Bible Pay

Read 175 times

  • Rob Andrews
  • Administrator

    • 2045


    • 27
    • June 05, 2017, 08:09:04 pm
    • Patmos, Island Of
    more
Remove Port Restriction on Hosted Sanctuaries
« on: September 15, 2019, 01:31:18 pm »
So this idea is spearheaded by Apollon and I also have heard of this idea from TheSnat before.

The idea is to remove the port restriction on sactuaries, and allow the sanc to be hosted from any port number.

Technically, we know this will work because XAP and BlockLogic (BLTG) are doing it already.

(The port restriction is this:  Dash must run on port 9999 only and if a user hosts from other than 9999, the Masternode will be rejected from the network.  For BiblePay they must run on port 40000).

Dash put the port restriction in to be more corporate friendly for Network Admins - IE - they wanted network admins to know that if port 9999 is to be open, its specifically for Dash traffic.

Initially I was slightly against the idea, when I imagined we would have one sanc per user, I figured each of us could afford the $5 hosting fee per month.

However, as we evolved I have seen another side to this situation:  During downward price spirals some of our users who are cost concious would like to run more than one sanc on a hosted VPS.  From my perspective, I changed my mind to neutral when I experienced a very bad service level with one of my last sanc hosts (not vultr), and I had to hurry and switch to Apollon (thank God they were available at the time).  What Im alluding to is, if removing the port restriction would have given me for example a path to create more instances per vultr node for example, it might have been a life saver.  (I dont mean financially for me, I mean for the sake of the GSC contracts being voted on by my nodes).

In light of this I've become neutral.  I obviously want high performance per node.

Please provide any opinions on this idea, if this will be a terrible move for some reason.

As far as Apollons perspective, they are in business to make money.  I realize our partners need to be healthy and make a profit, and if we lose our partners, we lose our ability to host sancs.  Lets think of this from all angles.

Possible Positive reason:
If less BBP is spent on hosting less is liquidated on the exchange for hosting fees to be paid

Possible Negative reason:
Will we look weak and fragile if we allow this?






  • inblue
  • Newbie

    • 38


    • 4
    • December 20, 2017, 03:41:42 pm
    more
Re: Remove Port Restriction on Hosted Sanctuaries
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2019, 03:00:59 pm »
I support this. Another positive reason is less time spent on configuring and watching multiple servers.


  • sunk818
  • Full Member

    • 248


    • 7
    • April 24, 2018, 02:02:20 pm
Re: Remove Port Restriction on Hosted Sanctuaries
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2019, 04:11:26 pm »
It is certainly cheaper because of consolidating nodes onto one server. You can rent one beefy server (hetzner, scaleway) and not have to pay for multiple IPs per month. Downside is that is a potential DDoS attack or network route going down will take all the sanctuaries (masternodes) offline. With (B) IPFS, having all nodes on the same server would be risky since one server or network down means all the IPFS nodes go offline.