Nxt source code flaw reports

[CIYAM]

Perhaps I am not quite getting exactly what the "threat" is.

Is it that "lazy forger's" are not going to bother including transactions (other than their own) *despite* the fact that they get rewarded with fees?

I can't see why anyone would do this - and we could always introduce some sort of penalty (like the "skipped your turn penalty") for those that only forge blocks with their own txs.

[1715469422]

1715469422

[1715469422]

1715469422

[BloodyRookie]

Perhaps I am not quite getting exactly what the "threat" is.

Is it that "lazy forger's" are not going to bother including transactions (other than their own) *despite* the fact that they get rewarded with fees?

I can't see why anyone would do this - and we could always introduce some sort of penalty (like the "skipped your turn penalty") for those that only forge blocks with their own txs.

Yes, if you only get fees from the last block, you can add the new transactions to the current block if you allowed to forge or you can make the next forger angry by not including them. Including a penalty for such an impolite action makes the code more complex.

[opticalcarrier]

can someone tell me which debian packages will provide libraries required to javac the 0.4.7e source?  looks like I need ability to import servlet and JSON objects for the java compile but I dont have them - not sure which packages provide them

[CIYAM]

Yes, if you only get fees from the last block, you can add the new transactions to the current block if you allowed to forge or you can make the next forger angry by not including them. Including a penalty for such an impolite action makes the code more complex.

And that's why I think that the idea you forge for the "previous" guy won't work and the best compromise (if we don't just stick with what we have currently) would have to be something like a 50/50 thing.

[perl]

CIYAM Open,

The problem is same !

Actualy, why I  forge a block without transaction? ( no gain )
My proposal, why I forge a block without transaction in block precedent? ( no gain )

All simply because, I have nothing to lose has forge it and advance the network.

Your idea of 50/50 is really bad for me.
You are make more complex code and algo.
And Nothing will be resolved

Not hoped punish the counterfeiter, but remove all interest make counterfeiter.

The race was the armament is still lost

Good luck for find nodes to punished .

If you start race was the armament:
Appear , networks of evil nodes says one or more innoncent big account does not play games.
The network punish the innocent big account. And network evil node can forge more and more block

For the moment, NXT is still the child garden.
But when the NXT will be $ 1 or more. It will be in the big leagues

Decision of today will get that tomorrow it will be or not be
     
This is my point of view and I want that the NXT is a success.

[CIYAM]

You are not understanding something so I'll try to make it clearer:

If my block rewards go to someone else then why would I ever forge?

So - if we implement your idea then ZERO forging occurs and Nxt is killed!

I think you had better try harder if you really want Nxt to actually succeed.

[BloodyRookie]

No CIYAM, if I follow your logic then no block with 0 fees would ever get forged because no one wants to generate a block with 0 fees.
But most of the forgers are honest so they do generate blocks with 0 fees. I think his idea is not bad.

[CIYAM]

But his logic is not about the "current forgers" as they are not "attacking the system" the way he suggests either.

So if you assume there are NO honest forgers (per his concerns) then you won't get 0 fee blocks (using the current rules) and as I pointed out if there is no incentive to forge (only the hope an honest forger will follow you) then you won't get any forging at all.

I am only taking *his logic* to the extreme (which is not considering "honest forgers").

This is simply why I had suggested a compromise - but if he thinks comprising is out of the question then I'd have to say that changing to his approach would also have to be out of the question.

[perl]

Just for make the point.

You have not understand the philosophy of payment changes.

Before
Payed from include transactions
has
Payed to forge a block


Question reverse logic:

Currently:
Interest that not forge the block?
Person, the block is forged as soon as possible for go to next,next,next

To which interest does not include transactions?
Person ,  who does not want money
That the interest of the delay block?
Node add delay for include more transactions in block forged
Which may include free transactions?
Node can block forged


My Proposal:
Interest that not forge the block?
Person who does not want money
To which interest does not include transactions?
person
That the interest of the delay block?
Person who does not want money
Which may include free transactions?
person

[CIYAM]

Again with this "delaying stuff" - you have been told at least a couple of times that "forgers will be punished for not forging when it is their turn".

