MaidSafe Dev Update - March 2, 2017 - Test 12c


#122

So when can we start the official, 12c is a success, disjoint sections work, all the naysayers can suck it and see party?


#123

Would be interesting to see the code for that.

Also I wonder how useful that could be, given time is not on the network.
If it was set as UTC perhaps other sites could call to that and use it?
You could become the official third party time stamper.

[The time is now Sun Mar 5 21:57:10 UTC 2017].[at which point I saw event occur].[official.signature]


#124

it is utc.
But it is late of something between 0 and 1 minute, depending on when you load the page.
Basically, it is a rust program that pulls time from my local machine ( which has it from ntp ) , and rewrites the index.html of safe://time.now every minute.
I’ll push the code to github when I have a chance ( not home right now )

I wrote this as an experiment to updating a safe website automatically. So now I could publish a webcam image, a meteo chart, the status of something, or anything that changes with time :slight_smile:


#125

I meant that UTC standard format that is easily transformed with the likes of date functions… not just the time.

Even with a minute delay, the sum of many third party encrypted sig confirmations might be useful?.. Contract event confirmations etc. Anything that requires to know who was on first.


#126

The way that SAFE and other decentralised networks agree on an absolute definition of time without reference to an outside source is going to be an interesting one to watch. Can anyone point me to work being done in this area?


#127

#128

Sorry couldn’t respond over the weekend. Basically this should not relate to nat-traversal. Router is free to map to any port. As long as it keeps that mapping it’s all good. It’s a problem in port-forwarding in this particular case because port forwarding expects an exact port number.and any deviation from that, you don’t get the desired behavior.

Besides do keep in mind that NAT-Traversal alone does not guarantee 100% penetration, it’ll attempt to bring it close to it but there maybe cases where you cannot actually do anything with it if it’s a highly NAT unfriendly router/config.


#129

more safe_client_libs fun :slight_smile:

safe://cam.now


#130

Looks like you’re using safe_client_libs master branch?

I thought they refactor it, and one needs to use dev branch?

Are you using JS/html for UI? Or is this all purely in rust?


#131

this is safe_client_libs from master

The time thing on safe://time.now is pure rust, simply rewriting index.html with a single string.

The webcam one is simply a regular html file , with a img tag that points to a jpg. Then a rust program updates the jpg every 15 min from a locally saved jpg from my camera.

You can look the sources of both pages, it is really bare !


#132

you are my hero @nice !

supercool!


#133

Will dev just merge to master or be adopted?
I wonder

use safe_core::dns::dns_operations::DnsOperations;

is not in https://github.com/maidsafe/safe_client_libs/tree/dev/safe_core/src
in the way it’s obviously in https://github.com/maidsafe/safe_client_libs/tree/master/src

try!(dns_operations.get_service_home_directory_key(&long_name, &service_name, None));

is rather important I wonder?


#134

@maidsafe . Have there been any major issues identified in this TESTNET? Will there be another routing iteration before Alpha 2? Any status updates at all?


#135

No, no major issues at all, dev update on Thursday though will outline everything we are working on. There is a few trails at the moment that a few teams are following. So a fair bit of planning in house right now discussing near future. This week is a lot of planning which will go on for a few more days with some more meetings etc. Things are looking very good though :wink:


#136

I must have worded it wrong. Because I was just saying why port forwarding is needed in this series of tests. And that a temp solution would not be so bad anyhow. But in this case it is not a bad solution to use the port number reported by the node as the one its using rather than the source port# of the packet

The point about the router changing port numbers in my post was that the router changing outgoing port numbers could be a contributing factor in the NAT traversal problem. And maybe not too


#137

If you really bored and want to add some comments to his 2 part series…
Be warned, this is time you won’t get back.

As we approach Alpha 2 we are no doubt going to get a barrage of concerned samaritans again!


#138

I left comments on his first video last week asking him to post his concerns here on the forum to get things clarified and he deleted them after responding to me. He said he didn’t have time and why should he. I replied with because I felt he wanted to do an honesty review of the SAFE Network but didn’t have all the details fully correct.

So make sure to screenshot any comments you make and his replies.

EDIT:I actually am able to see my comments, but have to sign into see them. You can hide individual users comments from the public and him doing that makes it even more suspicious of his intentions at this point.


#139

Why am I not surprised, well he can’t delete down votes.


