Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 577. (Read 2761626 times)
Awesome!!
the nrs 0.8.3 works through http://127.0.0.1:7875/
but does not work http://127.0.0.1:7875/admin.html
HTTP ERROR: 404
Problem Accessing / admin.html. Reason:
Not Found
Powered by Jetty :/ /
can someone help me?
but does not work http://127.0.0.1:7875/admin.html
HTTP ERROR: 404
Problem Accessing / admin.html. Reason:
Not Found
Powered by Jetty :/ /
can someone help me?
try http://127.0.0.1:7876/
the nrs 0.8.3 works through http://127.0.0.1:7875/
but does not work http://127.0.0.1:7875/admin.html
HTTP ERROR: 404
Problem Accessing / admin.html. Reason:
Not Found
Powered by Jetty :/ /
can someone help me?
but does not work http://127.0.0.1:7875/admin.html
HTTP ERROR: 404
Problem Accessing / admin.html. Reason:
Not Found
Powered by Jetty :/ /
can someone help me?
bad english 
Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.
Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.
Then, excuse me. I misunderstood. 'it seems like' sounds to me like 'it's basically proven that'.
Are you basically saying that preventing a node from forging for a period is essentially preventing a node forging or preventing an account forging.
I assume its preventing an account forging not the actual NRS instance i.e. its like the account had an effective balance of ZERO - that also explains the 24h because its 1440 blocks for an account balance to become effective again.
This would also automatically increase the forging of the remaining nodes because that NXT would not be included in the total able to forge.
Have I understood it right?
Therefore if an account was penalised you could log another account into that node and it would still have a chance to forge.
I assume its preventing an account forging not the actual NRS instance i.e. its like the account had an effective balance of ZERO - that also explains the 24h because its 1440 blocks for an account balance to become effective again.
This would also automatically increase the forging of the remaining nodes because that NXT would not be included in the total able to forge.
Have I understood it right?
Therefore if an account was penalised you could log another account into that node and it would still have a chance to forge.
Something like that. This "penalty" is also used for other things, for example, it forces to split big accounts into smaller ones. Which in turn gives extra benefits (the small bias toward bigger accounts) to those who support "transparency" approach.
Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.
Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.
BCNext used a wrong word. Actually it's not a penalty, it's a trick to bump forging power of the other accounts back to 100%.
That sounds way more positive. Thank you, CfB.
Therefore if an account was penalised you could log another account into that node and it would still have a chance to forge.
Correct. The account gives up its forging power in favor of other accounts. The node is completely irrelevant.
- build a great gateway á la james
- work hard on AT and atomic cross chain transactions
- work hard on AT and atomic cross chain transactions
Without a doubt if we can achieve atomic cross-chain txs then we will have basically got rid of the business model for all exchanges that don't do fiat.
IMO "this is our job".
The future will not be centralised!
I could not agree more with you.
@CfB
Any internal plans for that feature in NXT?
Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.
Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.
BCNext used a wrong word. Actually it's not a penalty, it's a trick to bump forging power of the other accounts back to 100%.
Are you basically saying that preventing a node from forging for a period is essentially preventing a node forging or preventing an account forging.
I assume its preventing an account forging not the actual NRS instance i.e. its like the account had an effective balance of ZERO - that also explains the 24h because its 1440 blocks for an account balance to become effective again.
This would also automatically increase the forging of the remaining nodes because that NXT would not be included in the total able to forge.
Have I understood it right?
Therefore if an account was penalised you could log another account into that node and it would still have a chance to forge.
Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.
Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.
BCNext used a wrong word. Actually it's not a penalty, it's a trick to bump forging power of the other accounts back to 100%.
Also uploading...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qi5r9kajDI&feature=youtu.be
Done!
http://youtu.be/_qi5r9kajDI
great work, tweeted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qi5r9kajDI&feature=youtu.be
Done!
http://youtu.be/_qi5r9kajDI
Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.
Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.
We were discussing TF the last days and right now it seems like there wouldn't be any penalization regarding non-forging accounts. We want TF to be as good as possible. As long as big accounts do not forge, the other accounts have automatically better chances to forge. Is that what you meant?
That is not decided, yet. We need a mathematical model and proof of that. Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.
If you can help, please, provide a proof that penalty is not working.
So we can cross out that approach and focus on other ones. (except I can prove that penalty model opens the gate for other attacks or is no effective mean of preventing 90% attacks)
Math guys, please model this, we need some data
So could some stakeholders put the biggest chunk of bounty in history of mankind out there for atomic cross chain transaction on nxt please? During this time (this will take a while?!) we should have the best community driven gateway possible, which james is currently building.
OK.3M NXT (up to 5M for additional features) for atomic cross chain transactions.
Conditions:
a) working client for average user;
b) official approve of all three NXT Funding Committees;
c) fully working asset exchange;
d) working transparent forging in the part marked bold:
NB: The only penalty is inability to mine blocks within some period of time. They still can decide not to bother with mining, but their "hashing" power will be distributed to those who do protect the network.
Last two conditions are my conditions to stop holding investment in 50M NXT.You got my full support for each of these conditions.
+1440.
(except I can prove that penalty model opens the gate for other attacks or is no effective mean of preventing 90% attacks)
Wow! That has got to be the best cryptocurrency info video I have seen. Amazing work.
I hate my schedule these days. NXT is so much more interesting.
Have you posted results with the penalty model? I may have missed them. Could you point me to them?
I did not as the attempts to model this in my simulator all came out with "disastrous" results (which are likely just due to the simulator so would not be of any value at all).
Alright. Hmm, so, we have no empirical data so far.
So, it will lead to a split network and that might open doors for an even bigger attack. Splitting the network into smaller and smaller chunks. Until new nodes only become part of a little branch of the DAG.
Frequent forks are *expected* to occur in a system with (compared to Bitcoin) fast confirmation times (BCNext said that in his introductory post).
Quote
Do you refer to https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nxt-instant-transactions-with-guaranteed-confirmation-316104 ? I think,
How do CfB expect the network to converge if a node stick to a branch of the block graph?
By "fragmenting" the forks all over the place it will actually reduce the effectiveness of such attacks.
Why is that? Malicious nodes could spread forks all over the place and generate blocks very easily on top (because it's PoS not PoW) at the same time to suppress branches from other nodes.
Jump to: