Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 583. (Read 2761626 times)

+1

Agreed, there will be other gateways...
People need to know who they are trading through..
The NXT Community Multi-Sig Gateway will be the gold standard...

So could some stakeholders put the biggest chunk of bounty in history of mankind out there for atomic cross chain transaction on nxt please? During this time (this will take a while?!) we should have the best community driven gateway possible, which james is currently building.

We cannot force other people not to build a gateway on their own. We can build a nice community-drive gateway which could become very big and everyone uses it. But that's about it.


Absolutely.

Without a doubt if we can achieve atomic cross-chain txs then we will have basically got rid of the business model for all exchanges that don't do fiat.

IMO "this is our job".

The future will not be centralised!

I have an idea about this. It seems that the people who have prioritized getting NXT on various exchanges are having problems doing so. It also clearly seems that using the gateways in the way that has been discussed will add a layer of centralization to the AE and to NXT overall.

What if the gateway were used as a marketing tool to the exchanges? This would put them in charge of managing the gateways, and put any risk involved on them, allow them a way of participating in the AE instead of competing with it, and give them incentive to trade NXT.

It would also decentralize the use of the gateway by making it a private enterprise.

So the solution is obvious:

- build a great gateway á la james
- work hard on AT and atomic cross chain transactions

Right?

The concept of the multi-sig gateways is great, and this is NOT centralisation it is a service of a new gateway type that is another NXT community innovation. So please do not call it centralisation - it would be if it were the ONLY gateway to NXT AE.

Also decentralisation cannot be anarchy or we can forget widespread adoption because the scammers will come in, exploit the decentralisation features, create confusion and run off with peoples stuff and AE will be seen as unsafe and people won't use it.

I think you can ensure that per gateway there is only one AE asset type for a RL Asset e.g. USD, I think this will avoid confusion, if you have a legit USD and a scammer can create US or USd or some variant people will get scammed.

I do think that there will be other gateways though, James multisig is a type of gateway, but Ripple or BTC-e might build their own gateway.

I think multi-sig is a great piece of work and once multi-sig is open source that maybe the type others build but before then we might see a more current ripple like gateway which is less secure as the asset is not fully escrowed.

So I think you can have the multi-sig approach for an asset on the NXT Multi-sig gateway which is fully escrowed and their will be other gateways which will also offer assets with different mechanisms for escrow or more risk.

What it does mean is we should look at one asset per gateway and be clear on the AE which gateway and asset is being traded through.

To be honest when you look at all the current exchanges, multisig run by one or two operators with a publicly visible gateway block chain isn't perfect but its a hell of a lot better than is out on the market currently.

*Yes* but it is not simple, nor quick and I don't believe that anyone has actually even done it.

Also it can't apply to Nxt itself until we have AT (as we don't have the equivalent of Bitcoin "script" until then).

So there IS a possibility for a decentralized solution?

+1

But we need to make things clear:

- your solution (a service provider) is not decentralized
- there will be other gateways (service providers)

No-one - that is why atomic-cross chain transactions are the only *real solution* here (people trusted Gox and look where that has got them now).

When did I ever propose the multisig gateway being a monopoly?? That doesnt make sense and it is not possible anyway. It is not a "problem" the problem I am trying to solve is to make NXT AE immediately get dozens of popular and tradeable assets and making it as easy and safe for users. As long as we can get a threeway multisig gateway in place, there is no problem. any additional assets that come in via other gateways is extra gravy.

however, without some community established gateway, it becomes buyer beware. How is the mass market supposed to know that the BTC asset they got from joebob had no BTC backing it? Or what were his security precautions? In fact, the issuer of an asset is listed as 98473783959082935. users will have no way of differentiating scam gateways from real ones from amateur ones.

Sure the multisig gateway isnt perfect, but let us objectively compare it to the alternative

The question becomes, whether we as a community want to help new users by making it easy and relatively safe for them to deposit and trade cryptos inside NXT. Or do we just let whatever happens, happen. When people start complaining that they didnt receive their BTC, we just tell them, tough luck you should have been more careful? How exactly could they have even known what they were supposed to do. Who to trust?

No solution will be perfect, but we as a community are in the best position to make a gateway for the new users as safe as possible. Do we want new users?

James

Not nesaccarally. I think it would be a trade off.

Maybe I understand it wrong but to clarify things:

- you want to build a service provider (crypto coin gateway) for Nxt which uses AE and AM
- there will be (for now) three servers at different geo locations under charge of three different people to run this service provider
- this gives the user of this one gateway a nice feeling because it is less probable that the service provider runs away with the coins
- now I say this is a centralized solution but it is ok
- Did we ever thought we could have a complete 100% decentralized gateway solution for Nxt? I don't think so


What is your goal with the gateway implementation? A decentralized service provider? A built-in decentralized gateway in the Nxt-core? I think the second is not possible - is it?

edit: My opinion is that your gateway is a really BIG thing for nxt! But I want to clarify these things.

I agree. It is a form of diluted fractional reserve. But implementing this gateway kind of creates a decentralization paradox....lets call it the "gateway paradox". It raises a few issues to me that I wonder about. I understand your desire to use it for the good of every one, and I can clearly see the benefits of its implementation (after your explanations and descriptions), and I know from reading your posts and conversing  with you that you have put a lot of work into it and you have the best intentions possible. But this gateway, if implemented in the way you are describing does create a paradox nonetheless.

First of all, it is a form of centralizing. despite the fact that you are implementing it as non-profit, there is a cost involved with providing this service. This cost will force the network to depend on  a source of funding, and this dependence gives whoever is funding it leverage, even though they are not going to make a direct NXT profit.

Secondly, there is a risk involved in having other peoples funds in the holding account. A risk that every NXTer bares whether they want to or not. I know you have done everything possible to make this gateway secure, and god forbid it should happen, but what if for some reason the funds in this holding account disappeared? It would create a situation that sort of mirrors the Mt. Gox debacle, but would send a shock wave out that would be insinuated into the Space-time fabric of the NXT universe and not be limited to an independent galaxy.

To compensate for these risks, a fractional reserve lending policy for funding the gateway is an acceptable application of the free market. To me, there is nothing wrong with responsible capitalism. I am against vampire capitalism and using fractional reserve policies to cripple an economy and to concentrate wealth to lenders. But reasonable and responsible fractional lending is not in and of itself bad.

What is worse: controlled fractional reserve lending, or pan-network repercussions to an involuntary risk? I would like it better if the gateway could fund itself and provide for the cost of its operation.

So this is the paradox.

I love this idea and it is surely worth pursuing, and I really do appreciate your selflessness and your work; and everyone elses work who had any support for this project; and this is not an attack on you in any way, as the gateway is your baby, and NXT is a free market, and you are free to do as you will with the fruits of your labor. But to me it does create this paradox.

The question has also occurred to me: Is the application of this gateway to the NXT AE going to be monopolized? Or could anyone who wanted to implement something similar do so? If this is possible This gateway may have other uses than the ones you have intended.

The only solution that approaches fully trustless is to make each user part of a multisig gateway. It radical. Each multisig acct would hold amounts proportional to the users average NXT assets value.

People would need to be running a gateway program in the background that will be validating and signing withdraw requests. As people's NXT assets change, balances would have to shift between multisig accts to roughly match. This can be achieved by selecting deposits and withdraws from the multisig account that improves an overall balance metric.

the problem with this is approach is that not only is it getting pretty complicated, the odds of 2 of 3 customers going missing or simply offline becomes too high.

OK, so we change the model a bit to where there are two independent gateways with the customer's computers being the third. If a customer goes missing, the two gateways transfer the balance to active accts. To mitigate the risk of one of the two gateways going missing, each provably puts their private keys in two separate escrows.

The fundamental problem here is the the less trust you require, the more parties are involved and at some point the sheer number of small risks will end up making a multisig acct inaccessible, so you need to have an insurance layer.

If the community cannot support a three gateway setup, then there is no point to even using the multisig and might as well just turn into ripple. What if we could get Anon, abuelau and opticalcarrier to become the three gateways? Are they the same guy?

James

 Ok,  thanks for your reply.

 Good luck.

Small Decentralization of Centralization perhaps.


edit: please give me your thoughts on this: