NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[ChuckOne]

In addition, it seems that you are going for the more "fair" system, but by setting a minimum NXT holding limit, aren't you excluding all those who have less than this amount? So small stakeholders are being disenfranchised even more so than the 1 NXT = 1 vote system.

Do you mean with 1 NXT:
1) 1 NXT in balance
or
2) 1 NXT fee

Either way. People with larger stakes will care more about what they vote on whether or not they have to pay for it.

I would say it is better to be based on 1 NXT = 1 vote (without pay), otherwise it will discourage voting. We want a large as possible agreement, so that means we want as much NXT in the system voting as possible.

Do you really think, it would discourage voting? Large stakeholders can't afford to pay high fees, just because.

Another argument should be counted in: large stakeholders do a lot to secure the system. So, why jeopardizing it via 'appearing unfair' voting? In a system where only the balance counts they have to create smaller accounts just to vote fairly (assuming they want because of the stakeholder-argument). When they can determine the voting power directly (via fees), I dont see a problem with that.

Paying fees has the side-effect that more NXTs are distributed. That's basically a good thing, I think.

[Meizirkki]

Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12

This happened to me as well. Tho I hadn't ran the 0.5.11 for a few days so right after downloading the new release I got into a wrong chain or something. That "fork" had blocks in order not consistent with time. One was made 01.43 the next one 01.42 ...

[ChuckOne]

Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12

This happened to me as well. Tho I hadn't ran the 0.5.11 for a few days so right after downloading the new release I got into a wrong chain or something. That "fork" had blocks in order not consistent with time. One was made 01.43 the next one 01.42 ...

Interesting, still running fine. Same situation. Down for some days. Immediately upgrading to 12, but runs like a charm.

[rriky92]

Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12

mine too but only for a few minutes

[martismartis]

Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12

This happened to me as well. Tho I hadn't ran the 0.5.11 for a few days so right after downloading the new release I got into a wrong chain or something. That "fork" had blocks in order not consistent with time. One was made 01.43 the next one 01.42 ...

Interesting, still running fine. Same situation. Down for some days. Immediately upgrading to 12, but runs like a charm.

Using .nxt files from previous version?

[ChuckOne]

@ChuckOne and Panda:
One of the good things about having the voting site is that we can play around with various voting parameters until we come up with a system (or systems) that upset the least number of people for the shortest time.

That's right. However, I think parameters are evil. They simply shouldn't exist. If they do, the system is playable.

It's never going to be perfect, because everyone is slightly different, and yet everyone thinks that their own viewpoint is the right one.....democracy, eh, what ya gonna do?

Clearly monarchy.

[iruu]

It's not that would not be possible, theoretically, on the paper.
But, somebody has to implement it. The less, the better. The less, the less bugs, the less security issues, the less maintenance effort etc.
We discussed that issues at lengths some days ago.

Let high-level libraries handle the complex stuff.

The reverse is true: one valid implementation vs new, unchecked ad-hoc implementation on top of new architecture... not to mention speed: cryptographic operations are probably going to be order of magnitude slower. What a great advantage for users!  
There are hundreds of cryptography libraries already, no need to implement anything, just use them.  

Maybe, but it's a reasonable one. It simplifies a lot. See above.

So instead of "+cost[opcode]" it's "+1". That's not a lot.

A low-level. So, each thing, you can build upon the very basis should be done on top of it. Not besides it: layered architecture.

This I don't understand.  

You can 'simplify' and use a One instruction set computer. It's not going to be very usable, but that's your direction.  

Things should be useful first, then fast. Nobody cares if low level implementation is "simple" or whatever. The simple fact that you can't deny is that an architecture with many opcodes is drastically faster, equivalent programs are drastically smaller and it's much easier to write in it.

[ChuckOne]

Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12

This happened to me as well. Tho I hadn't ran the 0.5.11 for a few days so right after downloading the new release I got into a wrong chain or something. That "fork" had blocks in order not consistent with time. One was made 01.43 the next one 01.42 ...

Interesting, still running fine. Same situation. Down for some days. Immediately upgrading to 12, but runs like a charm.

Using .nxt files from previous version?

Every single bit of them.

[^[GS]^]

Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12

Something similar happened to me!
but even deleting .NXT files does not read any new!


EDIT: is needed an API function or something to force the server when it stuck in a block.

EDIT2: in localhost not read blocks or transactions, stays at 1 too

EDIT3: Now working... updating... >_<

[ChuckOne]

Things should be useful first, then fast. Nobody cares if low level implementation is "simple" or whatever. The simple fact that you can't deny is that an architecture with many opcodes is drastically faster, equivalent programs are drastically smaller and it's much easier to write in it.

[EvilDave]

@ChuckOne and Panda:
One of the good things about having the voting site is that we can play around with various voting parameters until we come up with a system (or systems) that upset the least number of people for the shortest time.

That's right. However, I think parameters are evil. They simply shouldn't exist. If they do, the system is playable.

It's never going to be perfect, because everyone is slightly different, and yet everyone thinks that their own viewpoint is the right one.....democracy, eh, what ya gonna do?

Clearly monarchy.

Davearchy: The universe run by Daves. Sounds good to me.

Still having trouble getting my home 5.12 nodes to sync up cleanly. VPS seesm to be on the good path, luckily.

[xyzzyx]

I will use the money for the /r/Nxt marketing campaign. If the community show me a better way I will implement this.

I think the Nxt should go to you for building the site and maintaining, it's an awesome addition to the community.

+1

[pandaisftw]

In addition, it seems that you are going for the more "fair" system, but by setting a minimum NXT holding limit, aren't you excluding all those who have less than this amount? So small stakeholders are being disenfranchised even more so than the 1 NXT = 1 vote system.

Do you mean with 1 NXT:
1) 1 NXT in balance
or
2) 1 NXT fee

Either way. People with larger stakes will care more about what they vote on whether or not they have to pay for it.

I would say it is better to be based on 1 NXT = 1 vote (without pay), otherwise it will discourage voting. We want a large as possible agreement, so that means we want as much NXT in the system voting as possible.

Do you really think, it would discourage voting? Large stakeholders can't afford to pay high fees, just because.

Another argument should be counted in: large stakeholders do a lot to secure the system. So, why jeopardizing it via 'appearing unfair' voting? In a system where only the balance counts they have to create smaller accounts just to vote fairly (assuming they want because of the stakeholder-argument). When they can determine the voting power directly (via fees), I dont see a problem with that.

Paying fees has the side-effect that more NXTs are distributed. That's basically a good thing, I think.

The only issue I see with having to pay a fee is that people who care most (ie. they vote the most) will find that they have less and less voting power over time. Their NXT may flow to hoarders who never vote at all. Without a fee system (simply 1 NXT = 1 vote) then everyone is encouraged to vote as much as possible, on every topic. Of course, no one (especially large stakeholders) would vote for something that would harm their own stake, so there is already an incentive to vote for the overall good of NXT built in.

[iruu]

Things should be useful first, then fast. Nobody cares if low level implementation is "simple" or whatever. The simple fact that you can't deny is that an architecture with many opcodes is drastically faster, equivalent programs are drastically smaller and it's much easier to write in it.

You are using the clause order as an argument? Really? Since when the first thing to mention is the most important one? And why does it matter?

[^[GS]^]

peer bug?

"213.57.82.19",
"node17.nxtbase.com",
"212.67.73.173",
"93.190.92.75",
"abctc.vps.nxtcrypto.org",
"node18.nxtbase.com",
"212.85.38.25",
"186.90.251.60",
"85.10.202.109",
"14.20.5.93",
"195.3.205.202",
"50.30.46.177;209.126.96.136;209.126.96.137;209.126.96.138",   <<<
"109.75.223.181",
"vps1.nxtcrypto.org",
"46.19.137.116",
"88.193.113.190",
"176.31.244.93",
"80.86.83.79",
"69.90.132.18",
"95.85.31.25",

In /admin.html => Get Peers

[Jean-Luc]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Release 0.6.0

http://download.nxtcrypto.org/nxt-client-0.6.0.zip

sha256: 40154756de464c9587b738c84f14a4a06dfb02476507f1a2383cbe03dc5bd48b

Change log:

Fixed a critical bug. Everybody should upgrade immediately.
The fix in 0.5.12 was not enough.

A more detailed changelog will follow tomorrow, or you can
figure it out yourself. Now I go to sleep.

Did I mention that everyone should upgrade?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=z84D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[^[GS]^]

interesting day with many updates!

NXTio.org 0.6.0 updated! operating properly

[bidji29]

0.6.0 released

Fixed a critical bug. Everybody should upgrade immediately.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Release 0.6.0

http://download.nxtcrypto.org/nxt-client-0.6.0.zip

sha256: 40154756de464c9587b738c84f14a4a06dfb02476507f1a2383cbe03dc5bd48b

Change log:

Fixed a critical bug. Everybody should upgrade immediately.
The fix in 0.5.12 was not enough.

A more detailed changelog will follow tomorrow, or you can
figure it out yourself. Now I go to sleep.

Did I mention that everyone should upgrade?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=z84D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[allwelder]

this has to be a record amount of time between comments in this thread

I thought it must have been broken!
If it weren't for my blabber, it would have been over 90 minutes between posts.

wonder why its so quiet. it isnt some sort of holiday or something is it.

chinese new year!

Chinese new year is over now.I miss all of you.

[EvilDave]

J-L: I hate u......<engaging upgrade process for the second time today>

@Allwelder.....nice 2 c u, bro. Good NewYear?

Block check, please:
59119      2584657662098653454      donderdag 6 februari 2014 2:59:13   
      
      0      0 + 0      0 B   
      
      2      11409980915768770703      1406 %