Topic: Qora | 100% POS | Assets | Names | Voting | Open Source - page 20. (Read 113830 times)

Thanks DeMap!
Don't trust the blockexplorer!

Seams to be an issue with the Blockexplorer.

http://127.0.0.1:9085/blocks/ME691bt8zVip2oQZQciBj6eMUvjMcBmmkLfBH6b7xVpd5XGDSPQ5o3yn3D3mmvZxM6aRtNJ4TqFuHoTmjk14jpPzBiNqYyKvtExQitE2DasDgF3fS4qY22VoKwce2qevrHbN8ymP9V43mhnoi6QTHbNtJ5p2KFpekeiDgWchDpZcS45


generatingBalance of this block isn't zero.


http://127.0.0.1:9085/addresses/balance/QSX7k8egKacej4idYdbPe3kEwJkG6oFmu6


Balance of this account isn't zero.

is there any news from BTER support about QORA withdrawal ?

How can it be that an address with 0 Qora can generate 52 blocks in 3 days?
QSX7k8egKacej4idYdbPe3kEwJkG6oFmu6

Very strange....

20 Qora sended

looking for qora wallet, is there a link for download / thanks

Yes Vrontis is busy with polo to get it back their again. BTER we can't do not much about, since this is the problem of BTER. As you can see there are other dedicated member here, trying to get QORA on other exchanges.

In the meanwhile you can just put your buy order in the thread and ask if the seller will PM you.

Would be really nice if we can get an exchange trading Qora again, so that I can buy some from the people who have lost faith, before all the great new Qora stuff happens.

To all the people who are scared about the absence of QORA... THIS PROJECT IS MORE ALIVE THEN EVER. Expect huge things coming..

just saying

Yep Qora is gone 

how about qora develop now @qora?

is qora dead?

poloniex.com close qora exchange.now where to exchange?

Man such smooth sailing here...
Not.
 
lol

Whatevah
GL with the new Wallet Gentleman.

Also I recommend to update MapDb to latest 1.0.7 release http://www.mapdb.org/changelog.html#Version_107_2015-02-19 , a lot of crash issues are fixed there.

Good point.  I also agree that a bigger number is better because we simply cannot predict how many commonly used services there will be in the future. 

I also think that those standards should be agreed upon early on (and written into WIKI) to avoid confusion and collision later on. (Say.. if someone uses a port that has already been adopted by another person, it is going to break another person's software!  )

On second though, I'm not sure what I'm proposing is such a good idea.

Perhaps having dedicated ports for individual services are better than sharing/reusing ports and having to follow certain protocol.

I was thinking in scenarios like.. where you need to search a large number of transactions to find a specific piece of data, doing things this way might not be feasible...

Hmmm...

What are your thoughts on this?  I think we all agree that a range of ports needed to be reserved.  But do you think some sort of protocol needed to be established for commonly used functionality?

Hi rlh,

Yes!!! You got it!!!    I apologize for the confusion. "qora" called them Service Ids, but I always think of them as Service Ports (as in TCP ports).  And I used the terms interchangeably in my sentences.  

I believe that in order for Arbitrary Transaction to be effectively and properly utilized, a sets of standards or protocol must be established (just like TCP/IP).  For instance, a range of ports should be considered "reserved" for commonly used services, and data formats must be specified for ports that are in used.  And I tend to agree with CIYAM on this, perhaps a bigger number like 1024 is better.

Let me give you some examples --

Instead of having one port for a blogging service and another for a messaging service.. Why can't we merge the common functionality into one service port:

Port 10 (Reserved): Targeted Message Service (TMS) - Used for Message/Text that has a targeted audience

Poart 11 (Reserved): Non-Targeted Message Service (NMS) - Used for Message/Text that doesn't have a targeted audience

Port 12 (Reserved): HTML Storage Service (HSS) - Used for Storing Static Web Page

Port 13 (Reserved): Extended HTML Storage Service (EHSS) - USed for storing web page with multiple parts

After we agree on the ports' purposes and the data formats, people will be permitted to use those ports, as long as they follow the rule.  What I'm saying is that we need to establish something like TCP/IP protocol for Arbitrary Transaction in order to avoid duplication of services (No wheels needed to be reinvented).  In this regard, the transactions can be considered something like "packets" in a data network.

So in the future, instead of setting up a new port and a new data format for a twitter-like service, the developer can simply adapt and utilize the Non-Targeted Message Service Port that was originally designed for a private messaging service.

So before anyone can design and implement anything, we really need to discuss and agree on certain standards.  I hope you can see where I can going with this.

Does this make any sense to you??  

Still waiting for them to fix their wallet issues. That will probably happen about the same time the new wallet is out (best guess).

I agree with the idea of treating the service ids a bit like "ports" but assuming the range is not small I'd think a larger range of "reserved" numbers would be better (say at least 1024 but perhaps even much more than that).

We can't predict how many might "be enough" so I'd tend to want to reserve more.