NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Eadeqa]

  * 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

[1714926071]

1714926071

[1714926071]

1714926071

[Domino]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuZH3a5MKik

Last but not least: Now on mynxt.org and nxtclients.org

Nice!!

[marcus03]

  * 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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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"

[ChuckOne]

I work on a model for that.

Please do.

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

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).

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]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuZH3a5MKik

Last but not least: Now on mynxt.org and nxtclients.org

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

[punkrock]

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

Official selling thread

[Mario123]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuZH3a5MKik

Last but not least: Now on mynxt.org and nxtclients.org

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

[ChuckOne]

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]

(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

[ChuckOne]

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. So we can cross out that approach and focus on other ones.

[bitcoinpaul]

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]

Also uploading...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qi5r9kajDI&feature=youtu.be

Done!

http://youtu.be/_qi5r9kajDI

great work, tweeted

[Come-from-Beyond]

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]

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]

- 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]

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.