#140

Sweet! Got my first vault running on Synology DS415+

I 17-03-06 23:44:07.453067  ------------------------------------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.513767  ------------------------------------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.513802 | Node(175969..(000)) PeerId(81c79dbf..) - Routing Table size:  58 |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.513819 | Estimated network size: 118                                      |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.513837  ------------------------------------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.622216  ------------------------------------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.622248 | Node(175969..(000)) PeerId(81c79dbf..) - Routing Table size:  59 |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.622265 | Estimated network size: 120--------------------------------------|
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.622283  ------------------------------------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.689951 Managing 4 client accounts.d(81c79dbf..) - Routing Table size:  51 |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.690008 Managing 5 client accounts.04                                      |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.752297 Managing 6 client accounts.----------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.752349 Managing 7 client accounts.----------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.914536  ------------------------------------------------------------------|
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.914574 | Node(175969..(000)) PeerId(81c79dbf..) - Routing Table size:  60 |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.914592 | Estimated network size: 122--------------------------------------|
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.914610  ------------------------------------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.940076  ------------------------------------------------------------------|
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.940113 | Node(175969..(000)) PeerId(81c79dbf..) - Routing Table size:  61 |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.940131 | Estimated network size: 124                                      |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.940149  ------------------------------------------------------------------|
I 17-03-06 23:44:23.697987 Stats - Sent 15000 messages in total, comprising 244073072 bytes, 1 uncategorised, routes/failed: [1903]/0
I 17-03-06 23:44:23.698236 Stats - Direct - NodeIdentify: 48, CandidateIdentify: 13, MessageSignature: 317, ResourceProof: 0/11662/0, SectionListSignature: 637
I 17-03-06 23:44:23.698334 Stats - Hops (Request/Response) - GetNodeName: 1/0, ExpectCandidate: 0, AcceptAsCandidate: 0, SectionUpdate: 0, SectionSplit: 0, OwnSectionMerge: 0, OtherSectionMerge: 0, RoutingTable: 0/0, ConnectionInfo: 61/48, CandidateApproval: 0, NodeApproval: 0, Ack: 1714
I 17-03-06 23:44:23.698422 Stats - User (Request/Success/Failure) - Get: 91/81/0, Put: 0/0/0, Post: 0/0/0, Delete: 0/0/0, Append: 0/0/0, GetAccountInfo: 0/0/0, Refresh: 326
I 17-03-06 23:44:25.953162 Managing 8 client accounts.----------------------------------------
I 17-03-06 23:45:06.055255 Cache Stats: Expecting 13 Get responses. 1485 entries in data_holders.
I 17-03-06 23:45:09.793630 Stats - Sent 20000 messages in total, comprising 253343946 bytes, 1 uncategorised, routes/failed: [6151]/0
I 17-03-06 23:45:09.793679 Stats - Direct - NodeIdentify: 48, CandidateIdentify: 13, MessageSignature: 875, ResourceProof: 0/11662/0, SectionListSignature: 637
I 17-03-06 23:45:09.793708 Stats - Hops (Request/Response) - GetNodeName: 1/0, ExpectCandidate: 0, AcceptAsCandidate: 0, SectionUpdate: 0, SectionSplit: 0, OwnSectionMerge: 0, OtherSectionMerge: 0, RoutingTable: 13/0, ConnectionInfo: 61/48, CandidateApproval: 0, NodeApproval: 0, Ack: 5786
I 17-03-06 23:45:09.793730 Stats - User (Request/Success/Failure) - Get: 266/262/0, Put: 0/0/0, Post: 0/0/0, Delete: 0/0/0, Append: 0/0/0, GetAccountInfo: 0/0/0, Refresh: 327
I 17-03-06 23:45:54.542978 Stats - Sent 25000 messages in total, comprising 262027913 bytes, 1 uncategorised, routes/failed: [10109]/0
I 17-03-06 23:45:54.543027 Stats - Direct - NodeIdentify: 48, CandidateIdentify: 13, MessageSignature: 1736, ResourceProof: 0/11662/0, SectionListSignature: 637
I 17-03-06 23:45:54.543049 Stats - Hops (Request/Response) - GetNodeName: 1/0, ExpectCandidate: 0, AcceptAsCandidate: 0, SectionUpdate: 0, SectionSplit: 0, OwnSectionMerge: 0, OtherSectionMerge: 0, RoutingTable: 26/0, ConnectionInfo: 61/48, CandidateApproval: 0, NodeApproval: 0, Ack: 9571
I 17-03-06 23:45:54.543070 Stats - User (Request/Success/Failure) - Get: 438/431/0, Put: 0/0/0, Post: 0/0/0, Delete: 0/0/0, Append: 0/0/0, GetAccountInfo: 0/0/0, Refresh: 327
I 17-03-06 23:48:04.785267 Cache Stats: Expecting 0 Get responses. 0 entries in data_holders. |
I 17-03-06 23:44:07.453049 | Estimated network size: 116

#141

Could you do it with oracles? I’m thinking we don’t have much of a trust issue here with using the normal atomic clocks as inputs, so you have various oracles inputting the atomic time maybe? Blockchains have a sort of defined sequence of events that acts as a progression through time innately, which has some uses similar to time but is of course different.