Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 637. (Read 2761629 times)

Very little.

Current source code (with comments) should be shared to a select group of people.

I am assuming the actual source has comments.

CFB, does it?

Clear points.
I would only disagree with this:

"to fund various projects (aka, your project manager)"

It´s not my project manager. I just proposed that we need one, as I see from my experience that complex projects won´t work without centralization as all parties will have different intentions and the resources (and the result) will get scattered.

+1.  This is the starting point to get out of the existential mess that has been discussed over the past ten or so pages.  

We can't depend on anything except open source code released on April 4 (I hope) that will apparently have our core feature of transparent forging non-functional(!?!) and who knows what level of comments / overview to enable understanding of how it all is supposed to work.

This is a pile of lemons as far as I am concerned, a bitter fruit,  but we have got to try and make lemonade from it.  

The key is to organize some kind of Kahn Academy system set up where we can dissect this source code when it comes out (and any documentation it contains) and try to create a training program to get a designated corps of programmers up to speed on it.  I am not a Java programmer and I have no idea how to best orient them to a specific, cryptic project.   But I do know if we don't set this training academy up to generate people capable of continuing NXT-specific cryprocurrency code development, we are going to fail.  

And if we tear into the source code like a bunch of piranha on April 4 and just make a blizzard of comments on This Monster Thread which then get lost under the weight of subsequent pages while we go off on some other tangent, then our fail will be an Epic Fail.  

Absolutely, a project manager.  But also, a training academy.  Organized now, ready to go April 4.  We need to start by either conducting a census of willing Java programmers from our own ranks, or we need to start identifying and lining up qualified professional Java programmers whose salaries we are going to pay from the NXTtechdev fund.   That's what it's there for.  

As a side prediction, I personally think the current practice of "put up a bounty for X" isn't going to work for organized core tinkering to create basic functionality.  Starting with transparent forging.  Which apparently we are going to have to get working on our own.

The second key thing is to get a set of spokespersons in place that can be seen by the public as the face of NXT.  I know we are decentralized and are supposed to eschew central leadership as part of our creed, but if we do not engage the public to embrace NXT, then NXT will fail.  And the public doesn't want to hear endless whining about mystical reclusive creators, they want to put their money into something that at least looks like it knows what it is doing.  That is the job of a spokesperson - not leadership, but to create the appearance of leadership to the public.  I am going to Texas Bitcoin Conference not as a leader within NXT but as a spokesperson for NXT.  

Project manager, training academy, spokespersons...that's enough for one post.

I don't even know how to start on the topic of project leadership.  All I know is that our competitors have it, for better or worse.

http://fusion.net/modern_life/story/ethereum-bitcoin-currency-created-19-year-372034

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2014/01/ethereum/

Some thoughts about AssetExchange (AE).

1) Unlike real stock exchanges (and FOREX) and virtual cryptocurrency/stock exchanges the launching NXT AE is very very open. Everyone can know what account owns what assets, what orders it has, what gain  or loss it get from trading.
We will have at any time full order book for any asset, full history of assets/money (NXT) flow.
So someone may make an great analytic site with stats of most profitable assets, top trading winner accounts (and may be loosers) for day/month/year. And much more! All because of all information on AE is open!

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.

AE, VS and AC.

IMO, one reason why he chose to share his plan in "3 parts" is because we don't actually need those parts yet to contribute to the ultimate success of NXT. For example, we are in the process of setting up 3 committees, to fund various projects (aka, your project manager) the community sees fit. Also, various members of the community are working on other projects that are extremely exciting, like James and his AT gateway.

It's also very obvious to me that BCNext is being intentionally vague with how TF will ultimately work because he wants someone else to come to the same conclusion independently. It would be against the point to simply hand out the answer, and then everyone would just take his word for it. I like what CIYAM is doing because he is actually providing a base model to work off of. To me, this is the step in the right direction. I'm not naive enough to believe that BCNext would simply do all this without a purpose in mind.

If we don't figure out (as a community) a way for TF to work as it should, BCNext and C-f-b promised it would be released in April anyways - and I'd be willing to give them the benefit of doubt. If they end up not releasing it in April, then we should take matters into our own hands (perhaps implement CIYAM's "solution", but I'm sure we'll find a better way by then).

ah ok - so this serves as a nice example documentation  

We need to adapt ourselves to work with the kind of future that we want.

Wait. I had thought that in April we will get full TF implemented or at least described. Are you saying that we have to figure out what it is and then implement it ourselves?

I have been concentrating on the "services" that add on top of NXT core, assuming that the core will be fully completed in April.

The key is to eliminate the randomness to allow for much better predictability. Ignoring all the cries about not being able to generate fees for most of the nodes, I think by having a subset ("hallmarked"?) of the nodes do the forging in a round-robin on a clock basis will allow for 1000TPS without much problems. Even with transaction fees headed to .01 NXT, the higher transaction volumes will easily cover the costs for these servers. 100 high capacity servers will provide for a lot more stable performance than thousands of randomly configured nodes. The normal nodes still help the network by propagating the blocks, but it can all flow from the NXT Hubs.

A round robin of the Hub servers is immune from 90% attack, since we are forging based on the clock. There is no hiding of blocks, each Hub server needs to forge a block on schedule, or it gets blacklisted (or worse). Since even small stake can hallmark nodes, a minority of honest Hubs will end up doing all the forging in the midst of an attack. While this is a bit more centralized, any node can join the Hub roundrobin as long as their node has adequate performance, so there is enough decentralization.

I also think we should go to a 10 second block time. This allows for transaction clearance at point of sale rates. 6x current blocks might be too big of a jump, but if we gradually reduce the time per block (1 sec per release) we wont even notice, unless it would cause hard-forks each time we reduce the blocktime.

If I need to switch gears from my current projects to TF implementation, let me know. I was assuming I didnt have to worry about that.

James

We are in stage where centralization IS needed.

   I see.

What is your team tasked to complete before your contract is over in April?

+++ very community spirited, thank you and people should think about it seriously to give us a common place to look at all the NXT projects.
 
Perhaps this is something the 3 project committees can think on and decide certainly for all funded / bounty projects they can be found here.

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.

It's an unconfirmed balance bug, let's wait when Jean-Luc fixes it. I tried to do it by myself but failed coz Nxt source code is completely different from one that I used to work with.

Come-from-Beyond, what is BCNext's reason for waiting until April to release the source code?

Maybe I just had to pay TWICE for one order on the AE:

accBal was:

 987945 conf, 873090 unconf. before the trade.
 702845 conf, 302990 unconf. after the trade

conf Balance: 987945 -   702845 = 285100 = 1900*150 + 100(FEE) OK

unconf Balance: 873090 - 302990 = 570100 =   2*   1900*150 + 100(FEE)

lets wait how the balance looks later when the conf==unconf -  - but how is it that the Trade hits the unconf Balance TWICE?!?!


Can anyone reproduce this or know anything about it

Order was : 1900HIVE @ 150 (1.5nxt?) -> 2850
 

{'bidOrderId': '2084814903449362881', 'quantity': 1900, 'askOrderId': '12983022864822577544', 'timestamp': 8203706, 'price': 150}]


my bid order:
2084814903449362881

deadline - 10
timestamp - 8203691
recipient - 1739068987193023818
fee - 1
attachment - {'asset': '5738361901523075871', 'quantity': 1900, 'price': 150}
senderPublicKey - 5f7605dfd9ddba1c7843add87f2afc0b9edb1776ad9ae7c9cce18013fa892471
amount - 0
signature - 2e1444f7ff479b8a73cde8270afb88e12842ec22a6b4ff6633b479f3bcf1c206b48f41ddde79ba1 99ab0c4cdc7d0da7d4f9465df194a048d98065da599b784a9
referencedTransaction - 0
confirmations - 7
block - 15113600740772845724
subtype - 3
sender - 1738404304940813414
type - 2
 

Thank you for your offer.

This would be a good way for us to organize community projects.  Later, we can seamlessly transfer our project management onto the Nxt AT.

For example this is possible???

LOW CARBON ENERGY MARKET

At the dawn of electricity in the late nineteenth century was Thomas Edison envisioned a decentralized system with many small companies competing for generators installed near the point of consumption. Since the electricity distribution cables were still rare , the Edison Electric Lighting Company focused most of his first business in installing generators in small factories, shops, hotels and homes .
In 1888 , Edison had installed 1,700 small plants . In the early twentieth century , more than half of U.S. electricity It was self-produced by industries that took advantage of the waste heat and excess electricity sold to nearby customers.

Would it be possible to implement Nxt platform under the distributed energy market ?

Is a market where producers and consumers of energy would cross their sales orders and purchase orders simultaneously.

Today a small community of neighbors or landowners can generate and sell energy through solar PV , mini wind power, etc. .

For example an owner decide to install in his home to energy consumption solar pv but at certain times of day to spare and is now selling the excess energy in the Nxt platform.

At one point he needs same energy and buys his deficit in the Nxt platform.

both buyer and seller should obviously pay transport costs to distribution companies but the market for the generation and consumption of energy would peer ( peer to peer) .

This would link with the colored coins and the contract system like Ethereum .

Does anyone dare with the idea ?

If anyone dares I'm interested to collaborate .

If we look at the nature of Mastercoin (Centralized Leadership) & Nxt (Decentralized leadership) then we can see that what many of us are asking for is more centralization.

You will have it in the VARIOUS COMMITTEES....

1) So activate your candidacy if you are on the list.

2) Organize an improvement project YOURSELF and request funding from the various committees.

3) Forget the past.


If you try to control the direction of this DECENTRALIZED organization/entity called NXT you will not succeed.