Consensus – Can I have a blockchain that has not been mined or validated?

I'm ready to use blockchain technology to implement the voting system. Therefore, I plan to create a private network that consists only of nodes that people vote on, so I do not want a miner or examiner. Is it possible to do it? Is there a consensus that allows this? Is it also possible to avoid double spending with smart contracts? (I plan to use a hash of voter fingerprints as an address, so I can restrict a person to vote only once with smart contracts.)
I am sorry for any misunderstandings, as I am still very new to the blockchain!

How can SQL changes be validated more effectively?

In my experience, SQL code changes are almost always NOT incremental: someone creates a new stored procedure or modifies an entire embedded SQL query for optimization or creates a brand new table. When I get one of these code validation requests, I could not find any other way than to understand the entire SQL query. Often these are really long nested queries, sometimes other procedures are called. Understanding and verifying these changes becomes a big task. Then I have three options: 1] to approve without careful examination; 2] Spend a lot of time going row by row, understanding the data model, interrogating a test system to see what it produces. 3] Ask the person to guide me through the changes.

I do not want to do 1 or 2. However, I do not want to spend hours figuring out what the entire query does and whether the new version is equivalent, but works faster.

Are there any technologies or tools or methods to simplify this process? How do others perform such checks without suffering too much pain?

A fundamental difference to regular code changes seems to be that SQL changes are more likely to become complete paraphrases, which makes the problem more common – for me, almost every SQL check I do every day.

All recommendations are highly appreciated.

laravel – Why can not the credentials in the LoginController.php controller be validated after using the make: auth command from php artisan?

Good day! I have my laravel project "proyectolaravel"; Now the project has implemented a credential entry and validation method using the laravel php artisan make: auth command, which is used when running the command in the /resources/views/auth/login.blade folder. php, in the part of the controller in the folder / App / Http / Controllers / Auth / (the controllers): ForgotPasswordController.php, LoginController.php, RegisterController.php, ResetPasswordController.php, VerificationController.php; and at the folder level /App/Http/Controllers/HomeController.php

In the controller /App/Http/Controllers/Auth/LoginController.php; In the following, one method was implemented to first display the login view "showLoginForm", and another method to verify the user's credentials to verify that the login method exists in the user table of the table, following the path:

validateLogin($request);

        if (Auth::attemp(('usuario' => $request->usuario,'password' => $request->password,'condicion'=>1))){

            return redirect()->route('main');

        }
    
        return back()->withErrors(('usuario' => trans('auth.failed')));

    }   
        
        protected function validateLogin(Request $request){
            $this->validate($request,(
                'usuario' => 'required|string',
                'password' => 'required|string'
            ));
        }


    
}

In the "web.php" route file located in the folder of my Laravel project "proyectolaravel" /routes/web.php; The ways to these methods were exhausted as follows:

name('main');

Route::get('/categoria', 'CategoriaController@index');
Route::post('/categoria/registrar', 'CategoriaController@store');
Route::put('/categoria/actualizar', 'CategoriaController@update');
Route::put('/categoria/desactivar', 'CategoriaController@desactivar');
Route::put('/categoria/activar', 'CategoriaController@activar');
Route::get('/categoria/selectCategoria', 'CategoriaController@selectCategoria');

Route::get('/producto', 'ProductoController@index');
Route::post('/producto/registrar', 'ProductoController@store');
Route::put('/producto/actualizar', 'ProductoController@update');
Route::put('/producto/desactivar', 'ProductoController@desactivar');
Route::put('/producto/activar', 'ProductoController@activar');

Route::get('/proveedor', 'ProveedorController@index');
Route::post('/proveedor/registrar', 'ProveedorController@store');
Route::put('/proveedor/actualizar', 'ProveedorController@update');

Route::get('/cliente', 'ClienteController@index');
Route::post('/cliente/registrar', 'ClienteController@store');
Route::put('/cliente/actualizar', 'ClienteController@update');

Route::get('/rol', 'RolController@index');
Route::get('/rol/selectRol', 'RolController@selectRol');

Route::get('/user', 'UserController@index');
Route::post('/user/registrar', 'UserController@store');
Route::put('/user/actualizar', 'UserController@update');
Route::put('/user/desactivar', 'UserController@desactivar');
Route::put('/user/activar', 'UserController@activar');

Route::get('/','AuthLoginController@showLoginForm');
Route::post('/login', 'AuthLoginController@login')->name('login');

Route::get('/home', 'HomeController@index')->name('home');

The truth is that if you redirect the project I've made "proyectolaravel" initially in the same file /routes/web.php it redirects to main / main to the login.php after the User credentials; that the logon file is as follows:

@extends('auth.contenido')

@section('login')
{{ csrf_field() }}

Compras - Ventas

{!!$errors->first('usuario',':message')!!}
{!!$errors->first('password',':message')!!}
@endsection

What's in the folder /resources/views/auth/login.blade.php; that in the same file login.blade.php; There is an extension of the content.blade.php file in the same path as the file, which I will discuss below:





    
    
    
    
    
   
    
    Project

  
  




  
@yield (& # 39; login & # 39;)

While the project is running, the following screen appears, asking you for the user's credentials:

Laravel - Auth (authentication of user credentials)

This is the error message I get after entering the user credentials to authenticate myself to the login method. This error occurs:

Laravel - Auth was unable to authenticate itself to the LoginController controller

My question is: How do I resolve this error, which I get in the login method of the LoginController.php controller? Everything is based on the documentation of the following link or link:

Laravel – Auth (Authentication)

[Vn5socks.net] Automatic update 24/7 – 10h20 PM

LIFE ~ 52.116.25.174:10306 | 0,298 | Wilmington | DE | 19893 | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 166.62.103.159:57531 | 0.408 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 47.93.251.207:3001 | 0.259 | Ottawa | ON | k1y4h7 | Canada | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 166.62.43.205:49683 | 0.395 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 98.181.99.197:10368 | 0.332 | unknown | unknown | unknown | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 52.116.25.164:10356 | 0,278 | Wilmington | DE | 19893 | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 192.169.189.120:10306 | 0,216 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 169.239.221.90:50802 | 0.415 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 23.236.75.213:1081 | 0.231 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 72.217.158.195:54810 | 0.291 | unknown | unknown | unknown | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 166.62.117.207:17935 | 0,205 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 72.221.164.35:60670 | 0.313 | unknown | unknown | unknown | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 52.116.25.174:10356 | 0.309 | Wilmington | DE | 19893 | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 184.176.166.8:17864 | 0.352 | unknown | unknown | unknown | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 192.169.231.160:39750 | 0.213 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 166.62.118.146:41300 | 0.37 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 70.168.93.201:17009 | 0,329 | Santa Barbara | CA. | unknown | United States | Checked for vn5socks.net
LIFE ~ 192.169.218.22:20137 | 0.218 | unknown | unknown | unknown | unknown | Checked for vn5socks.net

Feuerhimmel
Reviewed by Feuerhimmel on
,
[Vn5socks.net] Automatic update 24/7 – 10h20 PM
LIVE ~ 52.116.25.174:10306 | 0,298 | Wilmington | DE | 19893 | United States | Checked at vn5socks.net
LIVE ~ 166.62.103.159:57531 | 0,408 | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Checked at vn5socks.net
LIVE ~ 47.93.251.207:3001 | 0,259 | Ottawa | ON | k1y4h7 | Canada | Checked at vn5socks.net
LIVE ~ 166.62.43.205:49683 | 0,395 | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Checked at vn5socks.net
LIVE ~ 98.181.99.197:10368 | 0,332 | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown |

Rating: 5

jquery – Indicates if a form has been validated

I have a question that drives me crazy because I do not know if there is a solution. I am adding a JQuery code in $ (document) so that the Send button is disabled in all forms of my page when I send it The user can only click once to prevent duplicate records from being created. Well, the code I'm showing you below works perfectly, because when you submit a form, the Submit Form button is disabled, but of course, there is the problem that it's disabled always The form will be sent final or not. Because these forms have some checks (), the Submit button must be disabled Only if the transmission is successful Therefore, onsubmit is not worth anything to me, as the button should still be enabled so that the user can correct the form and resubmit it if the form is not finally sent because it does not fulfill the checks. How can I tell if the form I submitted has been sent or if the submission was interrupted during validation?
Many thanks !!!

$(document).ready(function(){

  $("body").on("submit","form",function(event){
      $(this).find('input(type="submit")').attr("disabled", true);
  });


});

Javascript – Validated Valid Braces Codewars Challenge

I recently revamped the coding challenge "Valid Braces" for codewars. I already had a working code for this challenge:

function validBraces(braces){
  let tracer = ()
  for(let i=0;i < braces.length; i++){
    if ( braces(i) === "(" || braces(i) === "{" || braces(i) === "("){
      tracer.push(braces(i))
    } else{
      if(tracer.length === 0) return false
      let lastValue = tracer(tracer.length-1)
      if( (braces(i) === ')' && lastValue === '(') || (braces(i) === '}' && lastValue === '{') || (braces(i) === ')' && lastValue === '('))
      {
        tracer.pop()
      } else {
        break;
      }
    }
  }
  return tracer.length === 0
}
console.log(validBraces("())({}}{())()("));

But I mastered the challenge blindly, and that's what I came up with:

function validBraces(braces){
  let tracer = ();
  for (let i = 0; i < braces.length; i++) {
    if (braces(i) === "(" || braces(i) === "{" || braces(i) === "(") {
      tracer.push(braces(i));
    }
    else {
      if (tracer.length === 0) {
        return false;
      }
      if (braces(i) === ")" && tracer(tracer.length -1) === "(") {
        tracer.pop();
      }
      if (braces(i) === "}" && tracer(tracer.length -1) === "{") {
        tracer.pop();
      }
      if (braces(i) === ")" && tracer(tracer.length -1) === "(") {
        tracer.pop();
      }
    }
  }
  return tracer.length === 0;
}

^ A test failed.

So my question is: what's really different about the first block than the second block of code?

Just the fact that all three if statements are grouped together?

Because if I do that:

function validBraces(braces){
  let tracer = ();
  for (let i = 0; i < braces.length; i++) {
    if (braces(i) === "(" || braces(i) === "{" || braces(i) === "(") {
      tracer.push(braces(i));
    }
    else {
      if (tracer.length === 0) {
        return false;
      }
      if (braces(i) === ")" && tracer(tracer.length -1) === "(") {
        tracer.pop();
      }
      if (braces(i) === "}" && tracer(tracer.length -1) === "{") {
        tracer.pop();
      }
      if (braces(i) === ")" && tracer(tracer.length -1) === "(") {
        tracer.pop();
      }
      else {
        break;
      }
    }
  }
  return tracer.length === 0;
}

Suddenly 4 tests failed - why is that?

DNSSEC validated DNS query with libunbound from Local Zone?

-1

I'm trying to use the libunbound library to retrieve a DNSSEC-validated SMIMEA record from a locally-signed DNS zone. I can do the query from a live .com domain. I created a gmail.com domain using bind in VM and posted SMIMEA records to my local domain zone file there. I want my libbound to search my local domain for SMIMEA records instead of going to the internet. I've set my local name server at etc / resolv.conf to search the local DNS name server before going online. But it does not work. Does anyone have any idea how to configure Libbound to first search the local domain for DNS records?

If Schnorr signatures are part of Bitcoin, can each block be validated with just one signature validation?

In a recent presentation, Pieter Wuille talked about faster verification of the use of Schnorr signatures and various algorithms for checking multiple signatures.

Would it really be possible to check a single block by aggregating the keys and signatures of all transactions? (Theoretically more transactions over several blocks)

I assume that the old ECDSA system is no longer used. If we were backward compatible, we would probably only be able to do this for transactions that used Schorr signatures that would need to be checked sequentially.

(Apart from the policy of drastic protocol changes) Could not even save more space if we take the block header so that it contains an overall Schnorre signature for the block and omits all the Schnorr signatures of each transaction in that block ?

Did I forgot something? The lecture did not give many details, but only mentioned the idea.