|
I got 5 NXT from 16228559550138619285 - thank you for whatever that was,,,, if it was a mistake PM me and I'll send it back...
|
|
|
|
Updated mynxt.orgSuggestions and more are welcome. Is something missing on the resources page? Nice  |
|
|
|
Imagine a guy who is juggling while on ice skates, during an earthquake. Do you really want to mess with his balance to make him change his hat?
James
Depends what building was about to fall on him and whether a better hat would help  Seriously don't just concentrate on the nodes but the network as a whole (i.e. the environment the node is within) Building a reward coin on top of the network is interesting but does not improve the network behaviour. The behaviour of a node is not the behaviour of the network of nodes. Penalization is a network behaviour not part of forging, but one node assuming based on a single action another node is bad. Just a primitive response to one node observing another. The two topics are separate in my view; When does a node forge and how often does it succeed and what affects this? What actions does a node take towards another node based on its observation of that node? - to my knowledge so far all I have seen is blacklisting and the forging penalty (are these the same thing?) I would try to solve the two problems separately - Like the stuff posted on network behaviour yesterday. Maybe there is a penalty or blacklist for a node but IS that purely based on forging activity? and this entire piece should be checked or it could in the future be a ddos exploitation vector as it breaks the network because nodes stop listening to nodes. |
|
|
|
In all accounts in NXTio forged. Even with 1 NXT.  So does that win the prize as the account forging with least NXT? |
|
|
|
On the contrary, I want to rescue the computing power that is being wasted mindlessly calculating hashes. My first coin will actually productively use the computing power to solve business problems, or at least problems that directly map to a business solution. Also, instead of having 99.9% of the calculations being wasted (there is only one winner per block), my coin will have just a three way redundancy. That allows it to validate results without an unacceptable loss from redundancy.
Curious too.... A lot of this mindless computation is SHA specific asic not general purpose CPU - so what business problems can you solve ? Intrigued - when will you elaborate? |
|
|
|
Please run for infrastructure committee! These are some cool ideas. We might get emergent behavior from a self-organizing network.
Thanks James. This is the stuff I know from my time in telco and real time finance and am interested in (apart from Nxtopia  )... I thought this stuff was techdev because its software, but if its infrastructure I'll drop ricky a note about switching although I think that group already has some strong and well respected candidates. |
|
|
|
|
Would it help to add some more network intelligence to NXT so it became more self-organising, so the nodes were more aware that they were part of a network and integrating into that network properly makes it stronger, rather than just being, well, nodes with some connections...
At the moment the network organisation of NXT is a mystery, I don't know if nodes look for nearest nodes, and optimum number of connections based on available bandwidth, or just grab hold of any node they happen to see.
Self optimising isn't complex - it just requires each node to be a 'good neighbour' - although in our network you need to re-define the location attributes which can be ip-addr, latency etc
Some of this I can see NXT nodes do from their behaviour, but not all of it, maybe I don't know the mechanics well enough and more is going on.
Anyway I don't know if its of interest but I thought I would add it to the mix, translating what I know of the mobile world this is what self-organising characteristics would look like;
Self Configuring means new nodes shall automatically be configured and integrated into the network. This means both connectivity establishment, and download of configuration parameters. When a new node is introduced into the network and powered on, it gets immediately recognized and registered by the network. The neighboring nodes (self optimising) would then automatically adjust their technical parameters in order to balance the required coverage and capacity, and, in the same time, avoid unnecessary conflict.
Self Optimising means each node adjusts its parameters to ensure it fits in with the its immediate network neighbourhood, based on observation of neighbouring nodes and its own traffic, for example in periods of over capacity the nodes could all configure a shared sleep time to take it in turns conserving energy when there is not enough work to justify the number that are in existence.
Self Healing means when one or more nodes in the network become inoperative, failure or ddos, self-healing mechanisms aim at reducing the impacts from the failure, for example by adjusting parameters and algorithms in adjacent nodes so that other nodes can support the users that were supported by the failing node.
|
|
|
|
But strictly speaking they could now win at that point because they were not the best ticket and they were probably not the next ticket so having to wait 1440 blocks is that really a penalty?
It really is a penalty as they now have no chance to forge a block for 24 hours (I wouldn't be surprised if people ended up modifying the software to "go to sleep" for 24 hours in that situation). Also it doesn't really matter being "the best" as we are building "chains" (the weight of the entire chain is what is best rather than each specific block in it). Yeah I think I would stop competing unless I was the best ticket because of the penalty... If that mod comes out that is not good for the network at all. |
|
|
|
But the other part, I don't get. Can you rephrase it?
Okay - so let's say that the best ticket for the next block should be #12345 and you have #12344 and someone else has #12346. If #12345 is not transmitted then nodes will accept your ticket or the other ticket instead (remember that each node in the network can't *see* everything at once so both you and the other node after a certain amount of time waiting to see #12345 decide it isn't going to appear and "try your luck"). So your node will send out #12344 and the other node will send out #12346. The network is happy to build on one of those new chains (lets assume that the "lower" ticket closest is always the best) so now #12346 will be "penalised". It hasn't hurt the network - it is fine to keep on building with your #12344 but it has now hurt #12346 as they can't forge for a day. Also network latency makes it impossible for you to be sure whether in fact #12345 has been sent or not (due to timing it may well have but your slow internet connection means that you didn't see it on time). So if #12345 actually had been broadcast but both you and the other forger just didn't see it quickly enough then now you are both penalised. I'm not sure I understand.... So if the node with #12345 is on a slow distant part of the network and #12344 is on a nice well connected bit, nodes will see #12344 first and accept it but then they see #12345 which is the overall best ticket and accept that instead, and #12344 and #12346 which tried and ultimately were rejected when #12345 turned up a few milliseconds later both get penalised and have to wait a minimum of 1440 blocks - is that right? But strictly speaking they could now win at that point because they were not the best ticket and they were probably not the next ticket so having to wait 1440 blocks is that really a penalty? |
|
|
|
IMO, forging is fine. In the future, there will be supernodes (service providers) that are basically be high-bandwidth pools people can lend their stake to. This won't be a problem of centralization, because NXT is resistant even against 90% attacks. So unless 1 single pool gets that much forging power, we will be fine. These high-bandwidth pools can support 1000+ TPS easily.
Panda - stating this is fine... we need the building blocks in place enable these to happen if this is the way it will be, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the 'super node', the issue with over centralisation is not attack but reliability of the network particularly if you are promising instant or near realtime transactions. So the way in which the network grows is important rewarding both the node providers and the stakeholders (and even someone with 1 NXT is a stakeholder) |
|
|
|
Finally, I think I understand a little better now. The question has been nagging at me regarding how big of a problem it would be if most Nxt users didn't bother with forging, which is what I think MOST people would not do if Nxt became a big enough thing (UNLESS it was made EXTREMELY easy to do) . As long as enough honest, large stakeholders are doing it then I guess that should not be a problem.
I hate to ask this, but have you guys examined or considered stealing some ideas from the way Ripple manages their system? Right now the "servers" are run by ripple Labs, but supposedly they will have users run them in the future. I wish I understood it better, but I know it has something to do with using a large enough and diverse enough pool of 'verifiers' that could not possibly collude with one another because people who don't know each other are incapable of coordinating in large numbers to do something dishonest, even if individually they are not trustworthy.
I wish I was more qualified to ask better questions, but all I know is that XRP is transmitted extremely quickly and there might be an idea or two to steal there. They seem to feel that a very very tiny transaction fee is enough to eliminate spamming.
As I posted a few pages back... its great NXT solves the problem of CPU for confirming transactions, but you still have the problem of network bandwidth and memory, now you can forge on your mobile but in future (when NXT is successful) unless you have the bandwidth you won't be able to keep up with the block download and it will fry your data plan and similarly you will chew through more of your home broadband plan. I don't think bandwidth will be a problem when clients can sign transactions locally and broadcast it to a public node. Most users with less than 1000 Nxt will not have to download the entire blockchain. They will run a lightweight client. The network will only need a few hundred nodes that will maintain (upload/download) the entire blockchain. Bandwidth will not be a problem This is not about signing - I understand that - clients can sign without any blocks as long as they can reach a public node - this is about Forging and the minimum requirements for a node to reliably forge if it is selected as the next forging node by TF - bandwidth is likely more relevant here. But if forging and signing are the same thing (I didnt understand them to be) then happy days... |
|
|
|
Finally, I think I understand a little better now. The question has been nagging at me regarding how big of a problem it would be if most Nxt users didn't bother with forging, which is what I think MOST people would not do if Nxt became a big enough thing (UNLESS it was made EXTREMELY easy to do) . As long as enough honest, large stakeholders are doing it then I guess that should not be a problem.
I hate to ask this, but have you guys examined or considered stealing some ideas from the way Ripple manages their system? Right now the "servers" are run by ripple Labs, but supposedly they will have users run them in the future. I wish I understood it better, but I know it has something to do with using a large enough and diverse enough pool of 'verifiers' that could not possibly collude with one another because people who don't know each other are incapable of coordinating in large numbers to do something dishonest, even if individually they are not trustworthy.
I wish I was more qualified to ask better questions, but all I know is that XRP is transmitted extremely quickly and there might be an idea or two to steal there. They seem to feel that a very very tiny transaction fee is enough to eliminate spamming.
As I posted a few pages back... its great NXT solves the problem of CPU for confirming transactions, but you still have the problem of network bandwidth and memory, now you can forge on your mobile but in future (when NXT is successful) unless you have the bandwidth you won't be able to keep up with the block download and it will fry your data plan and similarly you will chew through more of your home broadband plan. There will be more transactions and more rewards BUT while CPU will be low the data bandwidth demands will go up - not for a long time maybe but it will happen. I've forged about 13 blocks on my macbook since december, earned about 9 NXT but only 4 blocks had any fees because we have a lot of empty blocks right now. The concept of a decentralised network that anyone can join is great but it needs to have some QoS membership criteria for the nodes so that people can rely on the node and every node has the minimum strength to deliver if it were the next forging node. From what I have seen - so far no crypto has the potential to become a high performance network apart from this one (although I have not looked deep into Ripple) but that means the network has to grow in the right way with the demands on it. Ripple have done what they have done to ensure a QoS from the start (although I'm sure their are other reasons), as I understand it people other than Ripple can run servers but not many are right now. |
|
|
|
Good video, perhaps a typo though, " Mine Forge Nxt with your smartphone or raspberry pi" or did you use mine for attraction value to a newcomer You know how I know BCNext is not a native English speaker? A native English speaker never would have used the word "forge" positively in connection with currency. I dont believe bcnext came up with that term BCNext used "mining" as I recall. How about FOGRE to avoid any confusion... |
|
|
|
Just as a laugh, just tried to check the transfer time of some of my lovely NXT from account X to account Y. I pressed send on one open NRS with account X, then swapped tabs within Firefox and the NXT was already on account Y. Try that with Bitcoin.....
What and risk that transaction thing-a-ma-jig... No i'm keeping my bitcoin under the mattress from now on |
|
|
|
Just received...  On them adding NXT.. Thanks for finding the time to help them whoever the 'dev' was... |
|
|
|
I would like to see an adaptive overall network speed. This would maximize the effective throughput, while minimizing the max throughput we need to handle. Similar to dynamically allocating only the RAM you need, instead of allocating the max RAM you will ever need. A cost savings of 2 to 10 is possible, depending on usage spikes.
If the network tells which nodes in advance that they will get work then.. You would put power management into the nodes so they would use less resources when not needed If the network sees that forging would exceed the scope of a single node then it should split the work across more than one and we support more than one node forging in parallel in some way If this were possible sooner rather than later that would be good because assuming NXT takes off it will place less pressure on us having lots of nodes of a minimum spec to keep up with the need to receive, forge and broadcast. This would be because we could move to parallel transparent forging or transparent parallel forging - not sure which it is or whether it matters what we call it. Minimizing bandwidth by going to binary format, blockchain pruning or blockchain FIFO for non-hallmark nodes, etc, etc.
On bandwidth - binary will help but you could implement a simple compression protocol as a post process on the JSON rather than removing it - its not as efficient a pure binary but you can achieve 70%+ bandwidth reduction compressing text which is why network companies sell H/W to do this but you can do it in SW - just need to pick an inline compression algo. Cheaper too because you don't have to change all your SW because you can test using text and then just layer on the compression in live operation or last testing stages. Blockchain pruning - I think current/archive might be a better way of looking at it. These are financial transactions, maybe you never want to destroy them. Why can't we define an archiving point for a node, or the max age that the node stores the block chain into. the intelligence that when you can't follow a reference in the chain you can query an archive node and maybe a node just has an age parameter and beyond this age it doesn't store the chain but knows a node which does and/or maybe nodes broadcast the age of the chain they store and maybe this gives them some forging benefit for storing it all and also nodes then know where to go for the data. We just then need a few core nodes who store everything and then a standard age depending on the size and important of a node in the network. Cant remember what FIFO is. |
|
|
|
I have donated 2,100,000NXT to entities you will learn about in the following 3 weeks!
You hear me Anon??? Is it what we talked about a couple of weeks ago on Skype? Yeap  You bought Greece and are renaming it Nxtland? Nah - too much NXT for that... |
|
|
|
You know how I know BCNext is not a native English speaker? A native English speaker never would have used the word "forge" positively in connection with currency.
+1000. This is a real problem for anybody learning about NXT for the first time. There is a valid and legitimate use in English for "forger" as being "one who heats and works metal", like a blacksmith. But the FAR MORE COMMON use of "forger" in English is "one who creates fake documents, particularly financial ones". Or he has a very good understanding of english and knows the double-entendre very well. I doubt that any double-entendre has been in anyone's mind. Is it too late to name the concepts again? These names has been commented earlier, too. Eg. forgery has only negative meanings. The simple mistake of confusing forgery and forging is being made here. Very different. A native english speaker would differentiate easily, and the double-entendre would be found amusing - but you need to be careful when translating.... |
|
|
|
You know how I know BCNext is not a native English speaker? A native English speaker never would have used the word "forge" positively in connection with currency.
+1000. This is a real problem for anybody learning about NXT for the first time. There is a valid and legitimate use in English for "forger" as being "one who heats and works metal", like a blacksmith. But the FAR MORE COMMON use of "forger" in English is "one who creates fake documents, particularly financial ones". Or he has a very good understanding of english and knows the double-entendre very well. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
