Bitcoin Forum
October 15, 2018, 04:15:41 PM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [NXT] NXTInfrastructure committee  (Read 6053 times)
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 16, 2014, 03:44:12 AM
 #61

im having a hard time with this POW pool thing.  I have no clue on running pools, but I should be able to come up with some cron scripting to handle the API between the pool and coinwarz, and between the pool and an exchange.  so if someone that has experience with pools wants to work with me we can split it.

Or if someone can point me to some pool server software.  All Ive found is eloipool, a python based one, but is seems to come with no self-registration webpage, etc etc.  so if anyone can point me in the right direction on this or wants to work with me let me know
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
igmaca
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 16, 2014, 12:18:52 PM
 #62

Does anyone have a brief summary of Igmacas idea(s), for the slow among us?
hes suggesting an idea but I cannot tell how he intends the network to enforce it

From what I can tell, there are two ideas in here:
* Proposal for a "share fee group" where accounts can group together (without central pooling) where any account that forges a block will share fees with group.
* Proposal to skim some percentage off of assets traded on AE as another fee.

My remarks on the matter are that we must wait and see fully implemented Transparent Forging before suggesting any radical changes to the core network function.  I would expect smaller servers to be penalized by 100% TF for subpar performance -- "win or die".  See these comments:

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.

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.

exact that's the idea.

just trying to help nxt to be successful
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 16, 2014, 03:34:26 PM
 #63


exact that's the idea.

just trying to help nxt to be successful

what you are discussing can be done voluntarily now, but manual work and overhead required to accomplish your goal will be extremely high, and  everyone involved will have to trust everyone else, as in a mesh:  (n x (n-1)/2) links of trust.  Actually, will even need to multiply that figure by 2 since the lines of trust have to be 2 way.  This is why no one is responding to your suggestion - it will end up being a nightmare to manage manually, and just about as much of a nightmare to design/add/test the code for it to be done automatically by the network.

The way leasing will work in the very near future is that there is MUCH less trust involved, n-1. where just 1 way trust from each leasor to the single leasee.  The leasee will still be responsible for calculating and returning the gains, though this *could* be enforced via code by the network, with a bit of work - certainly nowhere near as much work as would be required network enforcement of your shared idea.

I do get you point on it though, you get the psychological effect, then there are still more forging nodes out there; but unfortunately I dont think we will ever see it implemented in code as what you are describing will require tons and tons of work.
igmaca
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 17, 2014, 02:23:07 PM
 #64


exact that's the idea.

just trying to help nxt to be successful

what you are discussing can be done voluntarily now, but manual work and overhead required to accomplish your goal will be extremely high, and  everyone involved will have to trust everyone else, as in a mesh:  (n x (n-1)/2) links of trust.  Actually, will even need to multiply that figure by 2 since the lines of trust have to be 2 way.  This is why no one is responding to your suggestion - it will end up being a nightmare to manage manually, and just about as much of a nightmare to design/add/test the code for it to be done automatically by the network.

The way leasing will work in the very near future is that there is MUCH less trust involved, n-1. where just 1 way trust from each leasor to the single leasee.  The leasee will still be responsible for calculating and returning the gains, though this *could* be enforced via code by the network, with a bit of work - certainly nowhere near as much work as would be required network enforcement of your shared idea.

I do get you point on it though, you get the psychological effect, then there are still more forging nodes out there; but unfortunately I dont think we will ever see it implemented in code as what you are describing will require tons and tons of work.

grateful to you for answering,

it seems very convincing your explanations.

if it can not be implemented easily by nxt not be easy by any clone
NxtMinnow
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 17, 2014, 04:30:20 PM
 #65

Good morning Infrastructure Committee,
This is a brainstorming session. We stand at the helm of the most efficient blockchain technology available. We need to set a course. We need a roadmap and timeline of Nxt goals.

