Author

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1056. (Read 2761642 times)

sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12
This happened to me as well. Tho I hadn't ran the 0.5.11 for a few days so right after downloading the new release I got into a wrong chain or something. That "fork" had blocks in order not consistent with time. One was made 01.43 the next one 01.42 ...

Interesting, still running fine. Same situation. Down for some days. Immediately upgrading to 12, but runs like a charm.
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12
This happened to me as well. Tho I hadn't ran the 0.5.11 for a few days so right after downloading the new release I got into a wrong chain or something. That "fork" had blocks in order not consistent with time. One was made 01.43 the next one 01.42 ...
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
In addition, it seems that you are going for the more "fair" system, but by setting a minimum NXT holding limit, aren't you excluding all those who have less than this amount? So small stakeholders are being disenfranchised even more so than the 1 NXT = 1 vote system.

Do you mean with 1 NXT:
1) 1 NXT in balance
or
2) 1 NXT fee

Either way. People with larger stakes will care more about what they vote on whether or not they have to pay for it.

I would say it is better to be based on 1 NXT = 1 vote (without pay), otherwise it will discourage voting. We want a large as possible agreement, so that means we want as much NXT in the system voting as possible.

Do you really think, it would discourage voting? Large stakeholders can't afford to pay high fees, just because.

Another argument should be counted in: large stakeholders do a lot to secure the system. So, why jeopardizing it via 'appearing unfair' voting? In a system where only the balance counts they have to create smaller accounts just to vote fairly (assuming they want because of the stakeholder-argument). When they can determine the voting power directly (via fees), I dont see a problem with that.

Paying fees has the side-effect that more NXTs are distributed. That's basically a good thing, I think.
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1004
http://wallet.nxtarea.com:7874/nxt?requestType=getBalance&account=11613767591090258913
http://www.nxtvote.com/view.php?vote=10667094504543355029
Someone voted the following for EvilDave -  "Yes, he is. Pure Evil thru and thru." Cheesy
Seems the count is working. Double voting from the same account should be forbidden. Smiley
It also doesn't matter if you send 1 NXT or 5 NXT or 1000 NXT for the vote. It's always counting as 1 vote, as long as it comes from 1 account with the required attributes. Smiley

So your voting system works on sending money to some accounts? Who is in control of those accounts? Who will get the those money?
Just curious. Thought the voting should be free ...

I will use the money for the /r/Nxt marketing campaign. If the community show me a better way I will implement this. Wink

I think the Nxt should go to you for building the site and maintaining, it's an awesome addition to the community.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100

Did the author really attribute NXT's success to the ~60 members of reddit? Terrible article, it reeks of paid advertising.

I officially request that the NXTcommunityfund put out a bounty for the first person that successfully forges a block onto a simulated 300 GB NXT blockchain in a testbed setup.  Full specifications of system used and documentation of experiences in accomplishing the task required to claim the reward.
If infrastructure committee does not take care of this, i will create bounty

I like fee of .1 nxt for now, we can adjust again later

I think marketing should shift to 100 tps and this allows raspis to be useful, let moores law keep doubling our tps. Bitcoin blockchain does not gain tps with moores law, nxt does

In two years 300 gb wont seem so big

Also, nxt core is such that all cool stuff, mission critical, competitor defensive, fun and quirky, everything can be developed in parallel as long as we have the resources.

We now have nearly 1 million usd budget to be able to fund everything in parallel, plus as nxt gains value so does budget!

These are very good developments for nxt! We are discussing seious issues and ways to improve all aspects of nxt. Everyone can contribute. I am so proud to be part of NXT!!!

James
Where did 300GB come from? That's way too much.
Nxt needs about 32GB (theoretical, unreachable maximum) for balances...

Now that you mention this, I do remember C-f-b mentioning 32GB would be the hard limit, but why is this?
legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1004

EVERY IDEA deserves support from the people that believe in it. Of course, if there is serious problem give constructive feedback, but let us all be gentlemen and never devolve to personal insults or threats. Thats just wrong and anybody that does it should be ashamed. We are biggest strongest community, debates are natural, even required to find best solution.

If you find yourself devolving to troll like post, relax, count to 10, delete post and say nothing or make constructive feedback. We lost a key nxt contributor yesterday and i am sad about that.  I dont want that to happen again.

Deal?

James

James, your energy is contagious, keep it up and thanks for your work!
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1001
Would it be a good idea to automatically blacklist too old clients from connecting to new ones?
Seems like it, but we might end up with forks on basis of client version.
I've just seen someone with a heavy hallmark running on 4.7e......god knows how that still works.

@ChuckOne and Panda:
One of the good things about having the voting site is that we can play around with various voting parameters until we come up with a system (or systems) that upset the least number of people for the shortest time.

It's never going to be perfect, because everyone is slightly different, and yet everyone thinks that their own viewpoint is the right one.....democracy, eh, what ya gonna do?

On the forking front, I get the feeling that 5.12 likes to have a fresh blockchain. I've updated 3 NRS to 5.12, the one that downloaded a new blockchain is running fine and on the main fork, the other 2 (with blockchains from 5.11) forked off in very different directions.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1005
Very strange behavior of 0.5.12. Recent blocks stopped before 59000. Had to delete .nxt and download everything from scratch both om public node and private node.

Interesting which critical error was before 0.5.12
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

The idea is to minimize it to a reasonable stable numbers of op-codes.
Why? Are we short on bytes in nxt client?

I maybe repeating myself; read my previous posts.

It's not that would not be possible, theoretically, on the paper.
But, somebody has to implement it. The less, the better. The less, the less bugs, the less security issues, the less maintenance effort etc.
We discussed that issues at lengths some days ago.

Let high-level libraries handle the complex stuff.

Quote
Quote
Furthermore, each op should be worth the same amount of NXTs.
Again, why? That's just a completely arbitrary restriction.

Maybe, but it's a reasonable one. It simplifies a lot. See above.

Not because it can be done, should mean, it should be done.

Quote
Quote
It just doesn't fit so well. That's all. We could, in principle, add also square roots, differentiation, solving of systems of linear equations, QP, ... you get the idea.
Why not?

Even Intel (and AMD) disagrees with you, what with AES implemented in the cpu... and this is supposed to be an interpreted language where everything is possible and permitted

A low-level. So, each thing, you can build upon the very basis should be done on top of it. Not besides it: layered architecture.

It's just a pattern in computer science. It works quite well. Why violating it? Just because we can?
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
In addition, it seems that you are going for the more "fair" system, but by setting a minimum NXT holding limit, aren't you excluding all those who have less than this amount? So small stakeholders are being disenfranchised even more so than the 1 NXT = 1 vote system.

Do you mean with 1 NXT:
1) 1 NXT in balance
or
2) 1 NXT fee

Either way. People with larger stakes will care more about what they vote on whether or not they have to pay for it.

I would say it is better to be based on 1 NXT = 1 vote (without pay), otherwise it will discourage voting. We want a large as possible agreement, so that means we want as much NXT in the system voting as possible.
full member
Activity: 148
Merit: 100

The idea is to minimize it to a reasonable stable numbers of op-codes.
Why? Are we short on bytes in nxt client?

Quote
Furthermore, each op should be worth the same amount of NXTs.
Again, why? That's just a completely arbitrary restriction.

Quote
It just doesn't fit so well. That's all. We could, in principle, add also square roots, differentiation, solving of systems of linear equations, QP, ... you get the idea.
Why not?

Even Intel (and AMD) disagree with you, what with AES implemented in the cpu... and this is supposed to be an interpreted language where everything is possible and permitted
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
In addition, it seems that you are going for the more "fair" system, but by setting a minimum NXT holding limit, aren't you excluding all those who have less than this amount? So small stakeholders are being disenfranchised even more so than the 1 NXT = 1 vote system.

Do you mean with 1 NXT:
1) 1 NXT in balance
or
2) 1 NXT fee
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
I say: accounts are irrelevant. Even that account age won't help. 1 vote = 1 user is not good. There is nothing at stake here.

If you pay more fees, then the option u paid for should be ranked higher. Then there is something at stake.

Still IMHO.

Don't know why 1 vote = 1 user should be good.

lol new guy missed out on all our previous 'fun'

Don't know which posts you mean. But I followed the discussion for a long time now.

And still not convinced that 1 user = 1 vote is best way to vote if that very user has nothing at stake during voting. So, just voting because he can and has actual no real interest or knowledge in the topic.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
Hi CFB,

I think I've got it now. The final result;



And an extra image for the interested people.
Made it a little sketchy, because we are in development :p



Very nice, looks very serious.

http://wallet.nxtarea.com:7874/nxt?requestType=getBalance&account=11613767591090258913

http://www.nxtvote.com/view.php?vote=10667094504543355029

Someone voted the following for EvilDave -  "Yes, he is. Pure Evil thru and thru." Cheesy


Seems the count is working. Double voting from the same account should be forbidden. Smiley

It also doesn't matter if you send 1 NXT or 5 NXT or 1000 NXT for the vote. It's always counting as 1 vote, as long as it comes from 1 account with the required attributes. Smiley

This system will be gamed, I guarantee it. What's to stop me from sending 100 accounts 1 NXT each now (to register public key), and in the future I will be able to have the voting power of 100 people? I simply transfer the minimum require funds to each account before the vote.

In addition, it seems that you are going for the more "fair" system, but by setting a minimum NXT holding limit, aren't you excluding all those who have less than this amount? So small stakeholders are being disenfranchised even more so than the 1 NXT = 1 vote system.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1134
Advanced data compression algos are helped by moores law
Same for switches, routers
Cables are problem, but maybe big breakthrough in wireless bandwidth

shannon says otherwise, and we are much closer to his comm theory limit than we are to running up on moore.  thats a very large maybe in there as well
Adaptive bandwidth usage will be very important
We can have infrastructure that can handle bursts of very high tps, but only require lower sustained tps for all nodes

This should get R least two to one Advantage, maybe more
If moores law doesnt take us all the way to desired tps, we can always do the parallel blockchain approach
So both methods and we can be adaptive, ride moores law and have parallel blockchains

Details,details
Where is infrastructure committee?
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
Why is it problematic? They will just be unused, new ones will be added. We can have as many opcodes as we want.  

The idea is to minimize it to a reasonable stable numbers of op-codes. Furthermore, each op should be worth the same amount of NXTs. It just doesn't fit so well. That's all. We could, in principle, add also square roots, differentiation, solving of systems of linear equations, QP, ... you get the idea.

The ones CfB mentioned are the very basis.
full member
Activity: 148
Merit: 100
Quote
Why? There's no difference between sending nxt and generating a token. What matters is how you count a vote.  


dont quite follow you on this one
For 1 NXT = 1 vote, you need to:
- only accept vote from NXT on an account just before start of a vote (alternatively, just before first vote). This moment in time is now fixed, let's call it t.
- after decoding a token with a vote, check the balance for account at t.

That's it.  
hero member
Activity: 616
Merit: 500
Would it be a good idea to automatically blacklist too old clients from connecting to new ones?
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1134
Maybe, I missed something. But what is a basic cryptographic function?
I meant commonly used things, like all shas. Also Curve25519 which is used by NXT, ecdsa used by bitcoin, perhaps something else.

Not sure. I get the intent. But what really bothers me is:

+, -, /, *, and, xor and the like will stay even in 20 years from now.

But sha256? Curve25519? These type of functions come and go. They will inevitably become insecure. Having something like that as a low-level op is quite problematic I think.
I just want to make sure we can implement the fancy cross chain algos, dont care about details, just need to be able to do atomic cross blockchain transactions
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
Advanced data compression algos are helped by moores law
Same for switches, routers
Cables are problem, but maybe big breakthrough in wireless bandwidth

shannon says otherwise, and we are much closer to his comm theory limit than we are to running up on moore.  thats a very large maybe in there as well
Jump to: