Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1088. (Read 2761629 times)

If the network didnt check the forgers work than forgers could just publish false answers every time and claim the transaction fees anway. meaning they would have no incentive to actually execute the code.

I assumed the Turing complete stuff is application specific and does not need to be done by all the nodes. Why would all the nodes care if the email was sent out as per the Turing saved AM instructed?

I think only the forging node has to run the Turing scripts. Turing scripts are not part of the NXT blockchain, they just utilize AM and alias to function.

The key is to be able to reliably run an "algorithm", but more usually business process, like deposit/withdrawal. No heavy lifting as far as computation goes.

James

Yes!

I knew big brained guys will figure out the parts I cant. I just see the high level picture, need help with the details

James

see above

Services provided by "Service Providers" on beefy servers
cell phones are expected to go to slim clients, forging via Account Control and pooled forging

Don't tie them together.  The VM runs in a separate thread from the Nxt protocol.  Use the referenced transaction option of the Nxt protocol to link the result to whatever you want to do with it.

It doesn't matter if the result comes in the next block, or 100 blocks later.

well this sort of thing would be a long way off anyways even if we did do it. the more i think about it the more i think about how important specialization is. these sorts of blockchains should probably best be built on a per application basis. one unique blockchain per dac. part of the beauty of nxt forging is that multiple blockchains can coexist with out competing for security resources. (atleast not in the way of a POW coin)

I cant see how we avoid relying on hub (hallmarked?) servers. For advanced services we need beefy servers.

I think CfB's plan was to simply count the number of instructions and then abort the interpreter session. If your loop exceeds the instruction limit, then it stops after 10000 opcodes are executed. Something like that.

Time would vary based on server spec, but not too dramatically. I guess it wont be exact cost per millisecond, but approximate cost per millisecond of execution time

James

CfB *himself* said 1000+ TPS would only be *possible* if protocol was changed to binary and kept "dead simple".

So - how is it now suddenly become *possible* to also execute (even just a few) instructions of VM "per transaction" (as you can't assume they won't *all* want to do that) and still have 1000+ TPS?

Does anyone else see the problem here?

point taken

Not necessarily.  Just don't expect the result to be available by the next block.

CPU intensive calculations will be done in the client (or service module on hub) and pushed down to the Script via AM data

The problem is not calculation time, as with proper allocation of work to the appropriate layer you have access to the local CPU, the hub server CPU before it goes into the molasses slow VM. The key to designing practical system is to minimize the work that the Turing script needs to do. Its goal is to generate AM data that is then processed by hub server modules and/or client

My thinking on automating gateways already has several solutions using multisig approaches, I have posted before. However, I think there could well be a way to implement a method similar to XCP's escrow process followed by BTCpay. Just need to add LTCpay, DOGEpay, etc.

There will certainly be bugs at first, but a gateway does not do any really complicated tasks. Deposit and withdraw. Not sure why you are so skeptical that it wouldn't work.

I dont understand the multisig methods with timeouts in the articles, but I am sure someone else will. I also think someone else will be able to figure out an analogue for XCP escrow process.

When someone says something is impossible, it only means that it is impossible for them to do it. I just keep asking until I find someone that says it is really difficult!

James

*Exactly* - it seems there is a problem of "wanting to have cake and to eat it too" here.

It will be almost impossible to a have 1000+ TPS *and* be able to execute "arbitrary code" (and certainly not using low-end hardware).

CfB had already spelled out that to even achieve 1000+ TPS requires the "non-script" idea of very simple transactions and would also require a "binary protocol" (which currently is not being used).

Now you want to add a "Turing complete" VM to the mix and still somehow get to that magical 1000+ TPS?

So guys - I see it has being a case of wanting A or B - either you want A (1000+TPS) or you want B (arbitrary code execution a la Ethereum).

And it would mean the idea of "forging" on cell phones would be dead, aside from giving up fast transactions, 1000 tps, as some have been claiming.

Apparently we managed to get even worse than that - I think maybe CfB might have changed his mind about this now.

OH NO! NOT BRAINFUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You couldn't use "milliseconds" as the instructions would be processed at different times on different hardware.

Understand that you'd ideally want *every node* to be able to verify *every transaction* which is going to have to include any VM script operations performed (otherwise how could you ever trust the "state" of the specific instance?).

I guess "light nodes" could skip that work but that would lesson the security of the blockchain (if we are assuming that say only Hallmarked nodes are going to check the code has been executed correctly).

The time it would take to run a program would depend on the underlying computer. This may lead to a given program with the same input succeeding when run on a fast/powerful computer, but not succeeding when run on a less fast/powerful computer.

It would be better to use number of instructions as a metric.

Also, multiple nodes would have to run the program with the same input in order to check each other's work.  Otherwise, a malicious node could take your payment and lie about the result.

Edit: what he said ↓

How would it impact the decentralized exchanges without any third part gateways when even simple SHA 256 operations would be that costly?

I think this will have serious security implications (and flaws). I doubt it work at all.