An important aspect of being a signer will be to not reveal specific hosting providers used, so I won’t comment on that.
If using a VPS, I think the best route will be to sign up using a pseudonym and run a Linux server with full-disk encryption. That way, even in the event that a thief identifies your server and attempts physical access, a restart will be required (which the full-disk encryption will protect). While using a VNC to access the VPS, a VPN and Tor should be used to add additional protection to the data coming in and out of the server.
If using a physical “trading box”, full-disk encryption and VPN/Tor should be used.
I’m far from an expert on these matters, so I’m looking forward to following the ideal hardware requirements thread for best practice suggestions.
I didn’t expect to find the name of the provider, because of the reasons you named
But you seem to have found a provider with decent hard disk space - Bitcoin alone requires over 70 GB.
What were the requirements you were trying to meet?
150 GB HDD or more?
4 GB RAM or more?
CPU minimum specs?
I think the rest of the attributes is of lesser importance, but I might err.
I think every signer will have to make that determination on their own, depending on what they’re trying to accomplish. Giving anything more specific isn’t something I’m comfortable with for identification purposes. Certainly though, CPU, RAM and disk space should be high priorities.
@tomjoad, now that B&C’s protocol has finally switched, we need to know if you are still moving forward with this. Do you still plan on becoming a reputed signer? You have talked about your current position with Nu, but not B&C Exchange, which is apparently still being developed by @Eleven. He has continued working on the trading features according to @cryptog , so it’s only a matter of time before it’s finished and can go live. We need trusted signers, so it would be helpful if you edited the first post to include your address for voting.
If not, is there a reason why you have decided against it? As far as I’m concerned B&C still has a viable business model. The only main difference is that it doesn’t have the backing of Nu anymore and will have to find another stable currency, unless NuBits returns to $1. Will you put your name forth for reputed signer voting?
I am afraid that Sigmike will not work together with eleven. @sigmike would you please explain the situation of B&C dev team? How many of them, who are they, who do you believe capable to contunue this task, how much money&time do you need to finish B&C?
Why is this, because of the issue with voting opt-out not being done correctly? This quote sounds like he is willing to work with him to me.
@sigmike, are you currently coordinating with @Eleven to make sure the trading features are being coded correctly, or do you not have any knowledge of what he’s working on? It would be great if you could oversee his work to make sure it is of quality.
Answers to these questions would be great as well, so we can prepare appropriate motions in order to move forward…
Ok, I want to clarify something.
First shareholder’s most concern question [quote=“Sentinelrv, post:18, topic:3651”]
how much money&time do you need to finish B&C?
[/quote]
It is hard to estimate. Now we don’t have a clear design, even in the whitepaper it is not clear. Have you guys read the whitepaper, is it clear? I don’t think so. Maybe we should do some research. I saw some good project similiar with B&C. But it need a little bit time to research.
Second, absolutely I don’t aggree with sigmike opinion about I am lack of blockchain technology. I did some project about blockchain for example Huobi wallet, Factom. I know my experience can’t prove all things but can prove something.
Thirdly, I still believe we can do B&C, for now I think our developer need a clear design and have open and uauslly discussion.
Thank you all.
Yeah, situation becomes a bit complicated, but one thing is very clear: we must elect some reputed signers, otherwise nobody will take charge of fund expenditure, hire&fire developers. @Sigmike is the techinical leader, not project manager.
It is very difficult to find very good programmers.
We were lucky to find @Eleven and we are lucky to have him on board willing to work on b&c exchange .
I understand that @sigmike does not agree with @Eleven s implementation.
That is ok.
Furthermore, the dev fund is controlled by JL who has disappeared. So you know the seriouness of situation, that’s why I push the process of signers election.
@cybnate, and other signer applicants, you don’t have to prepare the hardware because what we need now is an organization for decision making. Just bring up your BKS address, and get voted.
You may centainly prepare your hardware after several months.
BKS holders must save ourselves, otherwise no one can help us.
Since Jordan/Phoenix is so big on following NuLaw, I imagine they will also comply with B&CLaw if we pass something that commands them to transfer all development funds to an elected multisig group. Then the group can make developer payments more transparent.
In fact, Jordan wanted to transfer to fund to others.
But the first step is to form the team and pass a motion which demonstrates the responsibility of such a team.
Till now, there is only my BKS address provided, and we need more signer applicants.
I think the last team consisted of only @Eleven. @glv’s last work was in April and @erasmospunk’s last work was in February. And I was barely involved when the Nu crisis happened.
Last week I asked @Eleven whether he was still working on B&C and he told me he was on vacation but was now ready to get back to work. I asked him to put the development on hold until we have a proper plan.
@glv and @erasmospunk did pretty good work on Nu and B&C but I don’t think they are available. I still need to review @Eleven’s work on the trading messages to get a better opinion on his work. What he did on the abstention is not satisfying.
It’s very hard to say. It depends on lots of parameters, including who would be working on it and how we actually implement the remaining parts. The trading user interface for example can be done in very different ways that need to be analyzed.
When a block is received from another node you determine whether it’s abstaining by reading the abstention flag of the current node (indirectly, but that’s the end result). In other words if I’m abstaining then I’ll consider that all other blocks are abstaining. The information that a block is abstaining is not even put inside the blockchain.
I only reviewed quickly the trading messages code he wrote, and it didn’t look bad. This code was built on top a an architecture started by @glv. So maybe it could work if I provide @Eleven more detailed instructions on how it should be implemented. But that requires more time from me.
I’m not sure what “co-author” implies. Jordan wrote it and asked me to review it. A made some remarks that made him change some parts.
There are parts that are still not very clear to me, like the trading user interface.
reviewing and testing the already implemented trading messages
implementing the few messages that have not yet been implemented
designing and implementing the signer’s logic
designing and implementing the trading user interface
