Author

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 635. (Read 2761629 times)

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1134
Also, at 10 seconds blocktime, actual trading of cryptos on AE becomes MUCH safer. Just imagine you put an order in and the market changes radically. That is a LONG 60 seconds to the next block as you see your order go against you...

You are likely to end up with many more forks making those earlier confirmations less useful (meaning you will quite likely require 6x as many confirmations to be "secure" thus not actually be achieving anything).

That is why I was asking. So, it is not that it is a bad thing to have faster block times, it is just that what I proposed doesnt work?

Do you see ANY way to be able to reduce the blocktime? 59 seconds? 58 seconds?

What causes the forks at faster block times? Please dont think I am an idiot, I am just ignorant. I only started with crypto last Thanksgiving so what is obvious to people in crypto for years, for me it is a new thing. I do have some skills, just need to calibrate them to this space.

James
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
From the text by BCNext/cfb, it seems so to me. don't know about the math

We really need the math - so if we have any math guys in our community there is an opportunity for you to earn some NXT or BTC for helping out with this and some other analysis.

I'm not caught up with the thread (75+ more pages! Sweating bricks here), but I can do math! I have no rep, but I could provide complete and written proofs that other people can review (for math, you shouldn't rely on rep anyways, if a "proof" isn't independently verifiable, it ain't proof).

I'll need clear mathematical statements to prove or disprove. Or if you can describe a problem and its motivations clearly, I might be able to formalize a clear statement from it.

No guarantees of success for any particular statement. Real math, not merely computation, isn't a strictly definable process (you could say it's more of an art).

EDIT: Looks like mthcl is on it. He's specialized in stochastic processes, which is very relevant to the "safe against '90%' attack problem", and I'm not. I might be able to help out with other problems.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
Why did he want just 21 BTC?

Maybe coz he is crazy about symbolism?

I thought that might be the reason.   Wink

Now, what does the number 21 symbolize?

2 * 21 = 42

You got it backwards:

42 (The answer) / 21 (to Bitcoin) = 2(nd gen cryptocurrency)
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
http://cryptosource.org/what-is-nxt-community/
read the last part of my nxtmyths 1st chapter

Q: Why was the initial funding cancelled suddenly with few people?

A: I wanted Nxt to be launched by the community, not by a single person. Success of Nxt is supposed to be achieved by work of a LOT of PEOPLE.


His answer is not convincing.

This is the same bullshit like "he wanted 21BTC to get invested so he lost his chance in the IPO".
If he wanted a lot of people to start Nxt with, he hadn´t stop the IPO so suddenly.


But that is history. Now we should focus on more important things, because that´s the future.

Symbolism is very important.  BCNext has a reason for doing everything.  Do not ignore what he is trying to convey.

3 JAN 2014 this is 1 03 2014 = 3 +0 +1 +1 +2 +4 = 11

born at 11.  Eleven is a master number .

According to Pythagorean school conscience  makes one complete cycle as it passes the 1, 2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9 digits

each digit has special properties such as 9 is the digit that added another digit always gives the other digit 9 +1 = 10 = 1 +0 = 1
 8 +9 = 17 = 1 +7 = 8 is the digit that always yields for the other grow. Is the spiritualization of matter and 6 is the materialization of the spirit

in a fractal universe when it gets to 11 this is not reduced to 1 +1 = 2
11 is a master number . 1 + 1 does not make 2 is something else. can not be reduced to say that awareness has been raised to a higher level has started a superior cycle.

fact that Nxt born at 11 means that its mission is to raise awareness . promote a paradigm shift . is intended to help spend humanity to a higher level of consciousness.

individuals, entities , things, born under this number have a higher degree of responsibility to others .

"The one who knows not die like the one that do not knows"  Grin Grin Grin

Quote
No real reason. It's very easy to get the source code by disassembling the binaries. I think he was just waiting for a bright cold day in April to do it

April 2014 = 04 2014 = 0+4+2+0+1+4 = 11  Grin Grin Grin

Perhaps 11 04 2014 = 11+11=22   Grin Grin Grin
Perhaps 29 04 2014 = 11+11=22   Grin Grin Grin

22 is also a Master number,
but
which means?  Grin Grin Grin
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
Also, at 10 seconds blocktime, actual trading of cryptos on AE becomes MUCH safer. Just imagine you put an order in and the market changes radically. That is a LONG 60 seconds to the next block as you see your order go against you...

You are likely to end up with many more forks making those earlier confirmations less useful (meaning you will quite likely require 6x as many confirmations to be "secure" thus not actually be achieving anything).
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1134
Has anyone seen this yet? If any of you are like me, the rest of bitcointalk pretty much gets ignored simply because this thread is a time drain.

I don't like seeing much about other cryptos here unless it's relevant to Nxt. XCP has been mentioned here more than a few times. It appears they had a major attack involving 150 BTC:

Quote
As many of you know, about a week ago, a hacker found a major security hole in the Counterparty protocol that enabled him to send XCP from anyone's address. He used this to send 35,000 XCP from the Poloniex wallet to himself, which he then deposited into his own Poloniex account. He then sold the XCP for 150 BTC and withdrew 115 BTC. Following that, he explained the security hole and offered to return the BTC. He has still not returned the BTC, but my correspondence with him is ongoing.

Users have asked to see the correspondence and the Counterparty developers have all given the OK on publishing it, so here it is: https://poloniex.com/correspondence.pdf

There was more to his message from today, which I have not included because it arrived after the developers gave the OK.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/correspondence-with-the-xcp-white-hat-490025

Yeah, I saw that 'cause I did a couple burns for XCP myself and had a tiny amount of XCP on Poloniex when the attack happened.  It's a shame, but really not unexpected for a new crypto.  There will be bugs in software.  There will be people anxious to exploit those bugs for personal gain.  We're all in new territory here in crypto-land, Bitcoin included.  Everything here is a gamble.

There's a reason one shouldn't invest more in crypto than he is prepared to lose.

Also, right after this c-cex.com was hacked for 300BTC. The hacker bought all the DRK boosting its price fivefold. Then withdrew the DRK, went to poloniex and sold it all, crashing the price 80%.

Crazy times.
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1010

PM and spokesperson are clear, but I can´t really see how this academy is supposed to work?

Me either.  This is a question of succession management.  When a really big project changes hands from one group of people to another group of people, the group in control usually goes around and shows the incoming group all the ins-and-outs of what is going on.  This leads to a smooth transition.

What we have here is a group in control that deliberately is rejecting contact with the group it expects to take over the reigns, and isn't even going to leave them any documentation (whitepaper, code comments) to read on their own.  Maybe this is due to language barriers, maybe this is due to a true desire for anonymity, I don't know, but it is a huge huge huge burden to overcome.   And, it seems to me, a needless burden that shouldn't be there.

Most of all, there is a growing sense of frustration on both sides I think.  BCNext and CfB are always making statements that the community is not living up to expectations and its own potential.  The community just wants some goddamn basic clarity on a few key, fundamental points.  I shake my head in bewilderment and confusion about how such a situation can exist.

It will probably not end well.

If you have expectations that aren't being met, you look at the assumptions underlying that expectation.
BCNext may well have a kind of ideal audience (every creator/writer has), but that doesn't mean that ideal will work.

At the moment we have a clear shortage of knowledge. This is clear from statements, not from Average Joe, but from professionals in their respective field.

There is also a clear willingness to work. No one is looking for an easy handout. The request for knowledge is not made out of a need for "the easy way", but a genuine concern for Nxt.

If BCNext truly agrees with Dawkins, he should not sow the seeds for a "God" myth himself. Mystification for the sake of it will do that. Just give the people that cán work with it the code they need and they will. We have people that have PROVEN to be trustworthy already.

Then, if he wants, BCNext can truly be "out of the picture". So long as he is keeping the story of a "Third" and now "Fourth" revelation alive, he won't be.

I would sincerely like to see the community take over, because this is creating more confusion than there needs to be.

