Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 732. (Read 2761645 times)

190-F'ing One

Have't  hit 2000 pages yet

JeanLuc

Hi. I ran into a use case where we have to gracefully shutdown Nxt and can't rely on your shutdown handler. At the end of the application update process we need to restart the client for all updates to take effect. The restart code is embedded in the framework we use and on top of that the restart code is not written in java.

It seems when doing a restart the shutdown handlers do not run properly (probably since the restart code does a forced shutdown) this would all be solved if you'd make nxt.Nxt.shutdown public, then we can make sure Nxt has been shutdown properly before we do an application restart.

Thanks!

Good work. I like it. How can we have a browser tipbot so that I only need to click on someone account' signature, fill in the amount and click send ?

P.S. don't draw text on people.

Green Nxt: exotic video, new version:
http://youtu.be/cP4KFH6Iz0g

feel free to share

Jean-Luc
Why in 0.8.0e shareMyAddress is the same as peer networking?
Why i cannot run peer networking without sharing my address as it have been before?

good one 

Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Today at 12:44:09 PM
Reply with quote  #33447
Quote from: mcjavar on Today at 12:25:29 PM
Quote from: igmaca on Today at 11:47:54 AM
nxt currently works as for small accounts have the same options as large accounts in forging the only solution is to join in a pool.

this will cause in the future centralization of the nodes and therefore a more vulnerable network.

if you decide to join a pool the solution is;

a) funds must stay in the Bob account
b ) forging power should remain in the node where stay Bob acount.

Instead the commission of forging if Bob acount forge should go to the "transparent" pool and the pool manager split the commission forging proportion to the amount of funds from the accounts that were at that time in the pool .

I do not know if this is technically very difficult to implement but it is clear that if not resolved this little by little will create pools and concentrating on a few network nodes and so understand a network more vulnerable to attack .

I think the pool is very good solution for the small investor gives "equity to the system not equality " but forging power of Bob acount should remain in the node where this account with funds for the sake of the security of the network.

Am I wrong in my thoughts?

Next Forge Problem

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mhi9360ke6mtbqs/Documento3_P%C3%A1gina_1.jpg

Equality Solution

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9emz21xz8qfo1t3/Documento3_P%C3%A1gina_2.jpg


Equity forge solution

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u7i9vggpgb79ij3/Documento3_P%C3%A1gina_3.jpg

 

Yup - this seems like a good start.

if leasing power forged for pools at most can only have 100000 nxt we would have several things:

pool forge every 2 3 days that  is reasonable
would have 1000000000/100000 = 10 000 nodes to ensure network

Link

@programmers
On windows we need libcurl's dlls from /bin folder on runtime, libcurl.a & libcurldll.a as libs for project, headers from /include, "QMAKE_CXXFLAGS += -fpermissive" for qmake, and additional "#include "

Maybe so - but I think we could make it harder for them by requiring accounts to "register" their IP address.

(so likely they would end up stomping over each other)

EDIT: If we limited "changing" IP addresses to once per day I think that would make it even harder for botnets.

Whether this is part of The Plan or not, falling fee costs is going to happen on its own by selective pressure.  Cheaper fees will create greater demands for services and the logical conclusion is fees approach zero or get there.  

The real problem is that there is practically zero financial incentive now for running a node forging NXT, and that financial incentive is only going to get worse.  Running the node backbone net is thus going to become more and more of a civic duty rather than pay-its-own-way.   Actually, it probably already is that way.   We set up all those VPS nodes back in December during the DDoS attack and only now are the true costs coming to light.  Many of those operators are now saying they can't keep running their VPSs out of personal funds forever.  

This is why I want to be in the infrastructure committee.  We have got to figure out how to set up the cheapest possible coordinated (rather than patchwork) network that can support higher and higher TPS, and we need to figure that out sooner rather than later.   I think this is an underappreciated problem and an interesting challenge.

Botnets will rule this once it becomes cheap to forge or the rules are relaxed. 

Botnet owners: get your NXT now while it's cheap.

I propose that we "limit" the total number of "forging accounts" and distribute them via a "give away" at the start (i.e. we are "rebooting" the rights to forge).

EDIT: At least "initially" - we could relax that rule down the track if we thought it was okay (I agree that protecting the network is paramount).

This is shifting from proof-of-stake to proof of having a distinct IP. For ordinary people it is indeed difficult to get many IPs, but what about an adversary who wants to attack Nxt? Any government can easily do it, or even a company of the size of Google or Amazon that surely has a pool of available IPs that are not always used, or even a rogue high-level sysadmin at such a company or a big ISP... they can just borrow some of their unused IPs for an hour and perform a 90% attack.

This idea is fantastic !