NuBits v3.0.1ban2 Release – Urgently needed Nu upgrade now available

Nagalim 2017-03-10 03:16:58 UTC #21

You’re the majority shareholder. Of course everyone critical of you is a minority shareholder, literally everyone but you is minority.

Speak for the shareholders and what properties of consensus they value and what they throw away. After all, they are you, and you know best.

Sabreiib 2017-03-10 05:39:51 UTC #22

I don’t believe in immutability, but @phoenix should give enough evidence/proof to demonstrate the justice of this action.

Sabreiib 2017-03-11 02:52:17 UTC #23

Phoenix:

Imagine that some shareholders insisted on keeping the theft in their chain and created a fork with NuBit liabilities. I think it would be great for us. NuBit holders could get $1 from the main chain and $1 from the strictly immutable chain. Having NuBit holders get double their money back would only make NuBits more popular, with the idea that you might be able to double your money with forks. I would expect any new chain would lack the liquidity to deal with the onslaught of NuBit sales they would face as soon as the fork were created. Such a fork would immediately need to conduct a major share sale to raise funds to pay for NuBit liabilities. Nu has a reserve of around $55,000 in BTC, and that can’t be forked. An immutable chain would start with zero reserve, low liquidity in share trading, as well as an onslaught of NuBit redemptions to fund. That isn’t really viable, so I predict it won’t happen.

Due to its NuBit liabilities and unforkable reserve, Nu is unusually resistant to persistent forks such as ETC.

Interesting fact! The reason I dislike PPC is because there is nothing real value in its blockchain, i.e. lack of scarcity. Bitcoin is scarce because you have to spend millions of money to rebuild same ecosystem with same Hash rate, so is Nu. Nu has introduced scarce resource (BTC, FIAT) into its system, of course whether the scarce is “equity” or “liability” depends on our operation skill.

sigmike 2017-03-11 08:28:46 UTC #24

This release is not able to make a full download of the blockchain because some blocked addresses appear in past blocks. So if you need to do a full download (or haven’t run your client for some time) you should first run the official 3.0.1 and only run 3.0.1ban2 when you’re fully synchronized.

Should I make a new version that blocks these address only after a certain block or date?

Note that you can also continue to run 3.0.1 if you don’t support this ban. It’s not a mandatory upgrade. The nodes that run 3.0.1ban2 should not ban other nodes when they propagate transactions with blocked addresses, they will just ignore those transactions and any block containing them. But if shareholders do not agree on that the blockchain may become quite unstable with frequent reorganizations. And if the majority of the shareholders do run the ban the other nodes will have all their blocks orphaned as they try to include blocked transactions. I think this is already happening.

Proof-of-Stake minting, only 4 of 25 confirmed

Cybnate 2017-03-11 08:52:07 UTC #25

Well it is, else you end up on a minority fork. Anyone interested running fork and having more than 10m+ shares?

Looks like it. 2 days of orphans because I couldn’t get synced without the blkindex issue before upgrading until today.

Cybnate 2017-03-11 09:23:15 UTC #26

Can someone please publish peers or nodes which run the ban2 client? Even with ban2 peer I cannot connect and my minting block continue being rejected (getpeerinfo doesn’t show ban2 nodes). I suspect I’m on a fork, but without other nodes I can’t do anything.

@sigmike, does the new ban2 node advertise its version on getpeerinfo? I can’t see any on getpeerinfo with 8 peers connected.

sigmike 2017-03-11 09:52:16 UTC #27

There should not be a single fork but instead many small ones, because nodes minting on 3.0.1 will rejoin the branch made by the majority of shareholders as soon as it gets longer (and get their blocks orphaned).

It does, but my full node currently only has 1 ban2 peer out of 28.

Phoenix 2017-03-11 14:14:29 UTC #28

Yes, please. Its funded.

Sentinelrv 2017-03-11 18:03:19 UTC #29

You are referring to this post of mine…

Since making that post I’ve learned that history and reputation of a network play a large part of the process and isn’t as easily replicated by just cloning Peercoin. PeerAssets will help tie our network to real world businesses over time. DACs on top of Peercoin, their dev teams and any financial resources they’ve built up through operation are also not easily replicated. All these things will help give the Peercoin network added scarcity in the future.

