http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pc23i/microsoft_should_integrate_bitcoin_into_windows_10/
microsoft could install ncc as standard and have their own batch of remote nis for users convenience.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pc23i/microsoft_should_integrate_bitcoin_into_windows_10/
microsoft could install ncc as standard and have their own batch of remote nis for users convenience.
The seperation of server and client part will be advantageous in many instances where the device just isn't supposed/able to do the heavy lifting. Mobile apps for example. Of course people should still be incentiviced to run thick-clients (i.e. server [NIS] and client [NCC]). Otherwise the network could weaken due to people only running thin-clients and nobody actually providing permanent network infrastructure. It's a double-edged sword but as long as there are enough people supporting the network we should be alright.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pc23i/microsoft_should_integrate_bitcoin_into_windows_10/
microsoft could install ncc as standard and have their own batch of remote nis for users convenience.
The seperation of server and client part will be advantageous in many instances where the device just isn't supposed/able to do the heavy lifting. Mobile apps for example. Of course people should still be incentiviced to run thick-clients (i.e. server [NIS] and client [NCC]). Otherwise the network could weaken due to people only running thin-clients and nobody actually providing permanent network infrastructure. It's a double-edged sword but as long as there are enough people supporting the network we should be alright.
you are right but if say for instance microsoft did integrate ncc locally on new comps and set up say 1 nis for every three instillations of local ncc, straight off the bat thats going to be thousands of instances of nis set up, if not 10's or 100's of thousands.. each of those instances would be supporting the network.. the sheer number of extra users would inherently mean more instances of nis even if ncc/nis ratio is 3:1 or even 5:1.. the simplicity and advantages would mean vastly more users and therefore more nis(even while lower than the number of new users) instances..
it is a double edge sword but imo one side is far sharper than the other.. :)
considering most people don't actually use a client at any given time, I am guessing you could go 100 or 1000 to 1 no problem. Just an intuitive guess. I am not really sure how it scales.
considering most people don't actually use a client at any given time, I am guessing you could go 100 or 1000 to 1 no problem. Just an intuitive guess. I am not really sure how it scales.
if the ncc's installed on the OS's only connect to nis when opened thats quite possible i would say.. just have all the local clients dynamically connect/disconnect to available nis's when required.
considering most people don't actually use a client at any given time, I am guessing you could go 100 or 1000 to 1 no problem. Just an intuitive guess. I am not really sure how it scales.
if the ncc's installed on the OS's only connect to nis when opened thats quite possible i would say.. just have all the local clients dynamically connect/disconnect to available nis's when required.
depending on the machine NIS is running on 100 might be possible if they are not too active. 1000 is currently probably out of the question.
Switch from polling to websockets should help in that regard.