Edit: the situation now seems to be:

Community to BCNext cs: You first!
BCNext cs. to community: You first!

Clearly that is not a good state of affairs.
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
I don't really come from outer space.
Has anyone seen this yet? If any of you are like me, the rest of bitcointalk pretty much gets ignored simply because this thread is a time drain.

I don't like seeing much about other cryptos here unless it's relevant to Nxt. XCP has been mentioned here more than a few times. It appears they had a major attack involving 150 BTC:

Quote
As many of you know, about a week ago, a hacker found a major security hole in the Counterparty protocol that enabled him to send XCP from anyone's address. He used this to send 35,000 XCP from the Poloniex wallet to himself, which he then deposited into his own Poloniex account. He then sold the XCP for 150 BTC and withdrew 115 BTC. Following that, he explained the security hole and offered to return the BTC. He has still not returned the BTC, but my correspondence with him is ongoing.

Users have asked to see the correspondence and the Counterparty developers have all given the OK on publishing it, so here it is: https://poloniex.com/correspondence.pdf

There was more to his message from today, which I have not included because it arrived after the developers gave the OK.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/correspondence-with-the-xcp-white-hat-490025

Yeah, I saw that 'cause I did a couple burns for XCP myself and had a tiny amount of XCP on Poloniex when the attack happened.  It's a shame, but really not unexpected for a new crypto.  There will be bugs in software.  There will be people anxious to exploit those bugs for personal gain.  We're all in new territory here in crypto-land, Bitcoin included.  Everything here is a gamble.

There's a reason one shouldn't invest more in crypto than he is prepared to lose.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1134
Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better.

I see no point in re-creating 1990's speeds for our "platform for the future" - people will be using smart cards that sign txs in an instant and it will be up to retailers to decide their own risk levels.

Well, usually eliminating risk is a good thing, so faster block times should be a good thing. Doing this also boosts our TPS capability by a factor of 6x without a large scale change.

Also, at 10 seconds blocktime, actual trading of cryptos on AE becomes MUCH safer. Just imagine you put an order in and the market changes radically. That is a LONG 60 seconds to the next block as you see your order go against you...

You still see no point?

James
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1038
.. What about Mixing Service then? U'll spend a lot of sleepless nights trying to find a good word that starts with "A" but is related to mixing...
- Eh!  So somebody working on Mixing Service .. interesting!
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1134
@jean-luc

As you might know, I have been advocating that the NXT network have a dynamic max TPS. This would allow better utilization of server resources and in general reduce the cost of maintaining a network that can handle peak loads of 1000TPS.

I might have a relatively easy way of implementing this, but no being familiar enough with details, I am not sure.

Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better. So, what if there was a mechanism that automatically reduced the time to next block if the current block isn't full? During times of low activity, it would speed up to 10 seconds per block. Then if we get a full block, it slows down by a second for the next block.

By using how full the current block is, there wouldnt even need to be a new field added to the block. Not sure if this will cause a hard-fork, but ignoring full backwards compatibility, what are the other problems with this method? We will still have a consistent +/- 1 second estimate on time to next block

James

Hello all, I am writing this rather quickly so I hope it makes sense. NXT changed certain variables in order to be able to reach this range of TPS correctly, for example not a scam coin like terracoin that pulled a faster generation out of their buttholes, NXT achieved that by knowing the miner and allowing mining only with stake in NXT, etc.

But when you want to suggest something like the above, It is not a problem of being done it is mostly a problem of being done "correctly"!, I personally think the only way to do that is with a parallel coin (merged mining style) with a smaller closed network of known stake holders generating the blocks.

Now I might be a total idiot most of the times but at least you can see my point, right?
As long as there is a deterministic algorithm to decide the time to next block, I am not sure why all nodes cant implement the dynamic time to next block. However, I am not sure, that is why I ask jean-luc

For full 1000TPS, I to do think a subset of nodes with adequate performance (hallmarked?) are needed, but that is actually independent from my dynamic time to next block idea.