I also have to add that it looks like your prediction there was wrong. With all that money and marketing behind it, Neucoin failed so hard that it had to shut down…

Cybnate 2017-03-11 23:56:35 UTC #30

I’ve been on the minting with a ban2 node for 12 hours now. Approximately 1 in 5 blocks are rejected. The blockexplorer is down due to other(?) issues so it is not clear what is going on to me, but my gut feel is that is not good.
Hope you can have a look at the network’s health. My current blockheight is 1308568 at Sun Mar 12 12:53:13 2017.

Sabreiib 2017-03-12 00:04:52 UTC #31

Neucoin died, but I belive some PoS coins(Dash?) have overtaken PPC’s market cap, I remember clearly PPC was 3rd large coins just behind BTC and LTC in 2013., but now PPC is so unpopular…only 22th large!

This fact tells us the PoS coin is relative easy to replace while BTC as PoW still the No 1, even etherium (PoW) can not replace it. Oh, if etherium switches to PoS, PPC will be overtaken by other PoS again.

Phoenix 2017-03-12 00:06:29 UTC #32

I would appreciate having @sigmike take a closer look at network health, but it looks OK from what I can see. Apparently due to the problem with the block index that can occur on upgrade we have lower minting participation. It looks like about 45 blocks per hour are being produced. It would be better to have minting participation go back up, but it doesn’t seem to be a significant problem.

Sabreiib 2017-03-12 02:06:18 UTC #33

Nu/B&C would be dead if Jordan/Phoniex/Sigmike refuse to support it, isn’t it the truth? Centralization in this situation is not bad, at least better than death in the graceful/decentralized way.

@Sentinelrv, @Nagalim, would/could you write source codes for Nu/B&C? You advocated loudly for Nu in 2014, and I joined this project, but soon I found that Nu has revenue problem and will meet crisis sooner or later, so I cashed out and avoided the loss, while quite some forum members insisted in 2014-2015 that partial reserve is good, tier X is enough, bla bla. “let’s sell the NSR when pegging in danger”, but when NSR sale really happened, what’s your response? Market manager left, some of you became against Nu. However, you are deserved because when you accepted “partial reserve” and “NSR buyback”, it was determined. Although Jordan/phoenix also make mistakes, at least he is insisting, whatever the way he goes, decentralized or centralized.

Now some of you begin to advocate the new project, should I follow you just like I followed B&C? I doubt about it. Guess what’s the problem of many PPC(and its variant) community members? idealization

For me, the NU/B&C are companies, I don’t care Jordan/Phoenix is bad or good person, I don’t care whether he controls 80% shares or not. Don’t care the power consumption (PPC’s green concept), or the meaning of scientific computation(primecoin) , I care about how to survive, call me practical.

If you completely lose faith in Nu/B&C, please leave this forum, if you still have hope in it, please contribute.

Sentinelrv 2017-03-12 03:24:04 UTC #34

You know why that is because I explained the entire situation here in your thread here…

Ethereum turned its blockchain into one giant database which has grown astronomically in size, which is bad design. I have a feeling they’re not going to survive.

Sabreiib:

Nu/B&C would be dead if Jordan/Phoniex/Sigmike refuse to support it, isn’t it the truth? Centralization in this situation is not bad, at least better than death in the graceful/decentralized way.

@Sentinelrv, @Nagalim, would/could you write source codes for Nu/B&C? You advocated loudly for Nu in 2014, and I joined this project, but soon I found that Nu has revenue problem and will meet crisis sooner or later, so I cashed out and avoided the loss, while quite some forum members insisted in 2014-2015 that partial reserve is good, tier X is enough, bla bla. “let’s sell the NSR when pegging in danger”, but when NSR really happened, what’s your response? Market manager left, some of you became against Nu. However, you are deserved because when you accepted “partial reserve” and “NSR buyback”, it was determined. Although Jordan/phoenix also make mistakes, at least he is insisting, whatever the way he goes, decentralized or centralized.

I advocated for Nu because I thought Jordan knew what he was doing. Obviously he didn’t and no amount of him blaming Augeas is going to make me believe that was the main cause. It was the bad policies that you mentioned that shareholders voted for, introduced by him. I hope you don’t think he’s suddenly going to come to his senses and change policy. He’s been pushing for more NSR buybacks for months now. Nothing is going to change in the way he runs things and you will soon be complaining that that the revenue problem continues to persist under Phoenix’s rule.

