NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Pablito89]

my 2 public vps with 1gb ram are stucking at 23361
no problems with the 2gb hallmarked

are we sure 1gb is enough?

now i'm going to restore again blockchains...

[1713514512]

1713514512

[allwelder]

NXT is not on coinmarketcap.com again.

[OKNXT]

@ ferment  I sent 20,000 nxt to your donation address, 18000 for 6 nodes...2000 for your efforts..get to work 

HA! Thank you. That almost makes another 10 for the yet-to-be-determined data center.

Votes? Hong Kong, Sydney, Europe?

Good times!

Hong Kong!

I suggest add more nodes in Asia. I have set up node in US, and I'll try to add nodes in Asia.

Donations are welcome.

[bitcoinrocks]

Is anyone else having way too much fun?

[bizz]

NXT is not on coinmarketcap.com again.

it will be back:

btw, I'm having issues with the dgex.com API,  so if you see Nxt popping in and out, that's why.

[2Kool4Skewl]

HALLMARK WEIGHTING PROBLEM

ZjP and I were discussing the implications of the hallmark weighting algorithm on blockchain propagation.  We believe that the hallmark weighting algo is actually detrimental to the network staying synced and preventing DDoS attacks.  The nodes that are marked with higher balances are being repeatedly bombarded with requests for the blockchain even if they are already saturated with requests and non-responsive.  The smaller balance or zero balance nodes never try to sync with nodes which have a lower hallmark weighting or no hallmark weighting.  This results in the higher weighted nodes, which are currently the backbone of the system, being overrun and taken out.  If you are running non-hallmarked servers to try to boost the network's stability, you are actually causing more damage because you are straining the already overloaded nodes that have a large weight.

If the hallmark weight system were to be removed, the network would view each node, regardless of it's balance, as equal and distribute the workload across entire network, instead of concentrating the entire network's requests on a few heavily weighted nodes.  This would mitigate the DDoS attack because they be forced to try to take out more targets instead of being able to only target a few large balance nodes and bring the network to a halt.

Also, it seems that whenever the blockchain gets a bad block, you have to delete and re-download the entire blockchain to resync.  A proper resync only occurs if the blockchain pauses, but doesn't download a bad block.

Come-from-beyond, can you please relay this information to BCNext?  What are your thoughts?  I hope the source code is release asap, so these problems can get sorted out quickly.

[Pablito89]

HALLMARK WEIGHTING PROBLEM

ZjP and I were discussing the implications of the hallmark weighting algorithm on blockchain propagation.  We believe that the hallmark weighting algo is actually detrimental to the network staying synced and preventing DDoS attacks.  The nodes that are marked with higher balances are being repeatedly bombarded with requests for the blockchain even if they are already saturated with requests and non-responsive.  The smaller balance or zero balance nodes never try to sync with nodes which have a lower hallmark weighting or no hallmark weighting.  This results in the higher weighted nodes, which are currently the backbone of the system, being overrun and taken out.  If you are running non-hallmarked servers to try to boost the network's stability, you are actually causing more damage because you are straining the already overloaded nodes that have a large weight.

If the hallmark weight system were to be removed, the network would view each node, regardless of it's balance, as equal and distribute the workload across entire network, instead of concentrating the entire network's requests on a few heavily weighted nodes.  This would mitigate the DDoS attack because they be forced to try to take out more targets instead of being able to only target a few large balance nodes and bring the network to a halt.

Also, it seems that whenever the blockchain gets a bad block, you have to delete and re-download the entire blockchain to resync.  A proper resync only occurs if the blockchain pauses, but doesn't download a bad block.

Come-from-beyond, can you please relay this information to BCNext?  What are your thoughts?  I hope the source code is release asap, so these problems can get sorted out quickly.

hmmm probabilly into the actual situation, removing of the hallmark system is the best solution... isn't?

[OKNXT]

HALLMARK WEIGHTING PROBLEM

ZjP and I were discussing the implications of the hallmark weighting algorithm on blockchain propagation.  We believe that the hallmark weighting algo is actually detrimental to the network staying synced and preventing DDoS attacks.  The nodes that are marked with higher balances are being repeatedly bombarded with requests for the blockchain even if they are already saturated with requests and non-responsive.  The smaller balance or zero balance nodes never try to sync with nodes which have a lower hallmark weighting or no hallmark weighting.  This results in the higher weighted nodes, which are currently the backbone of the system, being overrun and taken out.  If you are running non-hallmarked servers to try to boost the network's stability, you are actually causing more damage because you are straining the already overloaded nodes that have a large weight.

If the hallmark weight system were to be removed, the network would view each node, regardless of it's balance, as equal and distribute the workload across entire network, instead of concentrating the entire network's requests on a few heavily weighted nodes.  This would mitigate the DDoS attack because they be forced to try to take out more targets instead of being able to only target a few large balance nodes and bring the network to a halt.

Also, it seems that whenever the blockchain gets a bad block, you have to delete and re-download the entire blockchain to resync.  A proper resync only occurs if the blockchain pauses, but doesn't download a bad block.

Come-from-beyond, can you please relay this information to BCNext?  What are your thoughts?  I hope the source code is release asap, so these problems can get sorted out quickly.

So you means that it's the hallmark system caused the DDoS, right?

Any reference on hallmark algorithm?

[Pablito89]

i power off my vps no-hallmarked then... waiting for a solution

[eB101]

I know DDOSers are being squashed, but can someone answer my question about aliases?
Are they done?
Are they still able to be made? I made one last night, it was confirmed in my transactions,
I believe my blockchain is updated now.. and now it's gone, and when i try to search for it under.
http://localhost:7874/nxt?requestType=getAlias&alias=(my transaction ID saved)
I get..

{"errorCode":5,"errorDescription":"Unknown alias"}

Another one I made today just froze on server response (understandable now with the attacks)

Even though the first one was confirmed previously, did it get lost?
kinda lame.
If this is all just moot due to recent events ok... but 25000 coming up soon. seems like alias didn't go smoothly. heh.

AS should work just fine, I keep having fun and I'm actually surprised to find many good ones still open.. Its possible that the one you chose just got passed to someone else with higher fee (would be strange at this time though). Did you check your balance to see any anomaly? I would try again with a very random name and 1 nxt fee, see if you get it

[Pablito89]

HALLMARK WEIGHTING PROBLEM

ZjP and I were discussing the implications of the hallmark weighting algorithm on blockchain propagation.  We believe that the hallmark weighting algo is actually detrimental to the network staying synced and preventing DDoS attacks.  The nodes that are marked with higher balances are being repeatedly bombarded with requests for the blockchain even if they are already saturated with requests and non-responsive.  The smaller balance or zero balance nodes never try to sync with nodes which have a lower hallmark weighting or no hallmark weighting.  This results in the higher weighted nodes, which are currently the backbone of the system, being overrun and taken out.  If you are running non-hallmarked servers to try to boost the network's stability, you are actually causing more damage because you are straining the already overloaded nodes that have a large weight.

If the hallmark weight system were to be removed, the network would view each node, regardless of it's balance, as equal and distribute the workload across entire network, instead of concentrating the entire network's requests on a few heavily weighted nodes.  This would mitigate the DDoS attack because they be forced to try to take out more targets instead of being able to only target a few large balance nodes and bring the network to a halt.

Also, it seems that whenever the blockchain gets a bad block, you have to delete and re-download the entire blockchain to resync.  A proper resync only occurs if the blockchain pauses, but doesn't download a bad block.

Come-from-beyond, can you please relay this information to BCNext?  What are your thoughts?  I hope the source code is release asap, so these problems can get sorted out quickly.

what i understood:

i have 3 vps, 2 not hallmarked and 1 hallmarked

best solution:

destroy the 2 not hallmarked vps and upgrade the hallmarked one to a stronger vps.

right?

[matt4054]

hmmm probabilly into the actual situation, removing of the hallmark system is the best solution... isn't?

Removing it, and/or re-implementing it in a DDoS-proof way, as much as possible, like introducing scoring over time that would require a much longer and sustained DDoS to affect the scoring.

[Pablito89]

destroyed my 2 not hallmarked vps
upgraded my hallmarked vps to a 4gb vps

when and if the hallmark system will be revisited or removed i'll set up vps as required

my hallmark is not so much strong (not so many NXT) but if someone wanna make him taller...

[Damelon]

I had no problems all day, but now I earlier in the evening chains stopped coming in.

I tried stopping java, removing blocks.nxt, but now I don't even get peers anymore.

I'm on 0.4.2.

Any suggestions?

[opticalcarrier]

on my VPSs, its not necessary to unlock an account on it, is it?  shouldnt I just be able to hallmark it and  start java and as long as it syncs the chain, I should be ok, right?

and if anyone is using a VPS provider that offers reverse DNS for their static IP, if you want a custom nxtcrypto.org DNS name, PM me with your desired hostname, for example "opticalcarrier1.vps.nxtcrypto.org". 

This WILL NOT WORK with VPSs that are already created, unless you really know linux and can change files around.  I dont have time for a tutorial for that now, so this will just be for new instances of VPSs.  Dont bother unless its for a new VPS or you will break other things in your VPS

The only provider I know FOR SURE that supports this is digital ocean, and when you create the VPS, just give it the hostname that I give you, the entire thing.  then in web.xml youll use that DNS hostname in place of the static IP.  and you will also use the DNS name in the hallmark creation instead of the IP address.  And then PM me your hostname and static and Ill add it to my nameservers.

[Kmonk]

it will be back

NXT keeps appearing n disappearing on this site + loses over $10,000,000 in Market Cap, can someone please explain what's happening here?

[2Kool4Skewl]

HALLMARK WEIGHTING PROBLEM

ZjP and I were discussing the implications of the hallmark weighting algorithm on blockchain propagation.  We believe that the hallmark weighting algo is actually detrimental to the network staying synced and preventing DDoS attacks.  The nodes that are marked with higher balances are being repeatedly bombarded with requests for the blockchain even if they are already saturated with requests and non-responsive.  The smaller balance or zero balance nodes never try to sync with nodes which have a lower hallmark weighting or no hallmark weighting.  This results in the higher weighted nodes, which are currently the backbone of the system, being overrun and taken out.  If you are running non-hallmarked servers to try to boost the network's stability, you are actually causing more damage because you are straining the already overloaded nodes that have a large weight.