James
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
NXT FUNDING COMMITTEE VOTE STARTS IN 36 HOURS
AT 12:01 AM MARCH 1 (UTC)

Remaining eligible nominees with as-yet undeclared intentions (PM me if you want off this list):

2Kool4Skewl, Arckam_(frmelin), bitcoinpaul,  buybitcoinscanada, Cointropolis_JustabitTime, Come-from-Beyond
Damelon, davethetrousers, drevil,   ferment, Fry, hughmanwho, Jean-Luc, jl777, Klee, landomata, laowai80,  msin, mww
nexern, opticalcarrier, PeercoinEnthusiast,  Pouncer,  Ricot, SecondLeo, smaragda,  VanBreuk,  ZeroTheGreat


Something Zahlen said:  A candidate does not need to be good at writing English. Some candidates may not have English as their mother tongue. If you're voting, don't confuse lots of writing for ability to judge the worth of a project. Remember that ultimately the committee's job is to decide which projects get funded.

If you are on this list and want to be on a NXT funding committee, go here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5280476

Background:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5280786

WE NOW HAVE A FULL SLATE

(Actually, antanst was a little late to the nominee party and was never on the blue list above.  But he's a coder, he runs multiple NXT nodes and he wrote the NXT Reddit tipbot.  Since I'm drunk with power and making the rules here, I say he's now a candidate for techdev.  If you disagree, don't vote for him - run against him!).

(However, I am not so drunk that I'm gonna let just anybody on this slate.  Newbie BC.NXT has posted on the candidate thread.  However, after checking his credentials and posting background, I will not be listing him on the ballot.   To quote the mythical American television commercial: Sorry, Charley, only the best tuna get to be Star-Kist.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_slate

Good luck to these nominees who have declared themselves candidates:


NXTmarketingfund: allwelder, Damelon,  Mario123, Asian Prepper, joefox, brooklynbct, CoinTropolis_NiftyNikel, Uniqueorn, salsacz
NXTtechdevfund: EmoneyRu, Anon136, l8orre, abuelau, antanst
NXTinfrastructurefund: rickyjames, chanc3r, EvilDave, pandaisftw, ChuckOne, ^[GS]^


Yeah, you may have seen this before.  I'll be putting it up every ten pages or so.  It's one of those "legitimate, transparent process" things.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
Just to have that clarified: what is a pool in terms of NXT vocabulary?

BCNext calls them "hubs".

Yes.

But what are hubs in terms of existing terminology? Accounts? Nodes?

Entities that control N accounts and M nodes.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
NXT.org

PM and spokesperson are clear, but I can´t really see how this academy is supposed to work?

Me either.  This is a question of succession management.  When a really big project changes hands from one group of people to another group of people, the group in control usually goes around and shows the incoming group all the ins-and-outs of what is going on.  This leads to a smooth transition.

What we have here is a group in control that deliberately is rejecting contact with the group it expects to take over the reigns, and isn't even going to leave them any documentation (whitepaper, code comments) to read on their own.  Maybe this is due to language barriers, maybe this is due to a true desire for anonymity, I don't know, but it is a huge huge huge burden to overcome.   And, it seems to me, a needless burden that shouldn't be there.

Most of all, there is a growing sense of frustration on both sides I think.  BCNext and CfB are always making statements that the community is not living up to expectations and its own potential.  The community just wants some goddamn basic clarity on a few key, fundamental points.  I shake my head in bewilderment and confusion about how such a situation can exist.

It will probably not end well.


I have discussed this several times here and I think all that needs to happen is BCNext announcing what he plans to do before he leaves the project. Same with CfB so that the community can stop speculating on what part these guys are going to play down the line. Then it's ALL on our shoulders.
I do think we as a community can organize ourselves and do this, I don't doubt it for one second. But we first need to get rid of the smoke and mirrors, the dust has to settle and so we can start with what we have and build on top of it.

We need a strong development team, if we have to hire more developers: then we simply do that.
We need a strong marketing team, fulltime workers that can make sure that NXT will be in the news and in different areas that it'll gain attention daily.
We need a vision...