[quote=“Sabreiib, post:33, topic:4936”]
I don’t care Jordan/Phoenix is bad or good person, I don’t care whether he controls 80% shares or not.[/quote]

You should care about this. A network controlled 80% by one person is not secure. I would not touch Nu at this point with a 100 foot pole even if it was making money. If security is controlled by one person, then the entire platform is at risk of being attacked, thus no one can be confident in its future. A blockchain needs to have a solid foundation in order to build on it. Without decentralized security, it’s just not worth taking the risk because everything you work for could blow up in your face if the owner of the network decides to take the money and run one day.

Peercoin established decentralized security as its foundation. It was sidetracked for a couple years because of Nu, but now it’s at a point where the companies you speak of can start being built on top of the network. That can happen because it has a solid foundation when it comes to security. People can trust that it will still be around in the next 5-10 years.

Nor do I. For me it’s less that Peercoin is a green technology and more that it’s cost efficient to run, which is why the network has been able to run securely and smoothly even at such low prices. Others have recognized this as well. Being able to declare Peercoin a green technology is only a side benefit. Cost efficient security is the main point.

Cybnate 2017-03-12 04:43:07 UTC #35

It appears to get a bit better after another ~6 hours. Approximately 1 in 4 blocks are rejected now. Hope this trend continues for the good.[quote=“Phoenix, post:32, topic:4936, full:true”]

No, not significant maybe, but enough to put more people off. Something we don’t really need.

Hope Sigmike can still have a look. Also like to hear what minting/rejection ratios others see, hope I am not the only one besides Phoenix still minting because of the blkindex issue?

sigmike 2017-03-12 09:41:08 UTC #36

I’ve released Nu 4.0.0 (because it’s a protocol change) here:

It includes the changes from 3.0.1ban2 and:

a fix for the blkindex problem at startup
addresses are blocked only after block 1,301,400
Poloniex addresses removed from block list
FLOT NSR addresses added to block list

The last 2 items have been requested by @Phoenix in a PM.

sha256sum:

01f6d13a1ea78d06d65873af471ece0402f1a8dae4debbaee5bd492d48c45dd3  nu-4.0.0-linux-gitian.zip
6293b084e9a7abaf47ccc304dbe6f6e8e33bbc3a7914b7929becdd95cedf85c1  nu-4.0.0-win-gitian.zip
1001c2342b01b10c8f5eb2e03bde8122a4c5ce209c08131421621e2783c8a1a4  bin/32/nu
45adcc78a059bd7a1cc86a661573a3bec2c9407b4e3609811ae2741e0af73963  bin/32/nud
35b97658f6cb8c1bc1693043881be98ea659ad22378193f39506d7da5e76ceb6  bin/64/nu
0c4c696ee4f882b00b37b7f5a3922727e3e3a8531e420b756a4af57b09a26ffc  bin/64/nud
4927018fd7a6201821b688f3b40a7deb2e147f3cfacd6967524dc721dd7d0898  32/Nu-3.0.1-win-setup.exe
20703d348ef2cd0f4eafb20150ca093af80727e21f6ada6d513147c41c7878ab  32/nu.exe
4e152a96a73eecb4df57f78209d61301ed9d34dbba1a95f4ebacf3cdfb529728  32/nud.exe
a423b02829338a8b95454cbafcb43a0f984639011dca0221499be3ade21702ea  64/Nu-3.0.1-win-setup.exe 
c0e2683842288a24ed78ed309356a8ca6c0c07089848186e08742e71dfa94cc9  64/nu.exe
32d128be88c5520b27e6a929ffea2f86bdb4f37018ec3b2c0965d81a010469a6  64/nud.exe

Sabreiib 2017-03-12 15:45:59 UTC #37

In this period, just like 2009 early for Bitcoin, centralized, Satoshi himself controlled 80% hash rate, it doesn’t mean Nu will be always centralized, just like bitcoin’s story.

matthewd 2017-03-12 16:08:55 UTC #38

I have Nu version v2.0.3-beta

The blockchain is not downloading, stuck at 84 days ago

Should I go straight to downloading Nu 4.0.0, or one of the other versions?

Thanks

Chronos 2017-03-13 18:01:19 UTC #39

@Sentinelrv and @Nagalim, we must admit that Jordan is right: we are not shareholders. It would be polite not to verbally attack his network too much and derail the thread, when others are trying to get things done. It’s nice that he lets us post here, when most of our content seems to be antagonistic of Nu.

P.S. Congrats on 33% gain in Peercoin price today!

Phoenix 2017-03-13 18:37:20 UTC #40

Download 4.0.0.