My Proposed Goals:
Nxt AE release must be coordinated with an effective Marketing Campaign.
Nxt needs to (IMMEDIATELY) put together proper advertisements for programmer jobs complete with description of required duties and offered pay.
Nxt needs a USDollar to NXT registered exchange, preferably in New York State.
Nxt Point of Sale Use Case development.

We should open subthreads once the first top one or two priority projects on the roadmap are identified.

NXT Infrastructure Committee please brainstorm your ideas for Nxt infrastructure goals.
marcus03
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 17, 2014, 05:51:48 PM
 #66

Good morning Infrastructure Committee,
This is a brainstorming session. We stand at the helm of the most efficient blockchain technology available. We need to set a course. We need a roadmap and timeline of Nxt goals.

My Proposed Goals:
Nxt AE release must be coordinated with an effective Marketing Campaign.
Nxt needs to (IMMEDIATELY) put together proper advertisements for programmer jobs complete with description of required duties and offered pay.
Nxt needs a USDollar to NXT registered exchange, preferably in New York State.
Nxt Point of Sale Use Case development.

We should open subthreads once the first top one or two priority projects on the roadmap are identified.

NXT Infrastructure Committee please brainstorm your ideas for Nxt infrastructure goals.

Have you checked what InfCom has been done until now?

https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issues
NxtMinnow
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 17, 2014, 07:21:22 PM
 #67

Great work InfCom. Thank you for your commitment to maintaining excellent transparency in Nxt InfCom.
EvilDave
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 17, 2014, 08:32:18 PM
 #68

Good morning Infrastructure Committee,
This is a brainstorming session. We stand at the helm of the most efficient blockchain technology available. We need to set a course. We need a roadmap and timeline of Nxt goals.

My Proposed Goals:
Nxt AE release must be coordinated with an effective Marketing Campaign.
Nxt needs to (IMMEDIATELY) put together proper advertisements for programmer jobs complete with description of required duties and offered pay.
Nxt needs a USDollar to NXT registered exchange, preferably in New York State.
Nxt Point of Sale Use Case development.

We should open subthreads once the first top one or two priority projects on the roadmap are identified.

NXT Infrastructure Committee please brainstorm your ideas for Nxt infrastructure goals.

Just my feedback here:

AE/marketing: totally +10 with u here, but this is TechDev/Marketing Commitee territory, not InfCom.

Dev team needs to be beefed up. Again more a TechDev/whole community issue.

Dollar/euro/fiat gateways, yes. Not sure about basing them in the US tho', the Yanks might just change the rules in 2 weeks time and kill the whole deal.
I'd vote for a more financial freedom (and freedom in general) loving country such as Switzerland or Leichtenstein.
I believe Ethereum has gone the Swiss route.....

Point of sale: +100. Like RJ keeps on banging on at us, NXT should be able to succeed as a 1st gen crypto, if only to give us more money to support 2nd gen development.

Ans as marcus03 has just pointed out, the InfCom brains are being stormed.

Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
Love your money: www.nxt.org  www.ardorplatform.org
www.nxter.org  www.nxtfoundation.org
joefox
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 05:49:52 PM
 #69

Good morning Infrastructure Committee,
My Proposed Goals:
Nxt AE release must be coordinated with an effective Marketing Campaign.
Nxt needs to (IMMEDIATELY) put together proper advertisements for programmer jobs complete with description of required duties and offered pay.

Just my feedback here:

AE/marketing: totally +10 with u here, but this is TechDev/Marketing Commitee territory, not InfCom.

I have no issues with NxtMinnow's proposed goals -- what it means is that we have to coordinate between committees, that's all.  IMHO marketing is really a "downstream" activity -- we promote things that DO exist, not things we think SHOULD exist.  The latter gets us into trouble.

I admin the Nxt Wiki at http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/ Please support my work by donating to Nxt account #1234567740944417915
EvilDave
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 06:34:00 PM
 #70

The follow up SSL discussion, this time as to whether we need SSL on nxtcrypto,org to provide extra security for the wiki.

The text below was originally from PM:

Hi!

Can we move this to the InfCom thread at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=506757 instead of a random list of pm recipients?

Cheers,
Marcus

Ok, hold on a cotton-picking moment, guys.

We came to the conclusion that SSL wasn't necassary on the VPS, that TOR was a much better option.

I've had a look thru the Bitbucket again, and I cant find anything about  SSL and wiki-editing on nxtcrypto-org, apart from the title of this issue, which then goes on to be all about VPS:
https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issue/20/ssl-certificate-for-nxtcryptoorg
Has this issue been discussed elsewhere?

The wiki-editing/SSL on nextcrypto seems like a valid concern, and is a seperate issue to the use of SSL on VPS.
I'm going to cc this PM to the rest of InfCom, see if we should open another issue on this and consider funding from the point of view of wiki protection.

So, don't give up yet, OC.

EvilDave.


Joefox,

They rejected my request for SSL certs for the domain.  They are recommending use of TOR for the VPSs, which isnt a bad idea at all (I use tor for IP privacy) but for people who use TOR (like me)and log into the wiki for editing, SSL becomes a CRITICAL issue since the exit tor node sees all the traffic UNENCRYPTED.  So tor users who are also wiki editors when the wiki doesnt have good SSL leave a gaping security hole that we really need to plug.

W/O a real CA-signed cert the best we can do is, on the wiki, load the wildcard cert I created and signed with my own private self-signed cert.  But this will confuse the wiki editors as it will give security errors out to all wiki editors telling them that someone is doing something fishy with the connection,  unless they do the extra step of loading my private CA cert into their browser.  Get with me an I can provide both the wildcard cert for your wiki server as well as the private CA that we need to distribute out to all wiki editors.

-OC

Optical:
After a lot of debate, InfCom has come to the conclusion that although SSL would help with the perception of security, it wouldn't add that much more actual security/privacy.

The concensus seems to be that we should concentrate on using NXT over TOR for added security.

So, in my role as InfCom spokesbeast: thats a "no" to your SSL funding request. Sorry.

U can see the decision-making process here:
https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issue/30/public-api-nodes-could-support-ssl-for
Feel completely free to object if you like.


Good luck, keep up the good work,

EvilDave.
 

My first question, is nxtcrypto.org/SSL/wiki an InfCom issue ?

Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
Love your money: www.nxt.org  www.ardorplatform.org
www.nxter.org  www.nxtfoundation.org
marcus03
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 06:54:42 PM
 #71

My first question, is nxtcrypto.org/SSL/wiki an InfCom issue ?

I'd say yes.

Regarding SSL for the nxtcrypto.org wiki, no, this was not discussed when we discussed opticalcarriers application, so we should probably do it now.

Generally, the problem with exit point operators being able to read the unencrypted communication going through them in the Tor network is valid.

I don't understand though what exactly needs to be protected when editing a public Wiki. I don't see the security problem (and there definetly is no privacy problem in regards to tracking the editor's IP when editing the Wiki through Tor).
EvilDave
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 19, 2014, 12:42:30 AM
 #72

Infrastructure Committee decisions.

Girls/guys/undecided:

The InfCom has been seriously busy over the last few days, and we have finalised two of the issues presented to us.

Most of our decision-making process can be seen on BitBucket, with some debate/input happening here on BTT.
PMs have been kept to a minimum to ensure complete transparency, and any relevant info from PM exchanges has been posted either here or on Bitbucket:
https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issues?status=new&status=open

On to the decisions:

After a lot of debate, InfCom has rejected opticalcarriers request for funding for SSL certification for VPS, we feel that TOR provides a better level of security/privacy:
https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issue/30/public-api-nodes-could-support-ssl-for

After even more debate, InfCom has approved an initial bounty payment of 2000 NXT to secondleo (+Matthew C, collaborator on the paper) for his paper on energy efficiency in the NXTwork:
https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issue/19/nxt-energy-efficiency-paper-secondleo
There is a further 3000 NXT bounty ready to go for an improved version of the paper, based on feedback from InfCom.

