Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 573. (Read 2761626 times)

One of the big stakeholder offer 3m nxt for atomic cross-chain bounty, nxt source code just released few days ago.

Is there any new updates, projects on NXT? any progress?

The longer the asset name, the lower the cost?

One idea that comes to mind is perhaps to have different Asset "classes" and price them differently (allowing Assets to be affordable to most but perhaps making A class Assets more expensive to list than B class).

I'd still keep the name to be unique (so no confusion) and a client might simply display A class assets in say a different color to B class ones.

Just an article about internet security of seven keys all over the world.http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/28/seven-people-keys-worldwide-internet-security-web

Don't please. There is no reason to go around attacking other coins. It's not our business

Let it be.

I think Anon136, rickyjames and klee are good choices.

In early December, the community voted to set the asset registration fee at 1000 NXT.  
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/nxts-decentralized-exchange-asset-issuance-fee-353325

Is the asset registration fee still going to be set at 1000 NXT?

I dont know why I thought it wasnt possible to do cold storage for the multisig deposit acct.

On a typical day, less than 10% of overall deposits would be withdrawn, maybe much less. There is no need for a super complicated shifting of funds to and from many multisig accts. We just need to have a multisig cold wallet using 2 of 3 signers where the signers would be Anon136, rickyjames and klee. When the gateway multisig acct gets excess deposits, each server would authorize transfer to the cold multisig wallet. When a big withdrawal comes in, then 2 of the 3 cold wallet signers would need to approve.

All of the deposits and withdrawals and multisig acct info would be public, so all these funds transfers will be visible to all.

The incentive for two of the three gateway operators to collude is reduced dramatically. The trust required for gateways drops 90% and shifts to the cold wallet trio.

What do you think?

James

We should support this project if we are looking for another charity, they accept BTC, maybe Nxt?

https://www.outernet.is/

No punctuation. I think it is like aliases. Possible to transfer, but not yet. It wont matter that the assets are issued by different accounts. I have a #define for asset # and this is something that will need to be done for each supported coin. Also, I am monitoring the gateway addresses so for ease of use people could just use one of the gateway addresses to redeem

The authorized assets (total issue amount) would be transferred to the community acct with the understanding that it will never directly sell the assets. Each gateway would then get a reasonable amount each to deal with deposits. If we need to get more asset into circulation, the community acct would distribute more.

At any given time the difference between total issued and (quantity of assets held in trust and gateways) should match what is in the multisig acct. This will be publicly viewable and the gateway code will be requiring the balances to match within reason. Pending deposits show up as different amounts to the different bitcoinds due to the sometimes long block times.

James

Good idea.

may be we can use the full name, bitcoin...

After quickly reading it, the process they describe seems somewhat familiar, but I cant say I fully understand it.

I tried to use common sense and utilize existing components (like bitcoind) as much as possible. I dont trust myself to accurately implement something I dont understand. Its hard enough to implement something I do understand! I dont think the multsig approach has to worry about the byzantine generals. Maybe a Ddos attack, which will stop all deposits and withdraws, but that is an inconvenience, not fatal. Is it possible for an attacker to totally take over the internet feed for all gateways at the same time and feed it false information about bitcoin transactions so that all the gateways end up on a false fork?

Requiring 100% identical states on three independent bitcoind is what I am relying on to give us an accurate balance for all the coin accounts. I am in the process of doing the same for the NXT side of things. Much work for dealing with the 1% cases...

James

Can asset names be transfered from one Nxt account to another?  I would imagine that we would want the community asset names owned by one account.  If multiple people register the community asset names, we want to make sure they can transfer them.

If the community cannot get the plain asset names BTC, DOGE, LTC, etc, I would recommend registering the names BTC.nxt, DOGE.nxt, LTC.nxt, etc.

At least they got NXT name and code correct...haha..

Maybe someone should help them with the description and the new logo 

There can only be one asset named "DOGE" so different gateways would have "myDOGE" or "otherDOGE", etc.

This is the confusion I am worried about. There is no guarantee that the community will get the asset named "DOGE", it will go to the highest bidder the block AE goes live. I am hopeful that in community spirit the ones that obtain the pure names like "DOGE", "BTC", etc would sell all the assets to the community after issuing the full billion. In ripple, anybody can issue any asset, so it becomes a very dangerous thing for the unaware. With NXT, there can be only one, but there is no guarantee the community will get the pure names...

I am thinking of offering a bounty starting at 5000 NXT for the popular crypto names, with a sliding scale from BTC down to unpopularcoin. Hopefully, a quick 4000 NXT profit and community spirit will allow the community gateways to have the pure names.

My plan B) on this is to just add a random string to all the pure names and get the one that is available across the board. It would then look a bit funny with "djwBTC" "djwLTC" and "djwDOGE" being the community crypto assets, but this way we wont be held hostage by somebody that wants 1 million NXT for the BTC asset. It shouldnt be much work for the clients to special case the "djw" prefix, and it might actually help to have a common prefix so we can have a crypto assets page

James

In my travels through the Internet pursuant to researching Nxt, I encountered an academic named Emin Gun Sirer, associate Professor at Cornell University, who is very skeptical of ethereum.

Emin Gun Sirer and Ittay Eyal wrote "Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable" published in  arXiv, November 2013 and can be read here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0243
Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable Authored by Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer is scheduled to appear in the Proceedings of Financial Cryptography in Barbados, March 3-7 2014.

Emin Gun Sirer posted the following scathing response yesterday to The Slasher Punitive Proof-of-Stake Algorithm Article written by Vitalik Buterin of ethereum at

http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/

START QUOTE
"I tried to parse and follow your writeup, but it reads too much like a just-so story around an interesting topic, with little attention paid to a proper specification.

Could you please concretely specify what problem you’re trying to fix?

Could you then formally specify your proposed protocol for fixing it? Please be sure to avoid obvious pitfalls. For instance, if you say “X should be revealed at block K+2000,” you need to specify what happens when timing issues in the p2p network prevent the revelation from happening in block K+2000.

Normally, one also needs a proof that the proposed solution is necessary and sufficient to solve the problem, but if the specification is clear enough, this step is not necessary.

I very much like the goals behind the Ethereum effort, but much of the technical writing is neither clear nor rigorous, and currencies are a business where you have to be one or the other. "
END QUOTE

On another positive note for Nxt, the Karma paper written by Vivek Vishnumurthy, Sangeeth Chandrakumar and Emin Gun Sirer in June 2003 available at http://www.cs.cornell.edu/people/egs/karma/ describes the combination implementation of Nxt 91% Transparent Forging NIP and nodecoin 2.0.

It only took 11 years for the specifications of Karma to go from concept to reality!

Only DOGE assets issued by the multi-sig gateways are redeemable through the DOGE multi-sig gateways.  Someone else can start a DOGE gateway and those DOGE assets are only issued and redeemed through them.

There can be multiple assets of the same type issued and redeemed by separate gateways.

I think that that is what the gateway does. It makes external assets appear as they are from the same set of assets, created at the same time, by the same account, no matter when or who creates them. A doge that comes through the gateway today will be seen the same as a doge that comes through tomorrow or a week or year from now. I don't know by what coding magic this is done but that is how James explained it to me in laymen terms.