Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 627. (Read 2761629 times)

I made an identical suggestion a few days ago, but no one seemed to see it.  I forgot what values I suggested, I think it was 5M or 10M or something like that.  Assuming no penalty exists as our current situation, is there any difference between the 2 scenarios I presented?  They are the same, right?  no?

IMO this forging thing is the most important thing we have to consider for the future.  How to encourage forging, and prevent centralization in a trustless manner.  BTC cannot solve this - pools must choose to do the right thing.  But if we limit the amount of forging power then IMO we run the risk of making it even easier to mount 90% attack, if very little NXT is actively forging.

Hard stuff..  Do we make forging profitable as a means to protect the network?  Or can we depend on the circumstances that BCNexts' plan targets?

Hard stuff

Exactly!
I have even more "sensitive" info about Ethereum and I can confirm they are stumbling, but we must not underestimate them. They got powerful investors behind them.
Their biggest problems is legal issues though

+100

Don't get confused. The soda-can situation is only an example for the underlying problem.

Good morning from the West Coast NXT community,

First, great work on the tri-fold marketing brochure with special thanks to rickyjames, bitcoinpaul, w4llace, LiQio, EvilDave and especially mvag to create this great looking marketing material.

With regards to Auroracoin, the fact remains it is STILL a Proof of Work Clone and still suffers from the same geometrically increasing energy rate required to secure the network. The NXT Asset Exchange development has critical momentum; it is imperative this momentum is maintained.

The NXT cryptocurrency ecosystem is LIGHT YEARS ahead of ethereum.  I read through the ethereum forum last night and reviewed all of their problems attempting to implement their first basic clients, problems and delays and bad publicity at attempting to issue a $30 million "ether" IPO, and potentially running afoul of US SEC securities laws related to IPO issuance.

When I explain cryptocurrencies to my friends, one of the first questions is: will cryptocurrencies replace dollars, euros, etc?  My answer to them is always a resounding NO; all assets including cryptocurrencies, fiat, precious metals, land, etc will all continue to exist and be traded in parallel with the new cryptocurrencies through the NXT Asset Exchange.

HOWEVER, NXT is not just a cryptocurrency asset; but rather a powerful tool to enable transactions between all classes of assets and all groups of people.

So many people globally are locked out of the ability to conduct basic economic transactions, let alone complex transactions due to the expense resulting from the greed of the global banking cartel. The NXT ecosystem has the ability to free these underbanked and underserved people to finally join the world economic system free from the constraints of fractional reserve banking, capital controls, central banker greed, and computing arms races.

NXT is reaching critical mass.  It is true we need to organize, coordinate, keep calm and code on.  It is my vision that with the full implementation of the NXT Asset Exchange System, eventually all other energy unsustainable cryptocurrencies (All BTC and LTC clones) will be built on top of the NXT ecosystem as Proof of Work/Proof of Stake Coins.  The Proof of Stake NXT ecosystem provides the leanest, cheapest method to conduct secure cryptographic transactions and DATA GOES WHERE IT IS CHEAPEST!

That would require some "study" of *actual* network latency (versus a few ad hoc examples) to determine for sure - but I think you can see we are going to struggle to get anything close to *instant* confirmations "in the real world".

The suggestion I was making (and it is only a suggestion) would be that both the single account and one owning "leased addresses" are limited to a max. amount of forging power (say 1% for convenience).

So any additional forging power by the way of extra NXT or extra leased accounts would be "useless" and therefore most likely to be allocated elsewhere (*manually* with my suggestion rather than somehow *automatically* via the *penalty* concept).

So the "only" problem is that we cant ensure a fast path out of China? We can get the 50 milliseconds ping inside China?

If so, I might have a solution, just a matter of cost. Is is fair to assume that we can estimate a block generation time being limited by 200 times the worst ping times of nodes?

James

i still say this is one of the things we all need to talk through and address first.  how do we prevent centralization of forging in a non-trustless manner?  and can someone answer a question on the following 2 scenarios:

1) a single account has 91% of all NXT in its balance
2) a single account balance + all the effectiveBalances leased to that single account where the sum is 91% of all NXT

Do both these scenarios present the same risk of a 91% attack?  It seems to me that they do, but some people seem to have been suggesting otherwise, or at least thats how I understand some conversations

Also, can anyone answer this:

1) If Joe wanted to steal a coke he could simple walk out of the store without paying.


2) I understand we must act on reality not our limited assumptions....but I'm sure some very smart people said humans would never fly.

Seeing the impossible is also genius.

EDIT: seeing pass the impossible is genius

If he has a suitable AT then he might not need a friend.

How are you going to "make sure" of this?

Are you going to "beat" the GCF?

If so please let me know the "secret sauce".

If Joe has no friends, it is not possible

Joe is buying a coke he can;t be in two places at once.

No - you can have your balance emptied by a *faster* tx (if you know how to achieve that) so that your tx at the supermarket will simply fail due to zero balance.

Please try to understand what I am saying. You agree that we can have hallmarked nodes going at a much faster speed. I understand that it will only be between themselves.

Now, lets assume that we place the hallmarked nodes in a topology such that with the actual Internet of today, all nodes are a short ping distance away from at least one hallmarked node. And we restrict non-hallmarked nodes to only use peers with a fast enough ping time.

This two tiered approach is kind of what is going on now, but not strictly. I cant understand why the overall processing wont go any faster if all nodes are fast to a hallmark and all hallmarks are fast to each other.

So, in China there would be hallmarked servers that you can ping in 50 milliseconds. We make sure the hallmarks in China have a fast path outside.

Are you saying that with this structure we are still at 60 seconds? If so, math please

James

Not if the balance of said account has become *zero* in the meantime due to the supermarket not having fast enough internet to see the other tx that was sent by "tricky Joe" at the same time he bought the soda from another location (which emptied his balance via a higher speed route) as he had set that up perhaps via a VPS or some other way (as I said "average Joe" would be very unlikely to be able to get away with this).

Quick question: Does local signing change anything of the soda-can situation?

edit: Ok. Ignore.

Not sure why 60 seconds should be the fastest practical time. Simple transactions as buying a can of soda do not require 1440 blocks. As long as the "supermarket" caches its precious not-confirmed transactions until they are, nobody's in trouble.

@CfB
Could you elaborate?

Again - I think CfB and I are "in tune" with this.

You can't improve your own latency issues by having "some other servers" talk faster to each other.

At the end of the day your "slow connection" simply "can't keep up" so it won't be able to see those fast flying confirmations and more than likely will end up on a fork.