Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 357. (Read 2761645 times)

its due to the use of an "ultralight" client versus a "light" client.  The API that JLP has just completed allows for an "ultralight" client to submit  transactions to a node, where the node prepares the transaction and gives bytes for the ultralight client to sign.  So if clients implement this "ultralight" functionality, then not only is SSL a must, but then these ultralight clients must implicitly trust that the VPS operators wont screw them over.

Contrast a "light" client that figures everything out on its own, but since doesnt maintain a blockchain, it submits the completed signed transaction to a VPS where SSL then is not that huge of a deal.

Once issued, nodecoins will exist for 27 years as they are given out 100 per block.
nodecoins are NOT part of NXT core. It is not part of NXT basic structure.
It is simply an asset I created using NXT core.
anybody can do this

Clearly NXT is a very disruptive tech. It can disrupt itself!

There are literally more than 47 to the 10th power of potential assets that can be created. That a lot of assets. nodecoin is just one asset.

Still think nodecoin does not add value to NXT? Just the discussion it has created has now gotten a bunch of people thinking about how they can create their own coin and issue it on AE. Dont deny it, I know you are. I charge 2% of coins as they are mined, if you need my help.

James

OK, there's 525,600 minutes in a year.  Say everybody gets 5 nodecoins per block.  That's 2.6 million node coins per year.  If their value under a "points" system is 0.01 NXT (completely arbitrary, who knows what the market price would be), that's the same as creating a new stash of 26,000 NXT per year - that's an inflation rate of 0.0000026%.  At the current nickel per NXT, that's $1300 per year raised for servers.  If NXT goes up by a factor of 10, that's $13K per year.

Let me just say, if NXT goes up by a factor of 10, there are PLENTY of stakeholders here (me included) that would pay a voluntary "donation" / tax of 0.0000026% to support the computer network that made it happen.

I've missed that. Could you point me to where he said that?

Pls someone answer.  If in some time,we had lots of nodes supporting the network,could we just get rid of nodecoins??Or would they be part of Nxt in their most basic structure???

I want to make sure people understand that it is not "trustless" signing. Unfortunately, the way we are doing it, you still have to trust the server. You don't send the password to the server, but you sign an array of bytes that the server sent to you. How do you know that this array really represents the transaction you intended to sign? To be sure, the client would need to parse and verify it, so the client needs to know exactly how each transaction type should be represented as a byte array. This is not a secret, it is in the source code, but if you need to implement this logic on the client side, you might as well construct the byte array yourself, and not trust the server to do it for you correctly. So by letting the client be simple and lazy and let the server construct the byte array, you necessarily have to trust the server. Furthermore, you have to trust that the server response you received has not been modified in transit - and the issue of using SSL to talk to the server becomes important again.

It is a temporary solution I see nodecoin as. James made it to solve our forging problem that has been discussed a million times. Nodecoins would definitely solve short term
forging issues until we have thousands of businesses supporting the network for their own sakes. But nodecoin must be traded in for a fixed amount of Nxt like a points system.
James of course should be rewarded well by one of the committees if this is approved

Good job Jean-Luc for implementing client side transaction signing and confirming the need for SSL between client and server for security!

I totally agree.  And I do not see how nodecoin funds nodes.  How does creating a free coin create real money that gets spent buying a server for a month?  Map for me the flow of money....

It is a temporary solution I see nodecoin as. James made it to solve our forging problem that has been discussed a million times. Nodecoins would definitely solve short term
forging issues until we have thousands of businesses supporting the network for their own sakes. But nodecoin must traded in for a fixed amount of Nxt like a points system.
James of course should be rewarded well by one of the committees if this is approved

NXTs as coins... NXTs r not coins, at least the creator of Nxt didn't want them to be coins. They r tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt. Deflation is not much better than inflation, "real" coins should be created on top of Nxt and be issued in quantities that keep their value constant. BCNext understands that this is very arguable, the community should decide if it wants to follow the path showed by him or stick to Bitcoin legacy with unchangeable supply of coins in hope to become rich by doing nothing.

I totally agree.  And I do not see how nodecoin funds nodes.  How does creating a free coin create real money that gets spent buying a server for a month?  Map for me the flow of money....

I want to make sure people understand that it is not "trustless" signing. Unfortunately, the way we are doing it, you still have to trust the server. You don't send the password to the server, but you sign an array of bytes that the server sent to you. How do you know that this array really represents the transaction you intended to sign? To be sure, the client would need to parse and verify it, so the client needs to know exactly how each transaction type should be represented as a byte array. This is not a secret, it is in the source code, but if you need to implement this logic on the client side, you might as well construct the byte array yourself, and not trust the server to do it for you correctly. So by letting the client be simple and lazy and let the server construct the byte array, you necessarily have to trust the server. Furthermore, you have to trust that the server response you received has not been modified in transit - and the issue of using SSL to talk to the server becomes important again.

I proposed almost the same thing yesterday.... only I renamed them to tokens, gave them a monthly value so we can set a bounty for running network nodes each month and the tokens would be redeemable against a buy order in the AE..

I do see the risk of a free floating coin being used a the node operating reward because if it becomes worthless then there is no incentive to run nodes and if the committees need to stimulate people to run nodes through node coin value are there are a lot in circulation then it becomes difficult to change the price / reward per coin... whereas if they have to be regularly redeemed there isn't this problem.

There's a saying that when you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that you originally intended to drain the swamp.   That's what we've got here.  

The original problem is that everybody eventually comes to the realization that forging NXT isn't getting them rich like they expected Bitcoin mining would do, in fact, if they've got under 2000 NXT, they probably won't even mine a single block in a year (if all NXT owners had their client open and were forging too).   This is a disappointment and demotivator to them, and understandably so.  But hey, that what PoS as implemented by NXT is.  Everybody gets the same ROI / interest rate on their stake, and if you ain't got much stake, your equal share of the pie is gonna be really, really small.  

The original BCNext (and I believe correct) solution to the problem is to realize that NXT doesn't need super expensive computers to keep the node network going, that people will keep their clients open and bear the minimal expense as an altruistic item on their part, that instead of profit motive to run NXT we have community spirit.

Some people feel that a bigger motive / incentive is needed.  This is very noble and I am not cutting them down.  But I come back to my previously stated BCNext's First Law - For every attempt to create a new incentive in the zero-sum NXT system, an equal and opposite disincentive is created somewhere else in that system.  

Money in NXT is not created out of thin air every few minutes like it is in BCT.  There is only so much and if it goes into one person's pocket, it came out of somebody else's pocket.

So here's the bottom line question.  If nodecoin is created as a new source of value to motivate people to support the NXT network, WHOSE POCKET DID THIS VALUE COME FROM IN THE FORM OF NXT?

My big concern is that people will come to see speculation in nodecoin to be more important to them than the value of NXT itself.   If this happens, we are screwed.  At that point NXT is just the fee required to access  AE and make vast fortunes running up the price of nodecoin they buy directly with BTC.  It is now in the speculator's interest to have/drive the exchange fee (NXT itself) as low as possible.  What is the motivator in this scenario to have my big stake in NXT retain a high value instead of being driven down to a low value?

Wait... is it possible for a client to sent a transaction request to a VPS and the VPS to determine client balance and use that as the amount and change the destination account to his own account, and , then wrap all that up in transactionBytes for the client to sign and submit to the network?  if so this is a BAD idea, regardless of if you have legit SSL certs or not.

Ricky, this is wrong.

This is not abut PoS vs PoW... this is about having a reliable network of nodes to secure the network...

You thought we were attacked when we started, just wait until we start to be perceived as a real threat...