NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[martismartis]

Returning back to my public node errors, I see, that my public node is in known peers list, not in active peers. Also in this list my node has version ?(?)@? Maybe from here comes problems?

[Damelon]

On behalf of the Songs of Love Foundation, I would like to than the Nxt community for helping top raise much needed funding for our mission of music. For the last 18 years we have enhanced the lives of sick children and teens by giving them their very own personalized "songs of love". Over 24,000 children have been helped all across the world. You can see us in action on the 60 Minutes News Program at:
www.songsoflove.org/60minutes. Songs of Love and Nxt....making beautiful music together for the children who need a reason to smile.


John Beltzer
President and Founder
Songs of Love Foundation

Thanks for taking the time to post here.
Hopefully it will be a success :-)

[martismartis]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

Chuckone, in which list do you see your node and what version is showing near it?

[iruu]

Nxt is mentioned here - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2393940 (It Will Cost You Nothing to 'Kill' a Proof-of-Stake Crypto-Currency)

Resume of this paper: All PoS coins will die except Nxt coz it's 90% attack-proof.

It doesn't matter how many coins are needed for destruction in his model, even 99.9% attack-proof currency would fall.  
It doesn't matter for NXT and other PoS currencies, because it's a ridiculous model.  

Short summary:
Each unit has a known, true value.  
Holders are willing to sell their coins at higher price than their real value.
An attacker has enough money to buy enough coins (using "true" valuation) to destroy the currency.  
Because he can do it, everyone sells his coins for nothing, because if he does buy the coins, anyone left holding will lose money. This causes the price to go to zero.
Therefore, it costs nothing to destroy any PoS currency.  

pure genius. let's sell nxt, everyone.

[ChuckOne]

Chuckone, in which list do you see your node and what version is showing near it?

Which lists? I cannot see myself in the NRS. But I run 0.7.5.

[jkoil]

Code:

		for (w = 0, i = 0; i < 32; i++)
			w |= v[i] = tmp1[i];

Is my pascal version correct?

Code:

w:=0;
for i:=0 to 31 do
begin
  v[i]:= tmp1[i];
  w:=w OR v[i];
end;

What exactly is the "if (i==0) { i=0;}" supposed to do???

looks fine, but are you sure your Pascal compiler supports 0 as an array index?
(Can't remember if the starting index could be set ...)

What exactly is the "if (i==0) { i=0;}" supposed to do???

that looks like a place for a "conditional" breakpoint for debugging ...  unless someone had wanted to adjust some timing in the loop

[EvilDave]

Forgive me for having a little too much joy hearing this politically correct answer/reply from BitonicNL on twitter when asked whether they are going to start selling NXT for Euros! I have been buying bitcoins regularly from this site and is a happy customer.

Here is the tweet: https://twitter.com/Bitonicnl/statuses/435398282617966592

Wow!
This would be great!
Bitonic is very good and dependable :-)

Yup, got BTC from them. Utterly sweet and trouble free (God, ilove iDeal)
Their answer is probably "No/Maybe", though.

@Rickyjames: check out the peer explorer thread on nextcoin.org:
https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,2266.0.html
For some insight into NXTs infrastructure.
I'm pretty certain that there are a lot of nodes not showing up on PeerExplorer. My private node isn't there at all,for example, maybe because its behind a NAT firewall. It'd be interesting to find out precisely what we have running right now, and how we need to expand on it.
I remember the 1000 TPS debate from a week or 2 ago, did we make any conclusions/decisions on network capacity ?


and, just for laughs, heres a block check:

68877      15401440438959943842      maandag 17 februari 2014 23:45:56   
      
      0      0 + 0      0 B   
      
      2      11632566965275100174      166 %   
   

[ChuckOne]

68877      15401440438959943842      maandag 17 februari 2014 23:45:56   
      
      0      0 + 0      0 B   
      
      2      11632566965275100174      166 %   
   

Confirmed.

[martismartis]

Chuckone, in which list do you see your node and what version is showing near it?

Which lists? I cannot see myself in the NRS. But I run 0.7.5.

What is your public node address?

[Anon136]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

[jl777]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

[brooklynbtc]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

[brooklynbtc]

also, in relation to my "not enough funds"

when I try to log into the testnet from NRS, I see a balance of -5

but the transactions themselves don't add up

2/17/2014 2:46:15 PM      4940924250576724047                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:23:50 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:19:23 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:19:23 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:19:23 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:53:01 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:53:01 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:48:08 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:47:47 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:42:17 PM      1739068987193023818                  1'000      10+   
2/17/2014 12:32:52 PM      4940924250576724047            5'000      5      10+   
2/16/2014 3:35:45 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/16/2014 3:20:02 PM      4940924250576724047            1'000      1      10+   

[ChuckOne]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

IIRC, TF includes something like a penalty to accounts that were too late forging. From the perspective of a node, not forging and the forged block arrived too late are indistinguishable.
That penalty is supposed to prevent selfish mining.

Okay, let's go deeper:

Let's assume, one part of the network underwent 1) and the other part underwent 2) (because of network latency). We now have a partition of the network in nodes (say N1) having A on top and in nodes (say N2) having B on top.

How do we solve that?

[jl777]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

I need to be able to access the API directly. http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?... returns nothing

I also need some testNXT

[Come-from-Beyond]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

IIRC, TF includes something like a penalty to accounts that were too late forging. From the perspective of a node, not forging and the forged block arrived too late are indistinguishable.
That penalty is supposed to prevent selfish mining.

Okay, let's go deeper:

Let's assume, one part of the network underwent 1) and the other part underwent 2) (because of network latency). We now have a partition of the network in nodes (say N1) having A on top and in nodes (say N2) having B on top.

How do we solve that?

Next block will let to choose the winner.

[Anon136]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

IIRC, TF includes something like a penalty to accounts that were too late forging. From the perspective of a node, not forging and the forged block arrived too late are indistinguishable.
That penalty is supposed to prevent selfish mining.

Okay, let's go deeper:

Let's assume, one part of the network underwent 1) and the other part underwent 2) (because of network latency). We now have a partition of the network in nodes (say N1) having A on top and in nodes (say N2) having B on top.

How do we solve that?

Subtract all of the targets on chain a, subtract all of the targets on chain b, see which number is larger.

[brooklynbtc]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

I need to be able to access the API directly. http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?... returns nothing

I also need some testNXT

https://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/ works for me

except im -5.. so maybe its not working

[xyzzyx]

CfB (or anybody that knows)

What is the best way to invoke API from C?
I just need one example of the right way, eg. is it using curl, if so can you post exact syntax

Thanks

James

I've used libsoup and json-glib to access the API successfully from C.

[jl777]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

I need to be able to access the API directly. http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?... returns nothing

I also need some testNXT

https://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/ works for me

except im -5.. so maybe its not working

I get "curl_easy_perform() failed: Server returned nothing (no headers, no data)" for all requests done from C program
It also fails when I put "http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?requestType=getState" in the browser

Ah, but https gets certificate warning from broswer
curl_easy_perform() failed: Peer certificate cannot be authenticated with given CA certificates
 from C program. gotta figure out how to make it ignore bad certificate