here that I know is secure.
EDIT: and are our VPSs supposed to just be on 0.4.0 still?
EDIT: and are our VPSs supposed to just be on 0.4.0 still?
Come-from-beyond, what do you think is best? Completely remove hallmarks or make all users use a hallmark?
Can zombie nodes use hallmarks?
Can zombie nodes use hallmarks?
Can no longer log in to my wallet. It just hangs after clicking unlock....
The first step to take when similar issues happen is to re-install NXT from scratch and re-sync the blockchain.
W.r.t. project "Kharon"
Why doesn't the bitcoin software suffer these kinds of DDOS attacks? Can anything be learned from the bitcoin software?
The concept of using machine learning (ANN) to avoid DDOS sounds crazy to me.
Why doesn't the bitcoin software suffer these kinds of DDOS attacks? Can anything be learned from the bitcoin software?
The concept of using machine learning (ANN) to avoid DDOS sounds crazy to me.
Can no longer log in to my wallet. It just hangs after clicking unlock....
So, can those values be set to 1 by default for new versions of the software? Or is it not safe now and should be set when there are more hallmarked nodes on the network?
0 is better coz most of zombies r behind NAT anyway.
It also seems that hallmarked accounts with large balances completely overpower smaller hallmarked accounts. I don't think setting up a lot of hallmarked nodes with small balance will help much.
Even 1 NXT hallmark helps coz a lot of people use pushThreshold and pullThreshold set to 1 which means that non-hallmarked nodes will be ignored for outbound requests.
So, can those values be set to 1 by default for new versions of the software? Or is it not safe now and should be set when there are more hallmarked nodes on the network?
this is news to me... why should 7875 be forwarded on a NAT router/firewall? I thought p2p only used 7874
We r planning to add ability to tunnel peer communication thru HTTPS.
It also seems that hallmarked accounts with large balances completely overpower smaller hallmarked accounts. I don't think setting up a lot of hallmarked nodes with small balance will help much.
Even 1 NXT hallmark helps coz a lot of people use pushThreshold and pullThreshold set to 1 which means that non-hallmarked nodes will be ignored for outbound requests.
what port do i need to unblock for the client?
*edit* not for loopback to access the gui but for incoming and outgoing connections to peers
*edit* not for loopback to access the gui but for incoming and outgoing connections to peers
7874 and 7875 TCP
this is news to me... why should 7875 be forwarded on a NAT router/firewall? I thought p2p only used 7874
what port do i need to unblock for the client?
*edit* not for loopback to access the gui but for incoming and outgoing connections to peers
*edit* not for loopback to access the gui but for incoming and outgoing connections to peers
7874 and 7875 TCP
a node hallmarked with 100 nxt and a node hallmarked with 100,000 nxt would have the same priority with peers.
CfB, please confirm if this is true?
If true, it shouldn't be that way, I think?
More weight = more trust from peers approach is better?
100.000 NXT node will attract 1000 times more traffic than 100 NXT one.
Maybe there shouldn't be linear dependance on the Weight, sort of diminishing dependance algorithm should be established. At least when software is in beta and there is a wider network of hallmarked nodes.
The problem with this is that heavily weighted nodes are bigger targets to attack and when they get attacked, they disrupt the network to greater extent because they are being used as the main nodes.
Not 100% true. If heavily weighted node stops responding then he gets the red flag (disconnected) and peers ask other nodes (even non-hallmarked ones).
in other words, currently the node can not find the longest chain. Despite your previous statement (lets network to find longest chain).
They can. Or can not. Depends on the number of blocks that passed since the fork.
a node hallmarked with 100 nxt and a node hallmarked with 100,000 nxt would have the same priority with peers.
CfB, please confirm if this is true?
If true, it shouldn't be that way, I think?
More weight = more trust from peers approach is better?
100.000 NXT node will attract 1000 times more traffic than 100 NXT one.
- please do not delude yourself. We are constantly stuck with a much lower depth then 720 blocks.
Alice on block 23577 of longest chain, Bob on block 23400 on a shorter chain. How do u know where the fork has happened? It may happen 2000 blocks ago and Bob won't be able to jump to a legit chain without redownloading the whole blockchain.
I expect that it is obvious for many of you, but I'm sometimes getting fatal errors (low memory) and nxt stops.
Here is restart manual: http://pastebin.com/580iLLkq (It is for node with nxt only. CODE KILLS ALL JAVA APPLICATIONS!)
! If I'm mistaken - PM me, I'll update manual & edit link in the post
Here is restart manual: http://pastebin.com/580iLLkq (It is for node with nxt only. CODE KILLS ALL JAVA APPLICATIONS!)
! If I'm mistaken - PM me, I'll update manual & edit link in the post
Jump to: