NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 705.

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: garp on February 24, 2014, 12:45:08 PM

Quote from: Jean-Luc on February 24, 2014, 11:17:43 AM

To summarize: For users with dynamic IPs, you ... still need to set up port forwarding at your router.

Has this always been the case? Or is this the case since a specific version?
What does or does not happen if we don't set up port forwarding?
Having an internal DHCP network behind the dynamic WAN IP address, how can we set up port forwarding Huh

Or does the server has to run on an internal fixed IP address then Huh

It confuses me. May be I lack some IP networking knowledge.
Please, elaborate?

thats what he says, but I believe that he means that if your intent is to run a public node then you need the port forward on your WAN router. Im using 0.8.1e at home, with sharmyaddress set to false, and dont have a port forwarded, am even using tor, and Im still getting updated blocks from peers.

brooklynbtc

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

AKA jefdiesel

Quote from: Mario123 on February 24, 2014, 10:58:26 AM

Shut up, Emule. You have no sense of humor. Go drink your aperitifs with your friends.

I don't know if thats a lost in translation thing, but man its a good insult!

PS I love aperitifs.

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: CIYAM on February 24, 2014, 10:43:51 AM

Quote from: ChuckOne on February 24, 2014, 10:38:43 AM

Why?

I am not so sure my first idea was a good one but my concern is that if most people become uninterested in forging it could make the network less resilient in the (hopefully unlikely) case of pool servers being shut down by authorities in particular.

So I am quite happy to drop that idea but I still think the problem of "penalty" needs to be considered as well as the problem of having "too much forging power" amongst a small number of pools.

During catching up I got an idea. I'd like some feedback on that:

We should not confuse two different issues: I1) finding consensus and I2) stabilizing the network. Each of these have two different purposes, therefore two different audiences and should therefore have two different incentive mechanisms. We cannot urge people to do something, we only can encourage them by offering rewards.

I1) TF is designed to do that. Transactions fees are the reward/incentive.

I2) More nodes will make the network more secure against switching nodes off. Reward for running a node: X

One could think of a special asset X that is only available for those running verifiable DIFFERENT nodes (in terms of databases, hardware, IPs etc). These accounts will get a portion of X for running a node.

brooklynbtc

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

AKA jefdiesel

Quote from: igmaca on February 24, 2014, 08:32:57 AM

Quote from: BitcoinForumator on February 24, 2014, 08:29:59 AM

Quote from: igmaca on February 24, 2014, 08:25:17 AM

CONCLUSIONS

is clear that as the value of Nxt respect Fiat up

is smaller nodes may hold but the limit will always be the
opportunity cost of the money referred to immobilize one year..

rickyjames

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

NXT FUNDING COMMITTEE VOTE IS COMING MARCH 1

Remaining eligible nominees with as-yet undeclared intentions (PM me if you want off this list):

^[GS]^, 2Kool4Skewl, Arckam_(frmelin), bitcoinpaul, buybitcoinscanada
ChuckOne, Cointropolis_JustabitTime, Come-from-Beyond
Damelon, davethetrousers, drevil, EvilDave, ferment, Fry, hughmanwho, Jean-Luc,
jl777, Klee, landomata, laowai80, msin, mww
nexern, opticalcarrier, Pandaisftw, PeercoinEnthusiast, pinarello, Pouncer, Ricot, salsacz
SecondLeo, smaragda, Uniqueorn, VanBreuk, ZeroTheGreat

Something Zahlen said: A candidate does not need to be good at writing English. Some candidates may not have English as their mother tongue. If you're voting, don't confuse lots of writing for ability to judge the worth of a project. Remember that ultimately the committee's job is to decide which projects get funded.

If you are on this list and want to be on a NXT funding committee, go here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5280476

Background:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5280786

Good luck to these nominees who have declared themselves candidates:

NXTmarketingfund: allwelder, Damelon, Mario123, Asian Prepper, joefox, brooklynbct, CoinTropolis_NiftyNikel
NXTtechdevfund: EmoneyRu, Anon136, l8orre, abuelau
NXTinfrastructurefund: rickyjames, chanc3r

Yeah, you may have seen this before. I'll be putting it up every ten pages or so. It's one of those "legitimate, transparent process" things.

garp

member

Activity: 94

Merit: 10

Quote from: Jean-Luc on February 24, 2014, 11:17:43 AM

To summarize: For users with dynamic IPs, you ... still need to set up port forwarding at your router.

Has this always been the case? Or is this the case since a specific version?
What does or does not happen if we don't set up port forwarding?
Having an internal DHCP network behind the dynamic WAN IP address, how can we set up port forwarding Huh

Or does the server has to run on an internal fixed IP address then Huh

It confuses me. May be I lack some IP networking knowledge.
Please, elaborate?

mthcl

sr. member

Activity: 376

Merit: 300

Quote from: CIYAM on February 24, 2014, 12:24:09 PM

Quote from: mthcl on February 24, 2014, 12:01:45 PM

Maybe, define it this way:

- assume for now that we have a static picture (no transactions between accounts), and there are accounts (nodes) 1,...,N with balances M_1,...,M_N on them;

- the time is discrete, and at each moment k each (active) node j calculates its current weight W_k as a (randomized?) function of M_j and B^j_{k-1} (the previous block in the blockchain that the node j thinks to be "official")

- the network then chooses j_0 such that W_{j_0}>W_i for all i not equal to j_0, and lets the node j_0 forge the block B_k; then L_k=W_{j_0} is the weight of this block.

Now, what I don't really understand, is how a node really determines, which branch is "official"? By looking who has the majority among its neighbors in the network?

Now you lose me with the math (as I said that is not my field) - but let's try and move forwards.

There is "no official" branch.

Each node makes it's own decision about its current chain according to what it sees. So one node can end up on a "fork" and if it goes too far down that fork it may never be able to get back onto the "main chain".

So the "main chain" is the "best chain" in terms of the "weight" of every block in it.

Yes, "official" is a bad term; I meant the "main chain".

Let's, maybe, consider an example, to help me understand it better? Assume the node 1 is run by ~~Emule~~ a rich person, who, nevertheless, wants to destroy Nxt for some reason. Assume also that 1 is connected to 2,3,4 in the network. At some moment k_0, the node 1 intentionally delays broadcasting its current weight W_1 (should denote that W_1^{k}, but let's not overcomplicate notations), so that at the moment k+1 all nodes except 2,3,4 would think that B_0,...,B_{k_0} is the main blockchain (where B_{k_0} was forged by someone else, say, node 7), while 2,3,4 would think that it is B_0,...,B'_{k_0} (where B'_{k_0} was forged by 1).

Did I get it correctly? If yes, what happens then (assuming 1 wants to continue with its bad behavior)?

Agent86

newbie

Activity: 25

Merit: 0

Are other people having problems with withdrawal from Dgex? I did instant BTC withdrawal last week (5 days) and still haven't got any BTC. It showed up as processed on my account with a transaction ID that appears nowhere on blockchain explorer. I got no BTC and they refuse to resend because they say it might send twice even though they know that I got nothing and obviously wanted the BTC fast. I don't know if this is a transaction malleability issue or if they are f*ing up and screwing people, but people should be aware don't do instant BTC withdrawal from Dgex... They put up no warning even though they know of the problem. WTF. Other possibility is that they are just keeping my money and using confusion about transaction malleability as an excuse. Sorry to be negative and pissed off but don't know of other reasonable recourse after exchanging emails with them and getting no reply to the last one.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ChuckOne on February 24, 2014, 12:33:19 PM

The issue here is think is: it is not that we want the same person having several nodes but different persons having a node. Redundancy and mutual control is the key.

This doesn't parse - care to explain it again?

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: barbierir on February 24, 2014, 08:42:38 AM

I'm not a dev and I haven't the slightest idea it is doable, but I wonder if forging could be based on the number of nodes you're connected to? Maybe with a limit beyond which you don't get additional bonus. Example: if you're connected to other 100 nodes you've ten times the chance of forging as someone connected to 10 nodes. So if the limit is 100 nodes and you want more forging power, you must set up a second node.

Interesting idea.

The issue here is think is: it is not that we want the same person having several nodes but different persons having a node. Redundancy and mutual control is the key.

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Could you elaborate on "we need penalty"

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ChuckOne on February 24, 2014, 12:25:55 PM

Penalty is necessary.

That is not useful - please provide reasoning for your statement.

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on February 24, 2014, 07:59:28 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on February 24, 2014, 07:33:00 AM

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on February 24, 2014, 07:29:03 AM

But if you forge a block now, are you able to forge the next blocks also?

yes of course

Ok. To understand it better: are we talking about penalizing or not penalizing nodes who don't forge when they should do it?

We do not want to penalize nodes but accounts.

Nodes != accounts.

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: CIYAM on February 24, 2014, 06:05:33 AM

Another issue that I think needs to be carefully considered is the "penalty" for not forging.

I don't see it as being necessary in that any advantage of "not forging" would require significant amount of collusion IMO to be of financial benefit (maybe someone with some math skills can work on this).

And where I see it as being problematic is that our little hobbyists are quite likely to just switch off their forger for a day if they get penalized. It may even piss them off enough to "give up forging" once again potentially hurting our network.

So in summary I think that we "don't need it" and IMO we would be better off without it.

Penalty is necessary.

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: Jean-Luc on February 24, 2014, 05:34:08 AM

In 0.8.1, I am adding the ability to use POST instead of GET for all API and UI methods, and optionally enforce use of POST for the methods that submit the user secret phrase. This is to prevent caching of the secret phrase in browser memory cache, and to prevent mistakes due to submitting the same request twice, as browsers are supposed to warn users when doing this with POST requests.

This wasn't possible before because everything shared the same port and POST was reserved for peer networking only. Now that the UI and API requests have their own servlets, there is no problem in making them accept both GET and POST. I am adding a nxt.properties parameter whether to enforce the use of POST for the methods that require it, or just accept both GET and POST.

I have already changed the NRS UI and the tools - admin.html, alias.html, message.html, to use only POST. Client developers preparing for the 0.8 branch should consider using POST where appropriate too.

Great. +1 for slow adaption of RESTful principles.

EvilDave

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1001

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on February 24, 2014, 10:45:07 AM

Below u'll find a short description of the Nxt communication system. This is the 2nd plan of our decentralization. 1st one you can find here.

Quote from: salsacz on February 24, 2014, 05:48:08 AM

hours and hours of communication

Quote from: rickyjames on February 24, 2014, 09:57:44 AM

Did you ever send a copy of the signed form to Steven?

Quote from: salsacz on February 24, 2014, 10:02:18 AM

Did you fill it and sent it to Steven?

Quote from: rickyjames on February 24, 2014, 10:31:51 AM

So, no, I did not send the form in to Steven. I did not know I was supposed to.

Wonder if I can get the above exchange printed on a t-shirt: We're so de-centralised that.....

Still, looks like it will work out in the end:

Quote from: rickyjames on February 24, 2014, 11:31:59 AM

Quote from: salsacz on February 24, 2014, 10:37:16 AM

rickyjames: print the form, fill the form, scan the form, send it to Stephen

Nifty was also in a phone contact with Paul, so lets wait for his news too

Done. I am in email contact with Nifty too.

And back to the forging/running nodes issue:

Quote from: Fatih87SK on February 24, 2014, 11:45:54 AM

I'm not technical. So you can ignore me if I say something stupid.

Isn't it possible to build something on top of NXT that can be more profitable for the forgers around us to keep the network safe?

I thought James was experimenting with such a coin earlier.

jl777 (and others) came up with the idea of rewarding people who run nodes with a colored "nodecoin", issued based on node running time.
This sidesteps the issue of forging income only going to the big fish, by also rewarding little fish who choose to run a node to help maintain the NXT network.

I know that we need to move away from the mining mindset as much as possible for NXT, but we also need to encourage network growth.
As a NXT node costs almost nothing to run (in terms of computing resources) compared to mining, we could maybe in this way also persuade miners to run NXT nodes on their mining rigs in addition to their current mining activities.....everyone wins.

And to J-L, Pin, CfB and anyone else with an opinion...should we move to 8.0/8.1 now?

And I'm going to repeat my request for someone to step up and carry out a comprehensive audit of the NXT network:

Can someone step up and carry out a (semi-) comprehensive audit of the NXT network ?
What do we have up and running right now?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: mthcl on February 24, 2014, 12:01:45 PM

OK, let's try to make the notations more clear. Who are A,B,C,D? Blocks, right (not nodes)? Shall we write "A(80) B'(95) C'(10)" in your example then?

Yes they are blocks not nodes.

Quote from: mthcl on February 24, 2014, 12:01:45 PM

Maybe, define it this way:

- assume for now that we have a static picture (no transactions between accounts), and there are accounts (nodes) 1,...,N with balances M_1,...,M_N on them;

- the time is discrete, and at each moment k each (active) node j calculates its current weight W_k as a (randomized?) function of M_j and B^j_{k-1} (the previous block in the blockchain that the node j thinks to be "official")

- the network then chooses j_0 such that W_{j_0}>W_i for all i not equal to j_0, and lets the node j_0 forge the block B_k; then L_k=W_{j_0} is the weight of this block.

Now, what I don't really understand, is how a node really determines, which branch is "official"? By looking who has the majority among its neighbors in the network?

Now you lose me with the math (as I said that is not my field) - but let's try and move forwards.

There is "no official" branch.

Each node makes it's own decision about its current chain according to what it sees. So one node can end up on a "fork" and if it goes too far down that fork it may never be able to get back onto the "main chain".

So the "main chain" is the "best chain" in terms of the "weight" of every block in it.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

I'm updating the testnet...

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: evanxxx on February 24, 2014, 05:01:52 AM

I think we can possibly solve this by making it more profitable to be a service provider than forging and the reward should be equal for different service providers instead of being biased to those with powerful machines and massive resource, thus everyone has the incentive to be a service provider and the service would be provided in a distributed way.

Even split does not work.

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 24, 2014, 03:47:43 AM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 24, 2014, 03:36:23 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on February 24, 2014, 03:25:41 AM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 24, 2014, 03:22:56 AM

I see no problem here. If a part of the stake becomes seized then the network will start forging with another part.

The question is "forging with what"?

If let's say 100 powerful machines are shut down by an authority and the majority of stake holders are "rich old men" who aren't that technically savvy then you are now running a network of maybe a few thousand desktop computers (or even less powerful devices) that are run by hobbyists and that is not going to do 1000+ TPS.

I am not saying the network would *die* but that it would be *seriously damaged* in terms of the TPS it could process and that in itself could cause *panic*.

1000 tps processing requires mid-level hosting hardware. Still see no problem.

After discussing this issue with CIYAM Open I got that we indeed have a problem here. If users will just lease their power and forget then one day Nxt network may die.

Sorry for my previous mistake, my English is not good enough to get some ideas clearly.

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 705. (Read 2761645 times)