It's not really THAT hard, it's just that the way things have been handled so far is all wrong.
I appreciate everything BCNext and CfB has brought to the table, but like they themselves say: they are leaving the project completley in our hands soon and we have to be independent. But for NXT to become independent we first have to get a comprehensive view of the current situation.

newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
Reading everyone's comments I think we should...

1) Better organize our decentralized system. We need to have a repository for all the projects going on, maybe use Ian Knowle's CIYAM webpage as our project repository site? This way we can better communicate with one another and use Nxt resources more efficiently.

2) Give BCNext a few more months to do his thing. The closest thing I do related to programming is using Excel, and I'm not even good at Excel. I am sure we can all agree programming is much harder, and on top of that to come up with completely unique ideas for a Cryptocurrency 2.0? Tough stuff.

3) BCNext should show a pulse on the forums once in awhile. A cryptocurrency's success heavily depends on the community behind it... like doge.
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
Unlimited Free Crypto
@jean-luc

As you might know, I have been advocating that the NXT network have a dynamic max TPS. This would allow better utilization of server resources and in general reduce the cost of maintaining a network that can handle peak loads of 1000TPS.

I might have a relatively easy way of implementing this, but no being familiar enough with details, I am not sure.

Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better. So, what if there was a mechanism that automatically reduced the time to next block if the current block isn't full? During times of low activity, it would speed up to 10 seconds per block. Then if we get a full block, it slows down by a second for the next block.

By using how full the current block is, there wouldnt even need to be a new field added to the block. Not sure if this will cause a hard-fork, but ignoring full backwards compatibility, what are the other problems with this method? We will still have a consistent +/- 1 second estimate on time to next block

James

Hello all, I am writing this rather quickly so I hope it makes sense. NXT changed certain variables in order to be able to reach this range of TPS correctly, for example not a scam coin like terracoin that pulled a faster generation out of their buttholes, NXT achieved that by knowing the miner and allowing mining only with stake in NXT, etc.

But when you want to suggest something like the above, It is not a problem of being done it is mostly a problem of being done "correctly"!, I personally think the only way to do that is with a parallel coin (merged mining style) with a smaller closed network of known stake holders generating the blocks.

Now I might be a total idiot most of the times but at least you can see my point, right?
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better.

I see no point in re-creating 1990's speeds for our "platform for the future" - people will be using smart cards that sign txs in an instant and it will be up to retailers to decide their own risk levels.
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
Why did he want just 21 BTC?

Maybe coz he is crazy about symbolism?

I thought that might be the reason.   Wink

Now, what does the number 21 symbolize?

2 * 21 = 42
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
Just to have that clarified: what is a pool in terms of NXT vocabulary?

BCNext calls them "hubs".

Yes.

But what are hubs in terms of existing terminology? Accounts? Nodes?
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
2) Why not to make a very simple bitcoin gateway?
It can be set like this:
Create NXT account A and issue asset "1BTC" in 21'000'000 quantity. They are not for sale.
Create BTC address B.
Write some code.
Announce, that anyone can send 1 (2, 3, ...) any whole number of real Bitcoins to that address and set an NXT account number in message of the transaction.
The code then periodically will check incoming transactions on address B and transfer corresponding number of "1BTC" assets to provided NXT account.
Then it can be traded on AE.
If someone wants to cashout his "1BTC" he then can transfer some quantity of his "1BTC" assets to account A and make a referenced Transaction with NXT message which contains a real BTC withdrawal address.
The code then sends real BTC (may be without some withdrawal fee to support gateway like 1% or fixed 0.01BTC) to given address.

All this can work very transparently - everyone can check amount of BTC on address B and "1BTC" on address A.

I am not a good programmer, but i think even i can program this simply on Google docs spreadsheet with API of blockchain.info and some public NXT nodes.


1. If Account B is made by a human, would this lead to trust problems?
2. If Account B is a product by our artificial intelligent SkyNXT AT whatever entity, and no one has control over the beast, things could get interesting Grin Wink
Jump to: