Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 496. (Read 2761624 times)

Effectively that is the original TF idea from BCNext (AFAIK) - 2 or 3 (or 4?) accounts would get *equal* ability to forge the next block and those that *fail* are *penalised* for not doing so (am not quite sure if the penalty is intended just for those that fail to broadcast or what and maybe this is why I am not convinced about the *penalty* thing so far).

So if we limited the forging power of a single account to x then presumably the "difficulty" would become practically irrelevant.

Difficulty defines bias toward bigger accounts. Set it lower and 10M account will forge 1.1% of all blocks. Set it higher and the account will forge only 1.05%.

Can a Mac dev help me out?

How would I enable the user to start my client with a command line parameter on OSX?

On Windows, if my client is started with "NxtSolarisFM.exe testnet" it will connect the NXT testnet and use different files.

For OSX I distribute a zip file with a "NXTSolaris.app" folder in it. Could I add a script or something that would make it easy (like clicking on it...) for the Mac user to run it with the "testnet" parameter?

I was think about the 1-block-per-minute regime:

The network has 1 minute to agree on a block.

Let the n first accounts in the forging queue create a block on their own and distribute it to the network.

Each node will decide independently which is the best block for it (depending on the network latency). That is, the block with the first forger in the queue that created a block is accepted.

After that minute, a new set of n blocks are created as it was for the first minute.

If now the malicious forger sends his block from the first minute to the network, it's over for him. Nobody will accept it anymore as the second minute has already started.


*EDIT*: forging queue: for each block there is a queue of ALL accounts. The first one is the best one, the second one is the second-best and so on. If a node receives a block, it decided whether that block is within that minute AND whether it's better than nothing or the other blocks it has already received. This queue changes with every block pseudo-randomly.

or could we revisit the idea about the possibiliy of a TF algorithm that would support 2 or 3 different accounts that could forge the next block?  and possibly make it such that if an account forged a block then the algorithm would reduce its potential for the next block?  just throwing out ideas. 

Something, I would like to add to the discussion of finding consensus.

What makes the difference between a malicious 90% forger and the rest of the world is that these forger simply CAN exclude or include transactions at will as could do any other node.

Problem with analyzing included transactions is: we cannot find consensus by looking at them because we have yet to agree on them.

The only feasible way (if there is one) is analyzing the block graph.

I hope that make the problem more clear.

"Running away with the chain" is simply going to come down to "how many blocks in a row" can a combined or individual forging entity obtain (the more then the more likelihood of an issue) and whether "by skipping their turn" a forger can improve their odds of causing trouble (where trouble means that 10 confirmations is no longer safe).

I guess the problem with TF is that we still don't know exactly what was intended and with "leasing your forging power" and the "penalty" idea it is actually even less clear (at least to me).

For example - if the "penalty" means that your client effectively "ignores the pool" then one can see that having a huge amount of "leased forging power" tied to one account is actually not so useful (as that power might be unable to be wielded for maybe a significant % of the time).

Is it related to Nxt?

 





I still dont believe he is the real Satoshi,but if he was,it would be really suspicious BTCNext suddenly dissappeared the week before(seeing this coming)

Anything else to add except the "Posted from asd, ref#q9u7tMvp5zRL7JYY"?

That is true. The 'target' notion can be removed from NXT as it is clear from the very beginning of a new block which account it the next forger: better in which order the accounts are going to forge.

Btw. Why should limiting the effectiveBalance prevent 'running away with the chain'? If you split your balance up, then simply these accounts will act as one.

Here some open source plug in . Maybe someone can contact the developers of this plug in to adapt them to Nxt if required

Pronounceable Password Generator
Extension Author: Jan Benjamin Engracia, Extension Language: English

This plugin adds a custom password generation algorithm, which generates pronounceable passwords.

The plugin is available here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pronouncepwgen/ [Downloads]

Readable Passphrase Generator
Extension Author: Murray Grant, Extension Language: English

The Readable Passphrase Generator plugin generates passphrases, which are (mostly) grammatically correct, but nonsensical. These are easy to remember (for humans), but difficult to guess (for humans and computers).

The plugin is available here: http://readablepassphrase.codeplex.com/

WordSequence Generator
Extension Author: fireOut, Extension Language: English

The WordSequence plugin generates passphases consisting of words.

The plugin is available here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/kpwordsequence/

Here another one TFA. Maybe someone can contact the developers of this plug in to adapt them to Nxt if required

http://keepass.info/plugins.html#keeotp

OtpKeyProv
Plugin Author: Dominik Reichl, Plugin Language: English

OtpKeyProv is a key provider based on one-time passwords. After protecting your database using this plugin, you need to generate and enter one-time passwords in order to open your database.

All generator tokens that follow the OATH HOTP standard (RFC 4226) are supported.

Download plugin: [v2.2 for KeePass 2.20 and higher]
Download source code: [v2.2 for KeePass 2.20 and higher]

If you instead want KeePass to generate one-time passwords, see the {HMACOTP} placeholder. For generating time-based OTPs, see the KeeOtp and Tray TOTP plugins.

KeeChallenge
Plugin Author: Ben Rush, Plugin Language: English

Allows to protect KeePass databases using challenge-response authentication.

The plugin is available here: [KeeChallenge Plugin Website].

KeeOtp
Plugin Author: Devin Martin, Plugin Language: English

This is a KeePass plugin that adds support for two factor authentication into other systems using TOTP (Timed One Time Passwords). It stores TOTP secret keys in the KeePass database and generates TOTP codes from the key within KeePass.

KeeOtp is compatible with Google's 2-Step Verification and Amazon AWS MFA. It will work with most other RFC 6238 compliant TOTP implementations as well.

Website: [https://bitbucket.org/devinmartin/keeotp/wiki/Home]
Downloads: [https://bitbucket.org/devinmartin/keeotp/downloads]

KeePass has a built-in placeholder to generate HOTPs (but not TOTPs), see {HMACOTP}.

If you instead want to protect your KeePass database using one-time passwords (i.e. one-time passwords need to be generated and entered in order to open your database), see the OtpKeyProv plugin.

Tray TOTP
Plugin Author: Alexandre Gravel, Plugin Language: English

Time-based One-Time Password plugin to enable 2-step authentification (supports Google and Dropbox) by generating TOTPs from the KeePass tray icon. This plugin also provides a custom column to display and/or generate TOTPs. Auto-Type is also supported when the specified custom field is used in a keystroke sequence.

Website: [https://sourceforge.net/projects/traytotp-kp2/]
Downloads: [https://sourceforge.net/projects/traytotp-kp2/files/]

KeePass has a built-in placeholder to generate HOTPs (but not TOTPs), see {HMACOTP}.

If you instead want to protect your KeePass database using one-time passwords (i.e. one-time passwords need to be generated and entered in order to open your database), see the OtpKeyProv plugin.

Hmm... I am not quite clear on what you are referring to as being the "latest target" - if this is something to do with "difficulty" then my understanding from discussions with CfB about TF is that it won't even be necessary to have that (I am not even quite sure why "difficulty" was even used at all - perhaps someone would care to enlighten me?).

you mean HER house, don't you? 

Check her:

https://twitter.com/truth_eater

I will approach them.

what do you think about limiting effectiveBalance for an account or total effectiveBalance for a leased pool where max allowed forging power is based on the latest target?  Would this be a way to limit where 1 entity could not run away with the chain?

I am waiting to hear back from a couple of guys that I have contacted who are hghly regarded in the Bitcoin world as cryptographers

Im going to call you out on this.  that was rude and uncalled for.  

Doctorevil seems pretty good and he mentioned before that he could help as a consultant. https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,3884.msg36769.html#msg36769

Ricot and Broodyrookie seem pretty good too.