If they delay they won't benefit - instead they will be punished. How is this not clear?

(don't repeat about the *current* source code not having such a penalty - *we know it doesn't now* as this has not been released yet *but it is coming*)

[Come-from-Beyond]

Let me to interrupt u guys.
One of the next steps to 100% Transparent Forging will include changes that will lead to "grouping" of forging accounts. The main purpose is to make it impossible to predict who will forge the next block. If Alice, Bob, Charlie and Dan r next candidates to forge a block, then Alice, Bob or Charlie can do it, no matter if Alice would forge the block 5 seconds earlier than Bob or Charlie. The gap between blocks will be exactly 60 seconds and timestamp will be used only to determine an order of events. No sense to wait 93 seconds for the next block if we already know who would forge it. This is what I call "time warp". If Bob's block wins the race then Alice and Charlie will be penalized for 1440 blocks.

[perl]

I have understand, you want add system for punish node waiting forge block.

You can not punish
What is the difference between a node with delay clock 3 Seconds and a node waiting 3 Seconds for forge?
Other node receveid the same block.

And shoed the network if 60% of nodes punish an innocent node?
To punish, it will have a big Amount? Whether a large Amount able to pass through.

[CIYAM]

I have understand, you want add system for punish node waiting forge block.

It is not *me* - this is what is *already* being added via what is called Transparent Forging.

From what I understand the forger who doesn't forge (or in fact forge first as from what I understand forgers are going to be grouped) will be *unable* to forge for 1440 blocks.

I suggest you look at C-f-B's posts about this - the full implementation of Transparent Forging won't be in place until April apparently so I think we have a lot to digest before considering radical changes.

[pandaisftw]

Let me to interrupt u guys.
One of the next steps to 100% Transparent Forging will include changes that will lead to "grouping" of forging accounts. The main purpose is to make it impossible to predict who will forge the next block. If Alice, Bob, Charlie and Dan r next candidates to forge a block, then Alice, Bob or Charlie can do it, no matter if Alice would forge the block 5 seconds earlier than Bob or Charlie. The gap between blocks will be exactly 60 seconds and timestamp will be used only to determine an order of events. No sense to wait 93 seconds for the next block if we already know who would forge it. This is what I call "time warp". If Bob's block wins the race then Alice and Charlie will be penalized for 1440 blocks.

Wow, I only now realized how awesome that is

Although, this part:

If Bob's block wins the race then Alice and Charlie will be penalized for 1440 blocks.

Why is Charlie being punished? I assume the order of events is Alice -> Bob -> Charlie, so it makes sense Alice should be punished if she withholds her block and Bob ends up generating the block, but why Charlie?

[perl]

For me,Your idea is impossible in peer to peer.
Peer to peer is impossible to know the full list of account connected network.
If alice know one node with account 1.000.000NXT.  Dan not know this node?

Alice forge block  with delay expensive for dan
The target for alice < dan

Alice is innocent
Dan punish Alice  
Next forge punish who ?

We can only make an estimate.
Punish on estimation, you're serious?

[BloodyRookie]

For me,Your idea is impossible in peer to peer.
Peer to peer is impossible to know the full list of account connected network.

I think you have to look at the accounts, not at the peers.

[perl]

Account or peer is same probleme.

You can not get the full list all account ready forge the next block.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Why is Charlie being punished? I assume the order of events is Alice -> Bob -> Charlie, so it makes sense Alice should be punished if she withholds her block and Bob ends up generating the block, but why Charlie?

Coz Charlie wasn't the winner in this race. Win or die, no half-measures.

PS: This is an example of dynamical equilibrium that heavily exploited in Nxt concept.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Account or peer is same probleme.

You can not get the full list all account ready forge the next block.

U can. That's why it's called Transparent Forging. Not Opaque, not Semi-Transparent.

[BloodyRookie]

Account or peer is same probleme.

You can not get the full list all account ready forge the next block.

If you got all blocks, you got all information about the accounts.