bitdesert / mynanoninja Goto Github PK

Allowing access to the delegators RPC command would be a useful and welcome addition. Link to docs.

Would be nice to have the specific percentages for each section of the pie charts on https://mynano.ninja/statistics/versions , instead of having to eyeball it or do the math ourselves.

This would be a great improvement especially with the v22 release and everyone wanting to know precisely when quorum has been reached :)

Both Node V19.0 and V20.0 are on protocol version 17 I believe, unfortunately I don't know if its possible to find out a node's version just from the peer_details.

Seems like a potential issue

https://github.com/BitDesert/MyNanoNinja/blob/master/app.js#L50

Maybe pass it in as an environment var

My Nano Ninja - Connect Nano Accounts feature no longer works (https://mynano.ninja/auth/connect/nano). I sent 1 nano twice to add my account, but it did not respond:
https://nanolooker.com/block/7BB921AA9A85807CA4722FC2686C55CE6368EF73264CC8493411C98B8A3D722A
https://nanolooker.com/block/5F896FC5A4628C021D13706985D1B2D599609A7B5718899CA0C953837173E72B

My nano node is: https://mynano.ninja/account/nano_3hn3r6bnnmcy39gu6fgtisgnqh384gmt5mnh71a5xo4cb1d38ps16p8sg5c3

My hosting provider is netcup, but my nodes show with incorrect hosting providers on the ninja.

(I don't use cloudflare)

The API just returns the top X number ordered by ranking.

"Request failed with status code 404"

Probably related with accept-nano or it's integration with the project.

Nano node monitors seem unable to parse the location sent by Ninja displaying it like:

[object Object]

e.g nanoskynode.com

Our node has been upgraded to V21, but according to MyNanoNinja it is still V20.

Node monitor: http://167.71.245.153/
MyNanoNinja page: https://mynano.ninja/account/upstart-hosting

On NanoCrawler it is also displayed as V21: https://nanocrawler.cc/network (scroll down).

I guess it's a bug? I can see them as online elsewhere like nanolooker.com but there is no single "online" label at https://mynano.ninja/principals

Add a feature of filtering verified nodes with voting weight (ie.) < 0.1%?

It is crucial to have a reliable and objective way to measure node performance because the scalability of the network depends heavily on node hardware, yet we currently have to rely on rep's self-report and stress tests to even get a basic idea on that metric. This method is neither reliable nor quantitative. Thus, it's easy to game and hard to factor into Ninja Score to quickly inform average users of their rep quality.

Given that vote latency analysis is a promising proxy for node performance, we as a community should investigate how much we can improve on current implementation so it can be production-ready. In fact, many reps that struggled quite a bit during the last 40 CPS stress tests still have high Ninja Scores and are continuously gaining weight as a result.

People have suggested setting up different nodes across the world dedicating to measure vote latency of peers to improve reliability and reduce bias from Internet latency. There should also be ways to aggregate data from existing peers and model out the confounding factors. It sounds like a pretty standard date science problem to me, but I could be wrong.

Unfortunately I'm neither a dev nor data scientist so I cannot give much further suggestions on implementation details. But I believe we need to get this ready before the next waves of newcomers arrive to avoid a large group of people choosing the wrong reps. Therefore, I invite the devs and data analysts to join this discussion and help solving this glaring issue in the ecosystem right now.

Any reason why some (pretty harmless) actions are excluded? account_block_count and (throttled) frontiers to name a couple?

All that data, Introduction, Website, etc., seems to only be displayed for representatives. That isn't fair, it should be displayed for all the nodes that paid 1 NANO to become verified, and might become representatives in the future.

I just realized by chance (looking at NanoTicker) that one of my reps was wayyy behind (~50 mil blocks), and that some of my other reps were not well peered (~200 vs ~300).

Would it be worth adding block count and peers vs average/median (or maybe even max?) to the Ninja score, and list them as tags next to "online speed version"? Even as low weight values just for visibility I think they'd be quite useful

I'm trying to clear or change my node monitor URL. The old URL that does not work anymore is http, not https.

https://mynano.ninja/account/nano_3i3dqy5xs98ewtk9ejfpxfwbsscejc6njz9hk5ia1446gdkxpxkjeeia719n

Seems odd that my node (Nanovert) has had the same vote latency (493ms) for months.

Also, three months or so I switched providers yet am still listed as hosting at Rackspace.

https://blokada.org › mirror › spark
hosts.txt - Blokada

When trying to login at https://mynano.ninja/auth/login
and choosing google, it's no longer possible to login with google.
Error: client_secret is missing.

(This also happened when I was configuring the OAuth on my own hosted copy)