Quote from: dzarmush on March 18, 2015, 07:50:01 AM

It's awesome.

Thanks for the support! Btw, I really think you should talk to Vrontis about his project. Right now, he's working on a Node.js based webapp wallet for Qora, and I feel you've got a lot to contribute. Maybe you guys can team up and collaborate on something together.

Let's make Qora the most successful Crypto Ever!

Quote from: scriptmastr on March 18, 2015, 10:41:21 AM

i d like to reserve port #110 - #160. and btw - great work!
going to announce my work later on. keep it up guys!

Glad to see new developer joining the team! I think eventually we need to merge our work together and create an "Unified Qora Services Repository" for the end users. I'm going to share my visions and outline the direction we should take in my next post.

Quote from: wizzardTim on March 18, 2015, 11:55:41 AM

I'm very happy & excited to see people implement services using Arbitrary Transactions.

I agree with the reservations - FTTB it's first come first served approach.

I was just wondering about the following 2 things:

The first x slots (1 to 9 and 101 to 109) will be used for some more core/central function or they are reserved because of some reason?
If someone decides to use one of the already defined ports/ would he be able to create problems? If yes, how can we overcome it / could we add one extra form of authentication?

I'm going to answer your questions backward -

2. I feel reservation is absolutely necessary, and it's a very bad idea for another person to use a "reserved port" for another use (unitended). The reasoning is very simple -- If a developer create an application that process data blindly (meaning - not checking if the data conform to certain standard or format), "Bad Data" will definitely break the application and lead to negative user experience. We certainly don't want that, do we?

And you know, it's really easier for developer if a port is considered reserved so he doesn't need to perform "Data Check" for every block he comes across. Just my 2 cents.

1. Between rlh, CIYAM, and me, we were just discussing how the reservation system should work. And I just wrote a post saying that I agree with rlh - maybe we should reserve lower number ports for CORE USE and leave higher ports for 3rd party application.

There is no built-in reservation system that restrict any Service ID for 3rd-party use, but I definitely think we need some sort of written system to regulate Service ID (prefer to call them ports) use.