NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[2Kool4Skewl]

funnily enough, my local install caught up really fast, in sync with my hallmarked node up to block 23537 then just froze there again

either just lost its connection, or its another bad fork.

Either your hallmarked node became overwhelmed with requests or like you said, you downloaded a bad block and are now on a fork.

[abctc]

.. hallmarking nodes is just a bad idea in my opinion.  Instead of using hallmarked nodes to stay in sync, nodes should simply use other nodes with the lowest ping time.

-    namely, zombie.

[brooklynbtc]

it looks like overwhelmed to me. all dead connections going in. less than 10% green. before it could even make 20 minutes. 4gb ram and 2 cores.

I'm gonna destroy it and in the morning make an even more powerful one, and maybe increase the weight from 100

[kohonez]

      23394      2132153496119786677      martes, 24 de diciembre de 2013 1:18:57   
      
      3      8 + 3      397 B   
      
      1      6638148417768391106      5010202507 %

that's the right chain?

[jl777]

Yes, of course, the lowest recent average ping time make sense. It distributes the load most efficiently and automatically adjusts to each servers current load.

Best part is that it is very pseudo-random as the ping time between nodes is different for each node.

The Ddos'ers would have to spend the most resources to bog down a network like that!

James

[utopianfuture]

Could we implement that a node can only be connected to the network if an account is opened and has at least 1 Nxt ?

Also, don't laught since i have no coding background. Zombie node is the node connected to the network but having no account, right ? I understand that they could overwhelm a hall mark node, but do they pass on any information ? Educate me before BCNext and Cfb come in and release an update.

[2Kool4Skewl]

.. hallmarking nodes is just a bad idea in my opinion.  Instead of using hallmarked nodes to stay in sync, nodes should simply use other nodes with the lowest ping time.

-    namely, zombie.

If the zombie node has the blockchain, does it matter?

[davidoski]

Sending nxt: When I try to send from my account (which has plenty of nxt), I enter the recipient, the amount, and leave it as 24hrs deadline and click send and it says "confirmed" but then no nxt is deducted from my account and it seems like nothing happens. Anyone know what I'm doing wrong?

You are using wrong currency to transfer money Wait until this will be resolved, because at the moment it's not ready to use.

[abctc]

.. hallmarking nodes is just a bad idea in my opinion.  Instead of using hallmarked nodes to stay in sync, nodes should simply use other nodes with the lowest ping time.

-    namely, zombie.

If the zombie node has the blockchain, does it matter?

- of course they have not, they just a very small scripts.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Why does it not correct itself ? I thought when I collide with a peer with longer blockchain, I would correct my blockchain to the longer one ? Why it it not the case here ?

There is a limit of max blockchain reorg depth. Sometimes manual work is required (blockchain deleting).

[laowai80]

@ferment, 100K sent. Thanks for your work & please use it as you see fit to help secure network
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=2000&tra=1927346019730850376

@laowai80, 100K sent. Thanks for your work & please use it as you see fit to help secure network
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=2000&tra=18203883017989830292

Thank you, I'll be ordering more servers today.

[opticalcarrier]

i think we might be winning here... all of a sudden 3 of my vps's and my forging client here at home are all synced on 23547 @ 559%, gonna resync the other 2 now...

[gbeirn]

Hmmm, well I certainly want to setup more nodes but only if they will be helpful to the network. The logic behind not hallmarking nodes makes sense. I can either setup many un-hallmarked or move some NXT around and setup a few hallmarked ones. I'm off to bed since I'm quite tired. I'll review the thread tomorrow and maybe we can figure out a good way to proceed.

Maybe we can setup some servers with good DDoS protection in the mean time until we can figure out what to do.

[2Kool4Skewl]

.. hallmarking nodes is just a bad idea in my opinion.  Instead of using hallmarked nodes to stay in sync, nodes should simply use other nodes with the lowest ping time.

-    namely, zombie.

If the zombie node has the blockchain, does it matter?

- of course they have not, they just a very small scripts.

Once a node makes a request and doesn't get a response in 'x' time, it then needs to try another node until it receives a response.  It should try nodes in increasing ping time order.

[abctc]

Why does it not correct itself ? I thought when I collide with a peer with longer blockchain, I would correct my blockchain to the longer one ? Why it it not the case here ?

There is a limit of max blockchain reorg depth. Sometimes manual work is required (blockchain deleting).

- please do not delude yourself.  We are constantly stuck with a much lower depth then 720 blocks.

[laowai80]

Hallmarked nodes really getting too much traffic, whether it's zombies or not, it's up to CfB to verify, but hallmarked nodes don't sync well and get stuck, that's true.

[abctc]

.. hallmarking nodes is just a bad idea in my opinion.  Instead of using hallmarked nodes to stay in sync, nodes should simply use other nodes with the lowest ping time.

-    namely, zombie.

If the zombie node has the blockchain, does it matter?

- of course they have not, they just a very small scripts.

Once a node makes a request and doesn't get a response in 'x' time, it then needs to try another node until it receives a response.  It should try nodes in increasing ping time order.

- didn't you see in your Active peers window 300 zombies, and only 1-2 healthy nodes? What the odds your node find the healthy?

[2Kool4Skewl]

Hmmm, well I certainly want to setup more nodes but only if they will be helpful to the network. The logic behind not hallmarking nodes makes sense. I can either setup many un-hallmarked or move some NXT around and setup a few hallmarked ones. I'm off to bed since I'm quite tired. I'll review the thread tomorrow and maybe we can figure out a good way to proceed.

Maybe we can setup some servers with good DDoS protection in the mean time until we can figure out what to do.

Do NOT setup nodes that are not hallmarked.  These unhallmarked nodes hurt the network because they only request information from hallmarked nodes and these hallmarked nodes are the only nodes servicing the network.

The type of DDoS protection you are referring to doesn't do any good with this type of DDoS attack.  This DDoS attack is an application level attack against HALLMARKED nodes.

[2Kool4Skewl]

.. hallmarking nodes is just a bad idea in my opinion.  Instead of using hallmarked nodes to stay in sync, nodes should simply use other nodes with the lowest ping time.

-    namely, zombie.

If the zombie node has the blockchain, does it matter?

- of course they have not, they just a very small scripts.

Once a node makes a request and doesn't get a response in 'x' time, it then needs to try another node until it receives a response.  It should try nodes in increasing ping time order.

- didn't you see in your Active peers window 300 zombies, and only 1-2 healthy nodes? What the odds your node find the healthy?

Eventually, it would find a healthy node.  As the network grows and zombie nodes make up a smaller percent of the nodes, this will be less of a problem.

[Come-from-Beyond]

CFB: will those 100 VPS help? How much would be needed to make the network safe for the beginnings?

Yes, these 100 VPS will help a lot. We can't be sure that this number is enough though, this is just a matter of money that must be spent to bring Nxt network down.