Secure Node Tracking and Payment System Software Development Project Discussion


#81

Were you still interested in pursuing this idea?


#82

Hi guys, really happy with the project so far. Let me ask you all a quick thing. If 3.5% of mining rewards are allocated to the SN rewards what would happen when we reach 5000 SN then 10000 SN… rewards get substantially lower the safer and faster the decentralized network is right? Will the number of SN somehow be capped once we reach a certain number or it simply will keep growing till there is barely any reward to be credited to each SN? Just a tought. Which from the point of view of a decentralized world is actually awesome. The more SNs we have the more solid the project gets. What will happen after the migration today?


#83

Hi guys! I’ve just newbe in Secure Nodes. I’ve tried one. But have “peers: the peer count is below minimum.” message. So the question: How can I increase peers count?
Thanx for any help


#84

There’s a bug fix for that. The apt repo has been updated with the SSL/TLS peer exception bug fix. You can now update from the repo.

For those who installed from repo. You can do it with minimal downtime, run the following:
sudo apt-get update

then
sudo apt-get install zen

then run, even if you use monit, the following
zen-cli stop

then wait 5 seconds
zend


#85

You get the nodes to challenge each other


#86

nodes challenging each other would be pretty cool. we’re brainstorming ideas for the secure node system v2 already…


#87

Yeah I was actually thinking about how this might work when I was driving home and I fell back on the OSPF model of DR and BDR so if the nodes elected a set of challengers set on a specific ratio of nodes referencing the database of reliability and speed for selection you could probably select 100 optimal nodes per thousand to be the challengers, split that in two and you have the designated challengers and the backup designated challengers which monitor the designated challengers in case they go offline and take over in that instance. You could also potentially create some kind of separate node distributed challenge blockchain for consistency but I haven’t thought much about that aspect of it.


#88

definitely needs more flushing out with detail, but love where the thought process is going. @devman @cronic and @ps71 are doing some of this heavy brainstorming on the team side, so would be cool to reach out to them directly or post ideas here and we can keep maturing solutions paths.


#89

I see it as a self-balancing system, much like with mining and difficulty. The more miners, the less the reward per unit of electricity. The more nodes, the less the reward per node. In both cases, when it becomes unprofitable, the number will reduce.
With mining, people look for the most efficient hardware, with nodes it will be a matter of finding the cheapest way to host a node.


#90

With the current tracking system, can I suggest the status page be made available to authorised users only? It is really cool, and a good tool for devs, but it is bound to be a resource hit and most importantly it is exposing sensitive information. I am guessing any DOS attacker would love to have live feedback on the effectiveness of whatever they are doing at a given moment to overload and bring down the system. I certainly can’t think of any major site that provides such information to all of its users.


#91

Potential downsides to the OSPF model would be that maintaining neighbour states is relatively expensive - it is designed to work over a LAN (OSPF is an IGP) rather than the internet. That’s why in a LAN it is done over multicast, which we can’t use in our case.

We could use the peers already maintained by zend, and have the tracker app run checks against each of the registered peers. Check results would need to be stored in the/a block chain in some way, and any node with 9 or more successful check sets would be considered up. Alternatively, since the 9+ bit is there to guarantee that a node is accessible and doesn’t just have outbound connections, we could only run checks on nodes which appear in getpeerinfo with "addr": "n.n.n.n:9033" (the connection is to port 9033 on the remote side, so outbound from this node’s perspective but inbound for the remote node which is to be checked). In the latter case a single successful check set should be fine.

Some checks will need to be frequent (e.g. online status/presence of the peer in the peer list), others like the challenge can be done once a day only. Checks can then be summed up and stored in the block chain periodically.

Of course the key element there is how will checks be stored in the block chain. The technicalities of that will probably determine a lot about the rest of the system.


#92

ugh you’re absolutely right, i think we need to keep IP addresses private.


#93

we’re already spec’ing out protocol-level secure node system as our v2…you’re more than welcome to join the brainstorming. What’s your Discord handle?


#94

It’s nikmit#8661
I am having a crazy busy time at work though and when you add family and the time difference real time discussions can be difficult to organise…


#95

Totally understand! i’m craving some down time to just focus for a bit, not be drawn in a thousand directions at once…


#96

Indeed I agree with the points you have made It was simply the closest model I could think of which might do the job The igp problem could probably be solved with a dmvpn ipsec timed tunnel between the nodes essentially forming a mesh or several subdivided meshes depending on the parameters chosen to subdivide the nodes. However it is new years and I have had quite a few vodkas so I could be talking complete bollocks at this point :face_with_raised_eyebrow:


#97

Given the choice, I’d rather have physical access to the rig I’m running the secure node on, as opposed to running it on a VPS as this guide advises. I have the bandwidth and a machine that will do. A static IP is out of the question with my ISP due to cost (wouldn’t be profitable in the slightest.)
I saw mention of Dynamic DNS here:

but can’t seem to find instruction on how that would be configured from a home-based rig. Anyone have any ideas on how to modify this guide for use on a home PC, without needing a static external IP?
Thanks for helping the newbie. :slight_smile:


#98

Great question, i’d say we need to gen some tutorial content on how to do that. Every guide i’ve seen uses a VPS.


#99

I am running my two nodes from home, for the most part you can follow this guide no problem. The only issue is indeed the dynamic IP. You need a dynamic DNS service like dyndns.com - to manage the domain name for you. A locally installed agent updates the service when your IP changes, and they update the A record in DNS. Some of these services are free, but you need to be careful with who you use, as you will be installing their software.

The most secure way to do it is host your own zones and script the updates, but that requires some expertise.

It may be that you have or can add IPv6 connectivity cheaper - v6 usually comes with a bunch of static IPs.


#100

Nice thanks for the input @nikmit …any interest in putting together a guide?