That's about it for today, keep up the good work. Any questions, feedback, requests, get in touch.....

NXT Infrastructure Committee members:

EvilDave (spokesthing)
Marcus03
chanc3r
ChuckOne
ferment [/i]

Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
Love your money: www.nxt.org  www.ardorplatform.org
www.nxter.org  www.nxtfoundation.org
EvilDave
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 19, 2014, 01:08:02 AM
 #73

Just opened threads on Nextcoin and Nxtcrypto for the InfCom:

https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=881&p=4429#p4429

https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,4449.0.html


Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
Love your money: www.nxt.org  www.ardorplatform.org
www.nxter.org  www.nxtfoundation.org
mczarnek
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 19, 2014, 01:41:02 PM
 #74

I'm with Marcus here, lets keep most of our biz here on the forum, in the public eye.

Moving on to business:

Secondleo sent me a copy of a paper on energy consumtion and efficiency compared between the BTC and NXT networks.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J8uhdshu9epGRrQHBaloGc4itdvuAHZDAUtNDjOhz-8/edit?usp=sharing

I've had a quick look thru it, and it is full of useful information, might deserve some bounty even as a stand-alone project.
But SecondLeo also has a further proposition/project to do with an efficient forging soution.
He got in contact with me via Nextcoin.org:

I am one of the authors of the recently published paper about the energy efficiency of the Nxt network.

On the basis of the work put into the paper I have plans in motion to offer a powerful and minimum effort solution for forging.
I would appreciate it if you provided a point of contact for the committee so I can present the project there and see if I can get any support.



i'd like to hear more, so I've invited secondleo to come on over and tell us everything....

Generally, I think the paper might deserve funding.

Would you please set up an Issue for this in the issue tracker at: https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issues/new
(Set the "component" to "Projects/Bounties to fund".)




Hey, I'm the other author on that paper, we're still trying to figure out how to reasonable estimate how many forgers we'll have forging for Nxt, if anyone has any thoughts I'd love to hear them.  I'm thinking maybe we should incorporate 5 servers that have cloudflare protection for DDOS attack?  I understand that's our current solution?

Regarding which machines to recommend people forge with, that is SecondLeo's area.

Also, you should know, Salascz did give us 5000 Nxt as a bounty for the paper already.

I'd love to discuss it with anyone who would like to.  We're still tweaking that one last number then are probably ready to publish it and hope to spread around, say publish it on coindesk and other places that would allow it to market Nxt, up the price, and hopefully make these committee funds more valuable.

BitSend ◢◤Clients | Source
www.bitsend.info
█▄
█████▄
████████▄
███████████▄
██████████████
███████████▀
████████▀
█████▀
█▀












Segwit | Core 0.14 | Masternodes
XEVAN | DK3 | Electrum soon
Bitcore - BTX/BTC -Project












BSD -USDT | Bittrex | C.Gather | S.Exchange
Cryptopia | NovaExchange | Livecoin
Litebit.eu | Faucet | Bitsend Airdrop













████
 ████
  ████
   ████
    ████
     ████
      ████
       ████
        ████
       ████
      ████
     ████
    ████
   ████
  ████
 ████
████

████
 ████
  ████
   ████
    ████
     ████
      ████
       ████
        ████
       ████
      ████
     ████
    ████
   ████
  ████
 ████
████
bob_ggg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 21, 2014, 04:52:52 PM
 #75

Based on my understanding, Nxt requires that processing of block N start once the forging node in charge of it has received block N-1 and the transactions that will be included in block N. Once block N has been assembled, it is broadcast to the node in charge of assembling block N+1 with a latency that is largely unpredictable.
Due to the sequential process of forging, the number of transactions that can be processed is significantly lower.
To carry out a simplified analysis I assume that:

1.   the number of bytes per transaction is equal to 500 (464 + overhead) bytes
2.   all blocks contain the same number of txn
3.   the network latency required to deliver block N to node forging block N+1 adds a time equal to the time required to upload the block itself (I am essentially assuming that the effective bandwidth node-to-node is halved, which is extremely optimistic unless the localization of the nodes is in some way constrained)
4.   Processing time is equal to the time required to upload block N-1 (based on the estimates found in the paper, this seems to be a reasonable assumption)

Using the above simplifications, the basic time unit is the time required to transmit a transaction. We consume 5 time units to complete the processing of a transaction:
1.   download of a Tnx belonging to block N-1 (see assumption 2)
2.   download of Txn to be included in block N
3.   Process the previous Txn (see assumption 4)
4.   Upload of Txn included in block N
5.   Network latency required to deliver Txn to the node processing block N+1 (see assumption 3)

If the available bandwidth is 8Mbit/sec, then the peak processing rate is 400 Txn/sec.  This result would change only if dedicated networks are used.
wesleyh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 22, 2014, 10:39:52 AM
 #76

Hey guys, we absolutely need SSL (not self signed) for nxtcrypto.org

My client can no longer connect to nxtcrypto nodes because the SSL is self signed, which browsers don't trust by default. I hope you guys change your mind on this decision.
wesleyh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 22, 2014, 10:45:29 AM
 #77

Btw, this only costs like 68 euros, not 468.

https://www.namecheap.com/security/ssl-certificates/comodo/positivessl-wildcard.aspx?gclid=CM-W4of7pb0CFZShtAod_28Aag
mczarnek
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 22, 2014, 08:21:59 PM
 #78

I think I've figured out how to do the advanced consensus for forging.  Can you guys tell me how I would go about submitting a proposal and getting credit, I'm assuming a bounty, after others how bounced the idea around and picked at flaws and made sure it all worked?  Assuming this is the right committee?

Thank you.


BitSend ◢◤Clients | Source
www.bitsend.info
█▄
█████▄
████████▄
███████████▄
██████████████
███████████▀
████████▀
█████▀
█▀












Segwit | Core 0.14 | Masternodes
XEVAN | DK3 | Electrum soon
Bitcore - BTX/BTC -Project












BSD -USDT | Bittrex | C.Gather | S.Exchange
Cryptopia | NovaExchange | Livecoin
Litebit.eu | Faucet | Bitsend Airdrop













████
 ████
  ████
   ████
    ████
     ████
      ████
       ████
        ████
       ████
      ████
     ████
    ████
   ████
  ████
 ████
████

████
 ████
  ████
   ████
    ████
     ████
      ████
       ████
        ████
       ████
      ████
     ████
    ████
   ████
  ████
 ████
████
EvilDave
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 22, 2014, 08:57:55 PM
 #79

I think I've figured out how to do the advanced consensus for forging.  Can you guys tell me how I would go about submitting a proposal and getting credit, I'm assuming a bounty, after others how bounced the idea around and picked at flaws and made sure it all worked?  Assuming this is the right committee?

Thank you.



Dude: I would, first of all, run it past C-f-B to make sure that u are on the right track, and get his input.

I have a feeling that this would be more of a TechDev issue, but I'm open to being corrected. Jean-Luc is TechDev, get in touch with him, see what he has to say.

In any case, put a short description together of your proposal, ready to be discussed by committees and community.


Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
Love your money: www.nxt.org  www.ardorplatform.org
www.nxter.org  www.nxtfoundation.org
utopianfuture
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 258

Internet of Value


View Profile
March 22, 2014, 09:09:15 PM
 #80

Where is EvilDave ? the esteemed head of prestigious Infrastructure Committee ? I would like to discuss the transference of 48380 NXT private bounty for the best Open-Source client for NXT to the Infrastructure Committee.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412138.0

Internet of Value
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!