Topic: [ANN][RSU]█ ReserveShare █ NXT AE | FAIR distribution | First POR| UNIQUE Source - page 14. (Read 256312 times)

As Darkhorse made an announcement I would like to introduce myself and make a few statements that I would like to fix now before we start.

I am a software engineer with long record of professional experience (almost 30 years). I am not going to prove this, though.
I started to look into crypto-currency scene in March '13, just a week before bitcoin's spiked to 200+. Since that time I did some coin related development (see the graincoin treads for detail), provided some fixes for a few coins.
I am not a marketing guy at all. I have of course the common sense, but in terms of natural language skills: I can read.

I will make an SW development of the wallet and other pieces of SW the Team designs in the future.

I will not do PoD under any circumstances as I do not see the point for it.

As Darkhorse already said the plan is to start with a 'standard' PoS wallet. The initial supply distribution will be done using current list of holders of the RS Asset.

I will not participate in this distribution - the community will donate my RS address at its discretion.

Do you accept these terms?

waiting for new dev to be involved in this project!holding my RSU still!

Same here, still checking in.

i am following every day , maybe we are at the beginning off something great

you never know

The community is there and quiet, watching the progress. I dont know what i am doing is right or wrong, but like i said, i will try and see where this gets. Question is, do you want to get involved?

@DarkhorseofNxt
check PM please

well, now any dev interested. but where is the community?

Yes, this I got, that the node owning some reserve may be offline. My question is related to the selection of node 'D' in the scenario.

I never looked into NXT implementation so I can't say about it. As for PoS (I mean its initial implementation by the Peercoin and all derived/cloned coins) - there is the same way to get a network consensus as with PoW. The difference with PoW is that the result of a different function with completely different set of arguments (the unspent input value and its age) is compared to the PoS difficulty. If the condition is met then and only then the block is created and broadcast. Then, there is a place of collisions of blocks at the same height, but this resolved the same way as with PoW - by the 'longest chain'.

So, the discussion of this had no place in the thread previously, right?

From the white paper:

" VII. When reserving takes place it is broadcasted to the network, so offline block generation is possible by other peers, no need for keeping the wallet online to get the return. A generated block will be signed by other peers. Example of offline block generating: A puts in reserve X amount, and the reserving is brodcast to B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J peers. D generates a block for A, that is accepted only if B, C, E, F, G, H signs the transaction as valid. "

I am not so sure if i am getting this right, but it sounds like this proposed system is a brain wallet. Isn't POS is a system where a block is created every x amount of time. NXT a block is created every 60 secs, therefore 1440 blocks per day.

Hi, community.

I read the ann topic from which I got that you are looking for a new dev. My attention were attracted by the previously unknown to me PoR model. After reading through whitepaper I got some questions that most likely would keep me from attempt to implement something similar.

The most important question is about point VII of the Block Generation Method description. The traditional models of block creation (both PoW and PoS) assume that no node is able to create a block at will, so there could be no storm of messages over the network advertising a newly created blocks (if that happens then difficulty is adjusted to meet the target time between such advertisements), and, in a sense, the block creation method itself arbitrages who creates the block.

With PoR model described it is necessary to decide somehow who is the node 'D' (see the whitepaper). To accomplish this some kind of election should be performed over the network but the criteria for this election is completely artificial in relation to the block generation process. Also, it is fine to perform an election when the number of nodes is relatively small. But with growth of the network the number of messages to exchange to complete such election should grow exponentially, as at least 51% of all nodes should confirm to each other that they agree to make some node X the generating one. Thus, the complete idea looks unfeasible to me at least now.

Did you discuss this question somewhere in this thread?

Thank you.

Edited for clarity.

as at least 51% of all nodes should confirm to each other that they agree to make some node X the generating one

Tan, with all respect this is not an answer for my question.
I see that you already in, so I wish you all good luck.