If the hallmark weight system were to be removed, the network would view each node, regardless of it's balance, as equal and distribute the workload across entire network, instead of concentrating the entire network's requests on a few heavily weighted nodes.  This would mitigate the DDoS attack because they be forced to try to take out more targets instead of being able to only target a few large balance nodes and bring the network to a halt.

Also, it seems that whenever the blockchain gets a bad block, you have to delete and re-download the entire blockchain to resync.  A proper resync only occurs if the blockchain pauses, but doesn't download a bad block.

Come-from-beyond, can you please relay this information to BCNext?  What are your thoughts?  I hope the source code is release asap, so these problems can get sorted out quickly.

So you means that it's the hallmark system caused the DDoS, right?

Any reference on hallmark algorithm?

ZjP and I believe the hallmark system made the DDoS much worse.  This is because currently all the servers request information from the largest hallmarked nodes.  If the attacker can overwhelm the few large hallmarked nodes, he can bring the network to a halt, because the large hallmarked nodes can no longer process legitimate requests from non-attacking nodes.  The nodes with small hallmarks or no hallmarks never request information from each other.  They solely rely on the larger hallmarked nodes.  This is why hallmarking makes the system more vulnerable to attack.  It creates fewer attack targets which makes the network easier to bring down.  If hallmarking is eliminated, then all our nodes would have equal weight and the attacker would not have a few centralized nodes to attack.  If the attacker managed to overwhelm some nodes, it wouldn't matter because other nodes could fulfill those requests.  He would have to bring down a significant number of nodes to even affect the network.  This would be harder to accomplish as the network grows.

[2Kool4Skewl]

hmmm probabilly into the actual situation, removing of the hallmark system is the best solution... isn't?

Yes, we believe removing the hallmark system will fix the problem, because then all the requests will be more evenly distributed across all the nodes on the network.

[2Kool4Skewl]

what i understood:

i have 3 vps, 2 not hallmarked and 1 hallmarked

best solution:

destroy the 2 not hallmarked vps and upgrade the hallmarked one to a stronger vps.

right?

Yes, destroy the 2 not hallmarked nodes.  These nodes simply put additional stress on the hallmarked nodes.  The hallmarked nodes are already stressed from regular network usage and application level DDoS attack.  The non-hallmarked nodes are not being used by any other nodes for synchronization.  They do not help alleviate the workload on the other nodes.  They actually add unneeded work on the prioritized (hallmarked) nodes which is detrimental to the network.

[OKNXT]

HALLMARK WEIGHTING PROBLEM

ZjP and I were discussing the implications of the hallmark weighting algorithm on blockchain propagation.  We believe that the hallmark weighting algo is actually detrimental to the network staying synced and preventing DDoS attacks.  The nodes that are marked with higher balances are being repeatedly bombarded with requests for the blockchain even if they are already saturated with requests and non-responsive.  The smaller balance or zero balance nodes never try to sync with nodes which have a lower hallmark weighting or no hallmark weighting.  This results in the higher weighted nodes, which are currently the backbone of the system, being overrun and taken out.  If you are running non-hallmarked servers to try to boost the network's stability, you are actually causing more damage because you are straining the already overloaded nodes that have a large weight.

If the hallmark weight system were to be removed, the network would view each node, regardless of it's balance, as equal and distribute the workload across entire network, instead of concentrating the entire network's requests on a few heavily weighted nodes.  This would mitigate the DDoS attack because they be forced to try to take out more targets instead of being able to only target a few large balance nodes and bring the network to a halt.

Also, it seems that whenever the blockchain gets a bad block, you have to delete and re-download the entire blockchain to resync.  A proper resync only occurs if the blockchain pauses, but doesn't download a bad block.

Come-from-beyond, can you please relay this information to BCNext?  What are your thoughts?  I hope the source code is release asap, so these problems can get sorted out quickly.

So you means that it's the hallmark system caused the DDoS, right?

Any reference on hallmark algorithm?

ZjP and I believe the hallmark system made the DDoS much worse.  This is because currently all the servers request information from the largest hallmarked nodes.  If the attacker can overwhelm the few large hallmarked nodes, he can bring the network to a halt, because the large hallmarked nodes can no longer process legitimate requests from non-attacking nodes.  The nodes with small hallmarks or no hallmarks never request information from each other.  They solely rely on the larger hallmarked nodes.  This is why hallmarking makes the system more vulnerable to attack.  It creates fewer attack targets which makes the network easier to bring down.  If hallmarking is eliminated, then all our nodes would have equal weight and the attacker would not have a few centralized nodes to attack.  If the attacker managed to overwhelm some nodes, it wouldn't matter because other nodes could fulfill those requests.  He would have to bring down a significant number of nodes to even affect the network.  This would be harder to accomplish as the network grows.

Yes, I followed your thought. On the other hand, apart from removing hallmark, what else we can do to improve it so as to resistant to DDoS? A dynamic self adjustment hallmark score based on the network?