Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1067. (Read 2761640 times)

We only get the result from the forger. That's a result of having a turing-complete language. You cannot prove what the script is going to calculate.

We can't correlate fee with any prices. Blockchain doesn't know anything about real world.
We can correlate min fee with block numbers. But I doubt someone can give us any good formula.

So I personally prefer lowering fee from time to time on user's demand. It will be fight between users and forgers. Forgers always want higher fees, users always want lower ones. So we'll have long voting threads, blockchain forks (if someone release software with lower fees) and so on Democracy, as you like it

Another way is to set very low fee right now, but doesn't increase transactions limit in block (255 for now). So in future users will fight for place in block, setting higher fees.
But very low fee in present time can hurt forgers.

I would be ok with moving to 0.1, but only full nxt numbers should be able to be sent.

So you cannot send for example 0.5 nxt to someone. The minimum you can send is 1nxt. will this be the case?

If you have 105.45 nxt, you can send 105nxt, the 0.45 can only be spent on fees.

why dont adjust fees in a predictably, dynamically and automatically way?? i mean, drecrease fees in relation with number of blocks in the block chain or something that makes fees go down as people use nxt more....as people use nxt more, price should rise, so, it would also be related to prices...

Why do you think he's not?

Reducing Nxt fee lowers incentive to forge with large Nxt account, while at the same time encouraging use of Nxt features. I like it.

why dont adjust fees in a predictably, dynamically and automatically way?? i mean, drecrease fees in relation with number of blocks in the block chain or something that makes fees go down as people use nxt more....as people use nxt more, price should rise, so, it would also be related to prices...

Explain "correct execution" meaning plz.

I don't know why the difference, what I can say is that the balance shown in mynxt.info comes from querying the Nxt API itself, not from manually calculating from all the transactions.

Any reason why the two blockchain explorers should show a different balance for account 10715382765594435905 (which I think is dgex)?

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=10715382765594435905
Final balance = unconfirmed balance = 40,859,666.00

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=10715382765594435905
Balance = 40,854,603

Difference is 5063 (=40859666-40854603). Both show the same latest transaction (10232608047670253098), so are in sync. Account doesn't have aliases. Total fees is 1923.

Which one is right?
 

Exactly, my thoughts. Would also like a % of transaction's amount to be spent as fee with min 1NXT.

So, fully deterministic.

How can be prove the correct execution by a forger?

I actually agree with you when you think about messaging as a stand alone feature.  I look at it this way.  Secure messaging is just one tool I use when completing a fully independent Nxt transaction.  Meaning, at one point you will be able to browse products, communicate with seller, initiate purchase, put Nxt in escrow (receive item), send funds, leave feedback, all within Nxt client.  That is just one example of hundreds that could be used with Nxt secure messaging.

Messages should be used for technical staff and should be well-paid. 1.0

We are not talking about longterm. Right now no reason to lower fees because of messaging, because there is no use for messaging (chat).

Fee: 1.0
Until we really have high price for 1 NXT.
Until we really have big number of transactions per block.
Until we really start to scream: "WTF, I buy one gram of blow cheap cheneese smartphone and need to pay 5% of it's price as fee!"

Why do you think he is from St.Petersburg?

Right.

Sorry? What's the difference?

""Transparent Forging" allow each user's client to automatically determine who will generate the next block, so that they can then send their transactions to that node. This will also allow additional fees to be realized for immediate/priority transactions.

An equally important feature of Transparent Forging is an outstanding security feature of the protocol to temporarily reduce to zero the forging power of nodes who should generate the next block but don't. This transparent forging feature will prevent against even a 90% majority owner of all NXT branching out and forcing a fork. So if a node that has 90% of all Nxt, and doesn't generate a block when scheduled, the system will reduce its mining power to zero temporarily to prevent a bad fork from being forced. "

this is what I read in Nxt wiki... but can anyone elaborate why this really enhances the network security? I mean it´s kind of random who are my nodes at the moment so if I get unlucky
and have more then a bunch of nodes with bad intentions (double-spending or w/e) they could deliberately miss out on generating a scheduled block
and getting away with it.

Or is this not a problem in reality? Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but I´m really unexperencied with this  proof-of-stake / forging as underlying security for a coin.

I mean the real time. Like in datetime.datetime.now().

The clock for these scripts will be the blocks, right?

RANDOM is fine, I'm talking about RANDOMIZE.