Can we port Nxt over to this? http://www.wolfram.com/language/ 
Could you be a bit more specific?
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 275. (Read 2761645 times)
Could you be a bit more specific?
nxt voting must be based on stake. All other solutions are wrong. There is no chance to have verified accs in decentralized apps
Not quite true. The voting system does not define the evaluation of the results. It is totally up to the use case.
nxt voting must be based on stake. All other solutions are wrong. There is no chance to have verified accs in decentralized apps
Could you remind me what method that you guys just got voted to various committees ?
Ask RickyJames
Can we port Nxt over to this? http://www.wolfram.com/language/
Here is a little discuss about the style of the probably promo video.
And I'd like to repeat that I could do something similar to the bitcoin video.
If you have an opinion comment please.
Quote from: d13id
Quote from: Mario
I like the style of these movies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmOzih6I1zs
The style of the current "What is Nxt" video is very technical and boring (boring for non-nxters). The style is very important, also for our future marketing campaigns.
I want a happy mood and friendly video for the Asset Exchange. d13id, are you able to deliver something like that?
I could use it as reference. But are you shure that your opinion is the right one? Anyway I think that we shouldn't make the decision only by ourselves. Let's see what the others think about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um63OQz3bjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmOzih6I1zs
The style of the current "What is Nxt" video is very technical and boring (boring for non-nxters). The style is very important, also for our future marketing campaigns.
I want a happy mood and friendly video for the Asset Exchange. d13id, are you able to deliver something like that?
And I'd like to repeat that I could do something similar to the bitcoin video.
If you have an opinion comment please.
nxt voting must be based on stake. All other solutions are wrong. There is no chance to have verified accs in decentralized apps
Could you remind me what method that you guys just got voted to various committees ?
nxt voting must be based on stake. All other solutions are wrong. There is no chance to have verified accs in decentralized apps
It's funny the other day I was on my dedicated Nxt node forging computer (I often forget it's even on), it's a Gigabyte Brix that sits in the corner of my desk. I decided to sync my Bitcoin wallet on the same machine. When I opened bitcoin-qt I thought my Brix was going to explode. CPU 100%, Fan running full blast, everything completely slow. I quickly shutdown bitcoin-qt and let the machine relax running Nxt. I then sent out some Nxt donations which went out instantly and sat back and drank a beer, wondering why BTC is so popular.
Please post on reddit
a. voting by account or by shares? (pandoras ballot box)
OK a few more people chiming in... good lets get some traction. Do we know what the smallest possible size transaction is? Assuming that it is 128bytes like a NXT transfer is, IMO we need something even smaller than .1 NXT, I would prefer at least .01 NXT as smallest possible amount, then scaling up from there. But that is a different conversation on the base transfer size/fee ratio is.
Currently a basic NXT payment transaction is 128 bytes: 1 byte for type tag, 1 byte for sub-type tag, 4 bytes for time stamp, 2 bytes for deadline, 32 bytes for sender's public key, 8 bytes for payee's account number, 4 bytes for the amount, 4 bytes for the fee, 8 bytes for the referenced transaction ID, and finally 64 bytes for the cryptographic signature. All transaction types will have these base fields, then add more depending on the features. For example, an AM transaction contains the above plus 4 bytes for AM buffer size, then the number of bytes specified by that size.
This base size of 128 bytes may change (get larger) in the future depending on how adding precision to NXT is done. JL would have to clarify his plan on this.
Yes of course some services like AM it can indexed per bytes but other
can be indexed per amount transacted
all AE like Cryptsy, BTC, Bitstamp use % amount transacted
We're going to reinvent the wheel?
why not?
what this clear that will be a lot more economical to maintain than BTC network or clones
NXT AE, is, by definition, 'reinventing the wheel'. You have to have a better reason than, 'thats the way its always been done'. The other argument is basing everything on size in the blockchain. Please argue your reason of % based with its own merits, or argue reasons against our suggestion.
Alright.
Say there is a transaction A and B. A is 100 MB large and B is 10kB tiny.
Nodes can and will refuse A just because it is toooo big EXCEPT A gives the right incentive to verify, store and re-broadcast A. The fee is this incentive.
Each node can choose with pricing model it uses:
- fees should depend only on payload
- fees should depend on the amount of time it might require: bigger transactions like A need more time, encrypted messages might need more time, asset transactions might need more time THAN a simple transaction
- fees could depend on both
Node providers (that is a guy running a set of nodes) can freely decide which transactions his nodes will process.
Does that make it clearer?
Say there is a transaction A and B. A is 100 MB large and B is 10kB tiny.
Nodes can and will refuse A just because it is toooo big EXCEPT A gives the right incentive to verify, store and re-broadcast A. The fee is this incentive.
Each node can choose with pricing model it uses:
- fees should depend only on payload
- fees should depend on the amount of time it might require: bigger transactions like A need more time, encrypted messages might need more time, asset transactions might need more time THAN a simple transaction
- fees could depend on both
Node providers (that is a guy running a set of nodes) can freely decide which transactions his nodes will process.
Does that make it clearer?
You seem to believe NXT block generation is a free market commodity auction, where I can throw a transaction up for someone to give me the lowest price to include it into a block, and I then choose someone to forge my block. What you are suggesting will break instant transactions, one of the big cornerstones of what NXT is intended to do.
what you are suggesting allows for collusion, not exactly ideal for our trustless model.
Does that make it clearer?
beware
an issue is how the fee is charged and another is how the fee is partitioned
Sounds good so far. But the interface for the Average Joe.... How do you expect him to trust an account? There should be some way to verify that easily. Maybe, there could be a URL Joe could click on. That URL will provide Google's NXT account.
The user has to do some research. There would be warning in the client gui to make sure they are adding a trusted account ID to their trust list. The user will go to the right website (google, forums, research etc) and verify the account ID. Then the user adds that account ID to their trust list. After that, the user will be restricted to buy only assets issued from that issuer whose account ID exists in their trust list.
You can make it even better by not displaying other assets to the user in the client if they don't have the issuer ID in the trust list.
This will cut down all the scam very fast. The scammers won't go very far (if at all) if their assets are not even displayed to the users.
Plus you avoid the problem of scammers registering all the good names.
(1) No unique asset names
(2) Restrict users to buy/display assets whose account ID they themselves added to their trust list.
Do you guys think that 100 BTC buy wall on bter is fake? (Yes/No/Probably)
Define fake.
Place a large buy order. Then sell to those who post above your buy order. When buy orders above are exhausted, remove your large buy order or move it down. The only risk is that somebody may actually fill your buy order.
unique names is very very idea. If the scammer is able to issue "google" before the legitimate "google" the legitimate google will have to use "go0gle" while the scammer will be using the right name.
The unique part should be the issuer's account ID, and forcing the user to add the ID to their trust list before they can buy any asset.
The unique part should be the issuer's account ID, and forcing the user to add the ID to their trust list before they can buy any asset.
Well, I see.
Sounds good so far. But the interface for the Average Joe.... How do you expect him to trust an account? There should be some way to verify that easily. Maybe, there could be a URL Joe could click on. That URL will provide Google's NXT account.
Do you guys think that 100 BTC buy wall on bter is fake? (Yes/No/Probably)
Define fake.
I just dont get it. Consider 2 people with the same identical hardware cost are block forging nodes, but one has balance of 10million and other has 1 million. So one forges 10x as many blocks as other. Are you saying that the smaller one should charge higher fees? This doesnt seem feasable as it will directly conflict with our desire of instant transactions. And I still dont see how different transactions have different computations - Wont any transaction will require full knowledge of the blockchain?
You have me completely lost. Can you provide an example model, modified with your computational model? Like if I suggested a model of a transaction of 128bytes to have a fee of .1 NXT, then if an asset creation took 256 bytes, then its fee should be .2 NXT (yes, I know AE issue probably isnt 256bytes, and its fee is currently 1000 NXT, but work with me here for an example)
You have me completely lost. Can you provide an example model, modified with your computational model? Like if I suggested a model of a transaction of 128bytes to have a fee of .1 NXT, then if an asset creation took 256 bytes, then its fee should be .2 NXT (yes, I know AE issue probably isnt 256bytes, and its fee is currently 1000 NXT, but work with me here for an example)
Ah, and just for the record:
there are two types of transactions:
raw transactions -> still not included in a block
transactions in blocks -> included in a block
A node provider can decide how much fee is necessary to cover all the expenditures of the maintenance of his nodes.
I just dont get it. Consider 2 people with the same identical hardware cost are block forging nodes, but one has balance of 10million and other has 1 million. So one forges 10x as many blocks as other. Are you saying that the smaller one should charge higher fees? This doesnt seem feasable as it will directly conflict with our desire of instant transactions. And I still dont see how different transactions have different computations - Wont any transaction will require full knowledge of the blockchain?
You have me completely lost. Can you provide an example model, modified with your computational model? Like if I suggested a model of a transaction of 128bytes to have a fee of .1 NXT, then if an asset creation took 256 bytes, then its fee should be .2 NXT (yes, I know AE issue probably isnt 256bytes, and its fee is currently 1000 NXT, but work with me here for an example)
You have me completely lost. Can you provide an example model, modified with your computational model? Like if I suggested a model of a transaction of 128bytes to have a fee of .1 NXT, then if an asset creation took 256 bytes, then its fee should be .2 NXT (yes, I know AE issue probably isnt 256bytes, and its fee is currently 1000 NXT, but work with me here for an example)
Alright.
Say there is a transaction A and B. A is 100 MB large and B is 10kB tiny.
Nodes can and will refuse A just because it is toooo big EXCEPT A gives the right incentive to verify, store and re-broadcast A. The fee is this incentive.
Each node can choose with pricing model it uses:
- fees should depend only on payload
- fees should depend on the amount of time it might require: bigger transactions like A need more time, encrypted messages might need more time, asset transactions might need more time THAN a simple transaction
- fees could depend on both
Node providers (that is a guy running a set of nodes) can freely decide which transactions his nodes will process.
Does that make it clearer?
Do you guys think that 100 BTC buy wall on bter is fake? (Yes/No/Probably)
community input needed:
Unique names for assets? For example : BLABLA (only issued once)
Or non unique names for assets?
For example: BLABLA 12423434 and BLABLA 343434334 (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)
(Perhaps, I'm not sure, the number can be shortened..)
If you have another idea, please specify.
Unique names for assets? For example : BLABLA (only issued once)
Or non unique names for assets?
For example: BLABLA 12423434 and BLABLA 343434334 (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)
(Perhaps, I'm not sure, the number can be shortened..)
If you have another idea, please specify.
I still vote for unique names.
unique names is very very idea. If the scammer is able to issue "google" before the legitimate "google" the legitimate google will have to use "go0gle" while the scammer will be using the right name.
The unique part should be the issuer's account ID, and forcing the user to add the ID to their trust list before they can buy that asset.
That would limit the mistakes as the user will not be able to buy the asset issued by people that they have not added to the trust list.
Jump to: