Author

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 202. (Read 2761645 times)

legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
The market should decide for itself what is or isn't a good direction.

How do you propose that decision should be made?

Auction it?

Vote on it?

We've pretty much already come to the conclusion that "you can't change this" once you've launched it (in which case the "market decision" might be a Nxt "clone").
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
First X accounts (w.r.t. the inverse weights) choose some "random" numbers locally, and publish their hashes. X is supposed to be large enough so that the bad guy would never control exactly all of them. Then, they publish numbers themselves; if the published number does not correspond to the hash or is not published at all, then the corresponding account is heavily penalized. If that happens for at least one account, the whole procedure is invalidated (and we wait for the next try).

Sorry - I hadn't noticed that post - looks like something that we should think about.
full member
Activity: 266
Merit: 100
Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he sues this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

This isn't in existence (such service providers) and "blacklists" are *never a good way to go*.

Please stop trying to push for this "unique name" and let other methods be developed as we progress.

Note that if every 2nd generation platform does the same thing (allow unique names) then you'll never be able to trust "the same name" on any 2 platforms (so all such *brands* have become *useless*).


Just because there are no current providers for these types of services doesn't make it a reason to exclude the potential for there existence. It is error to assume that  private business and enterprise is "never a good way to go", and this option should not be excluded whether asset names are unique or non-unique. The market should decide for itself what is or isn't a good direction.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
Once the user has done this, anytime they look at ASSET ISSUER it will say "MICROSOFT" there instead of a hard to remember address.

Of course that is how you'd expect a UI should work.
sr. member
Activity: 376
Merit: 300
@CIYAM, @CfB, @ChuckOne, ..., - can you comment on this randomization procedure I proposed on the previous page?

Quote
First X accounts (w.r.t. the inverse weights) choose some "random" numbers locally, and publish their hashes. X is supposed to be large enough so that the bad guy would never control exactly all of them. Then, they publish numbers themselves; if the published number does not correspond to the hash or is not published at all, then the corresponding account is heavily penalized. If that happens for at least one account, the whole procedure is invalidated (and we wait for the next try).
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10

I already have (client side) contacts in my web client. Check it out. An asset will show up as issued by "Bob" if you have set that person up as a contact.

Ok I went into the assett exchange and clicked on "assett issuer" which gave me the issuers public address. I then went in a created a new contact with that address and named it "BOOB SELLER".

What I think might solve a lot of the problems you are referring to is if now when I went back into the Asset Exchange and looked at BOOBS
that any assets being issues by "BOOB SELLER" would be readily apparent in that window. I'd know "BOOB SELLER" was a trusted vendor of boobs and would choose his assets. Would also be nice to be able to filter the BOOBS sell order so only "BOOB SELLER" showed up there so I know that if I buy BOOBS I am only buying them from that seller..

Well there is right click , add to group functionality in the sidebar.

Yes, but this appears to add BOOBS to a group, but doesn't seem to be tied to one particular issuer of boobs?

I guess what I am saying it that the ASSET ISSUER (array?) is tied to the issuers unique Nxt address which seems like it would provide a way to tell who you are buying the asset from and thereby the non-unique asset names can be identifiable as being issued by a unique entity by the unique Nxt address it's coming from.

If "Bob's BTC" owns 9234904623235235235 Nxt address, then any BTC asset issued by them would be identifiable by seeing it's issued by
the address 9234904623235235235, which the user could then permanently identify by connecting 9234904623235235235 to the contact name "BOB's BTC"

Once the user has done this, anytime they look at ASSET ISSUER it will say "Bob's BTC" there instead of a hard to remember address.
From there the user should be able to only buy BTC from the issuers they choose.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
So, this depends on the assumptions about the processing power the attacker has? Then one never knows...

True - the question is whether or not we can do any better than just using the block sig. for x + 1440 (current thinking).
sr. member
Activity: 376
Merit: 300
But, "the past" is known to the attacker at the current time, so why does this add randomness?

Yes - but if they have to check "all tickets" then provided the information is *different per ticket* then it will take "more effort" to do this checking.

If you add in hash rounds the amount of time required to do all the checking might just end up being *not worth the effort*.

So, this depends on the assumptions about the processing power the attacker has? Then one never knows...



hero member
Activity: 566
Merit: 500
Offspring standalone crypto client v0.3.4e has been released

Main updates: Clickable blockchain explorer and Asset Exchange with current testnet features enabled.

http://offspring.dgex.com/
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
Unique suffixes is as close to decentralized identification as you get (beside account #'s, but that's not easily readable)... all other methods require some sort of trust from outside of NXT.

Unique suffixes give us:

Software:Microsoft (scam)

I am the one *trying to prevent this*. Why are you *against that*?

If Joe sees "two confusingly same named Assets" he *does not waste his money*.

In your system - he can easily get tricked.

In either system some sort of "proper check" needs to occur - but my approach can make it "obvious" there is a problem whereas your approach *hides that*.

Being *easily readable* BUT A SCAM is just what a scammer wants!
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
The whole broken idea of DNS names was something from the 1980's.

It is now getting closer to 2020 and we *need to do things differently* and in a *decentralised manner* rather than just "it was good enough back then".

The aliases is basically .bit and look how well that went.

If a user gets *confused* by duplicate names *then that is good* as they are unlikely to just "click one at random" and "buy shares".


Unique suffixes is as close to decentralized identification as you get (beside account #'s, but that's not easily readable)... all other methods require some sort of trust from outside of NXT.

Last part applies to suffixes as well.
full member
Activity: 241
Merit: 100
someone else having problems with their account like, i installed latest version entered my key and i have 0 coins but on blockchain i have my coins.. ??

8182846507686630691 0.00 on my PC

my wallet on blockchain http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=8182846507686630691
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
But, "the past" is known to the attacker at the current time, so why does this add randomness?

True not adding randomness - but if they have to check "all tickets" then provided the information is *different per ticket* then it will take "more effort" to do this checking.

If you add in hash rounds the amount of time required to do all the checking might just end up being *not worth the effort* (as you do need to forge within 1 minute).
sr. member
Activity: 376
Merit: 300
Another thing that springs to mind wrt randomness would be looking at "the past" (so say the payload hash of the block at height x - 1440).

Other things to "add entropy" might be the account's public key and their balance at whatever point in time and one could even require "hash iterations" or the like so that "trying to calculate" ticket values for all possible accounts in order to try and game might be more costly that the time it takes to forge a block.

But, "the past" is known to the attacker at the current time, so why does this add randomness?
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.
For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.
+ 1440 !!  I wonder, why it isn't obvious for all...

There *will be a readable* name - the choice is one of two:

Microsoft (a fake but readable name)

or

Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345

Uh oh? What it this - seems I need to find out more.

Which method is "helping" the end user to get *scammed* and which is not?
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1038
Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.
For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.
+ 1440 !!  I wonder, why it isn't obvious for all...
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
Another thing that springs to mind wrt randomness would be looking at "the past" (so say the payload hash of the block at height x - 1440).

Other things to "add entropy" might be the account's public key and their balance at whatever point in time and one could even require "hash iterations" or the like so that "trying to calculate" ticket values for all possible accounts in order to try and game might be more costly that the time it takes to forge a block.
sr. member
Activity: 376
Merit: 300
It's all fine to say "let the market decide" but you do know that in many countries "it is illegal to squat on domain names" (countries like say Australia).

Also look at .bit - how well has that done?

Basically the squatting has pretty much ruined any impetus it had at all.

I tend to agree with CIYAM in this discussion.
full member
Activity: 266
Merit: 100

Sorry Ricky, you broke the rule about magically changing the NXT market cap much higher.

By restricting to NXT trading,

Please, without using magic, tell me how anybody would sell $1 billion USD worth of assets for NXT.

James

I guess ya gotta make a decision on whether NXT will appreciate most in value by expanding itself into the role of becoming the premier 1.0 currency or by restricting itself to the role of being a the premier 2.0 trading asset exchange.

Looks like ya can't have both....
We can have both. I do not see why it is mutually exclusive at all. In fact, I predict that the vast majority of trading in the AE will be against NXT, just like the vast majority of trading in Ripple is against XRP. This is probably due to the counterparty risks

However, I want to make sure that if OPEC wanted to start trading oil for gold, or oil for CNY, or oil for pink unicorns that they will have a viable option with NXT AE

James

In the long term it would be a bad idea to do this. If NXT is a better platform for commerce than any other platform, then it will be used. The focus should be to make NXT this type of platform, and making the NXT currency subordinate is counter productive to this.

legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1001
CEO Bitpanda.com
How about we make a prove of work scheme to get asset names? Like vanity addresses. But we only show the first 12 digits?

That is a weird idea Cheesy
Jump to: