Bitcoin Forum
May 18, 2024, 10:15:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 [1980] 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 ... 2557 »
  Print  
Author Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information  (Read 2761532 times)
Eadeqa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:27:05 PM
 #39581


  * Currently a static list of public nodes that allow API calls from anyone from the text file public_nodes.txt is used.
  * NRS and Java are now longer distributed with NRS Solaris.
  * You will get a warning in the secret input dialog if the secret is transmitted over http to the remote NRS node (only with start/stop forging).


"Forging" buttons should be disabled by default if the user is not connected to localhost (or 192.68.*.*)  IP

That will eliminate the risk of new users sending their passwords to public nodes

Nomi, Shan, Adnan, Noshi, Nxt, Adn Khn
NXT-GZYP-FMRT-FQ9K-3YQGS
https://github.com/Lafihh/encryptiontest
Domino
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 662
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:30:35 PM
 #39582


Nice!!

marcus03
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:33:11 PM
 #39583


  * Currently a static list of public nodes that allow API calls from anyone from the text file public_nodes.txt is used.
  * NRS and Java are now longer distributed with NRS Solaris.
  * You will get a warning in the secret input dialog if the secret is transmitted over http to the remote NRS node (only with start/stop forging).


"Forging" buttons should be disabled by default if the user is not connected to localhost (or 192.68.*.*)  IP

That will eliminate the risk of new users sending their passwords to public nodes

I thought about this, too, but you could still have your private, trusted NRS running on a remote host.

Maybe I'll add an option for this, so that you would need to actively enable the buttons for remote hosts.
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:35:12 PM
 #39584

Code:
[2014-03-02 00:46:15.186] DEBUG: Invalid peer address: olne.dynip.com
java.net.UnknownHostException: olne.dynip.com
at java.net.Inet4AddressImpl.lookupAllHostAddr(Native Method)
at java.net.InetAddress$1.lookupAllHostAddr(InetAddress.java:894)
at java.net.InetAddress.getAddressesFromNameService(InetAddress.java:1286)
at java.net.InetAddress.getAllByName0(InetAddress.java:1239)
at java.net.InetAddress.getAllByName(InetAddress.java:1155)
at java.net.InetAddress.getAllByName(InetAddress.java:1091)
at java.net.InetAddress.getByName(InetAddress.java:1041)
at nxt.peer.Peers.addPeer(Peers.java:372)
at nxt.peer.Peers$3.run(Peers.java:302)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:471)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(FutureTask.java:304)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:178)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:293)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:724)
zorke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:35:46 PM
 #39585

Let's keep these two close together:

1)

- build a great gateway á la james
- work hard on AT and atomic cross chain transactions

Without a doubt if we can achieve atomic cross-chain txs then we will have basically got rid of the business model for all exchanges that don't do fiat.

IMO "this is our job".

The future will not be centralised!


So could some stakeholders put the biggest chunk of bounty in history of mankind out there for atomic cross chain transaction on nxt please? During this time (this will take a while?!) we should have the best community driven gateway possible, which james is currently building.

+ to da moon

2)

So could some stakeholders put the biggest chunk of bounty in history of mankind out there for atomic cross chain transaction on nxt please? During this time (this will take a while?!) we should have the best community driven gateway possible, which james is currently building.
OK.
3M NXT (up to 5M for additional features) for atomic cross chain transactions.
Conditions:
a) working client for average user;
b) official approve of all three NXT Funding Committees;
c) fully working asset exchange;
d) working transparent forging in the part marked bold:
NB: The only penalty is inability to mine blocks within some period of time. They still can decide not to bother with mining, but their "hashing" power will be distributed to those who do protect the network.
Last two conditions are my conditions to stop holding investment in 50M NXT.

+1
mkmen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:39:57 PM
 #39586

Good news everyone.
Video already done, you can download it from this topic:
https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,3981.msg37555.html#msg37555

slick as f**k, great work
chanc3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 253



View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:47:22 PM
 #39587

- build a great gateway á la james
- work hard on AT and atomic cross chain transactions
Without a doubt if we can achieve atomic cross-chain txs then we will have basically got rid of the business model for all exchanges that don't do fiat.
IMO "this is our job".
The future will not be centralised!
So could some stakeholders put the biggest chunk of bounty in history of mankind out there for atomic cross chain transaction on nxt please? During this time (this will take a while?!) we should have the best community driven gateway possible, which james is currently building.
+ to da moon
Moooooooon.....one small step for Nxt...one giant leap for Nxters.
I'm a Buzz Light Year Fan.... "To Infinity and Beyond" Cheesy

ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 07:56:54 PM
 #39588

I work on a model for that.

Please do.

I hate my schedule these days. NXT is so much more interesting. Cheesy

Have you posted results with the penalty model? I may have missed them. Could you point me to them?

I did not as the attempts to model this in my simulator all came out with "disastrous" results (which are likely just due to the simulator so would not be of any value at all).

Alright. Hmm, so, we have no empirical data so far.

So, it will lead to a split network and that might open doors for an even bigger attack. Splitting the network into smaller and smaller chunks. Until new nodes only become part of a little branch of the DAG.

Frequent forks are *expected* to occur in a system with (compared to Bitcoin) fast confirmation times (BCNext said that in his introductory post).

Quote

Do you refer to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316104.0 ? I think,

How do CfB expect the network to converge if a node stick to a branch of the block graph?


By "fragmenting" the forks all over the place it will actually reduce the effectiveness of such attacks.


Why is that? Malicious nodes could spread forks all over the place and generate blocks very easily on top (because it's PoS not PoW) at the same time to suppress branches from other nodes.
crazybonkers
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:03:23 PM
 #39589


Wow! That has got to be the best cryptocurrency info video I have seen. Amazing work.

YinCoin YangCoin ☯☯First Ever POS/POW Alternator! Multipool! ☯ ☯ http://yinyangpool.com/ 
Free Distribution! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623937
Bwincoin - 100% Free POS. BGMvuxaH47mwfQJ7iZ6tgJipB1XQLRhFCP
punkrock
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 808
Merit: 1011



View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:03:48 PM
 #39590

Selling NXTpool.net (incl. all social media accounts like Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and Youtube)

Official selling thread
Mario123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2014, 08:04:12 PM
 #39591


For the sake of decentralization also on vimeo: http://vimeo.com/87997667 Grin

ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:04:34 PM
 #39592

So could some stakeholders put the biggest chunk of bounty in history of mankind out there for atomic cross chain transaction on nxt please? During this time (this will take a while?!) we should have the best community driven gateway possible, which james is currently building.
OK.
3M NXT (up to 5M for additional features) for atomic cross chain transactions.
Conditions:
a) working client for average user;
b) official approve of all three NXT Funding Committees;
c) fully working asset exchange;
d) working transparent forging in the part marked bold:
NB: The only penalty is inability to mine blocks within some period of time. They still can decide not to bother with mining, but their "hashing" power will be distributed to those who do protect the network.
Last two conditions are my conditions to stop holding investment in 50M NXT.

You got my full support for each of these conditions.

+1440.

(except I can prove that penalty model opens the gate for other attacks or is no effective mean of preventing 90% attacks)
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:06:28 PM
 #39593

(except I can prove that penalty model opens the gate for other attacks or is no effective mean of preventing 90% attacks)

Math guys, please model this, we need some data Smiley
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:09:35 PM
 #39594

We were discussing TF the last days and right now it seems like there wouldn't be any penalization regarding non-forging accounts. We want TF to be as good as possible. As long as big accounts do not forge, the other accounts have automatically better chances to forge. Is that what you meant?

That is not decided, yet. We need a mathematical model and proof of that. Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.

If you can help, please, provide a proof that penalty is not working. Smiley So we can cross out that approach and focus on other ones.
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:10:53 PM
 #39595

Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.

Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.
arafel71
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 51
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:13:10 PM
 #39596

great work, tweeted
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:13:42 PM
 #39597

Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.

Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.

BCNext used a wrong word. Actually it's not a penalty, it's a trick to bump forging power of the other accounts back to 100%.
chanc3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 253



View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:17:51 PM
 #39598

Just stating that other approaches could work because people do not like penalty, is leading nowhere.

Never said that. I said "it seems like"... I want mathematical proof, too.

BCNext used a wrong word. Actually it's not a penalty, it's a trick to bump forging power of the other accounts back to 100%.

Are you basically saying that preventing a node from forging for a period is essentially preventing a node forging or preventing an account forging.

I assume its preventing an account forging not the actual NRS instance i.e. its like the account had an effective balance of ZERO - that also explains the 24h because its 1440 blocks for an account balance to become effective again.

This would also automatically increase the forging of the remaining nodes because that NXT would not be included in the total able to forge.

Have I understood it right?

Therefore if an account was penalised you could log another account into that node and it would still have a chance to forge.

ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:22:33 PM
 #39599

- build a great gateway á la james
- work hard on AT and atomic cross chain transactions

Without a doubt if we can achieve atomic cross-chain txs then we will have basically got rid of the business model for all exchanges that don't do fiat.

IMO "this is our job".

The future will not be centralised!


I could not agree more with you.

@CfB
Any internal plans for that feature in NXT?
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 02, 2014, 08:26:19 PM
 #39600

Therefore if an account was penalised you could log another account into that node and it would still have a chance to forge.

Correct. The account gives up its forging power in favor of other accounts. The node is completely irrelevant.
Pages: « 1 ... 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 [1980] 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 ... 2557 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!