I want to inform you all that bter indeed sent me my 100k already. Thanks for all that helped. So basically the drone in charge of [email protected] cannot access any information and simply replies out of thier ass, After serious emails back and forth and many information submitted by from thier own systems, They gave in and actually forwarded my complain to the people in charge, was solved a couple of hours afterwards.
- Lophie
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 888. (Read 2761624 times)
Happy Valentines Day Nxt! 
This is how i celebrated my Valentines day today.
By posting a love message on a Tall Billboard in central Melbourne City of Australia, to show how much i care!
Loves in the Air ♡♡
If anyone else want to try, you can send sms with two names with a space in the middle to 0499 695 683. Just add international code, can't guarantee it will work for overseas. (+61)
They will send back you the picture.
I did it by sending the msg "We Nxt"
This is how i celebrated my Valentines day today.
By posting a love message on a Tall Billboard in central Melbourne City of Australia, to show how much i care!
Loves in the Air ♡♡
If anyone else want to try, you can send sms with two names with a space in the middle to 0499 695 683. Just add international code, can't guarantee it will work for overseas. (+61)
They will send back you the picture.
I did it by sending the msg "We Nxt"
I've been watching NXT for few days now and I've always had this question regarding adding NXT to Cryptsy as requested by 228 people here:
https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/44434
The NXT intro video says at 0:33 that we don't have to pay fees to exchanges like Cryptsy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktMGC-Nq9Zo
Couldn't this be the main reason why Cryptsy hasn't added NXT yet?
https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/44434
The NXT intro video says at 0:33 that we don't have to pay fees to exchanges like Cryptsy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktMGC-Nq9Zo
Couldn't this be the main reason why Cryptsy hasn't added NXT yet?
no i dont think so. nxt simply isnt plug and play like other coins. thats why it isnt on cryptsy.
Update Vircurex: Still nothing from there side, so no feedback from them regarding the missing deposit. 
I tested a vircurex deposit and while nothing ever ended up in my vircurex acct, the deposit is just sitting there in the deposit address they gave me to use. Did you check to see if your deposit is in the NXT address you sent it to? If so, it could just be a delay caused by all the BTC problems. They are probably manually checking all withdrawals and maybe even deposits.How?
What you want is called Secure Function Evaluation. Fully homomorphic encryption just means you can execute a function on someone else's computer and they don't know what you computed, but you still know everything. At least, in theory, in practice this is way too slow.
http://www.proproco.co.uk/million.html -> unfortunately, Yao's solution is interactive (they require constant cooperation between all parties)
A possible solution is presented in http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070340-new.pdf
What you want is called Secure Function Evaluation. Fully homomorphic encryption just means you can execute a function on someone else's computer and they don't know what you computed, but you still know everything. At least, in theory, in practice this is way too slow.
http://www.proproco.co.uk/million.html -> unfortunately, Yao's solution is interactive (they require constant cooperation between all parties)
A possible solution is presented in http://www.iacr.org/archive/eurocrypt2000/1807/18070340-new.pdf
It's just a guess that we could use it for Mixing. Maybe we can't.
Update Vircurex: Still nothing from there side, so no feedback from them regarding the missing deposit.
Thank you for this. Really necessary right now, I hope you don't mind if I link it as default client-selection option in the spanish site main menu.
Of course, spread the link.
I updated it with a Nxt video (not mine).
edit: I think we need a new, updated video in this style! Salsacz!
Set it up at /r/Nxt for the newbies.
bump...
I've been watching NXT for few days now and I've always had this question regarding adding NXT to Cryptsy as requested by 228 people here:
https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/44434
The NXT intro video says at 0:33 that we don't have to pay fees to exchanges like Cryptsy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktMGC-Nq9Zo
Couldn't this be the main reason why Cryptsy hasn't added NXT yet?
I've been watching NXT for few days now and I've always had this question regarding adding NXT to Cryptsy as requested by 228 people here:
https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/44434
The NXT intro video says at 0:33 that we don't have to pay fees to exchanges like Cryptsy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktMGC-Nq9Zo
Couldn't this be the main reason why Cryptsy hasn't added NXT yet?
Thank you for this. Really necessary right now, I hope you don't mind if I link it as default client-selection option in the spanish site main menu.
Of course, spread the link.
I updated it with a Nxt video (not mine).
We need an new better video for NXT ASAP, they are using old logo's, etc...
Thank you for this. Really necessary right now, I hope you don't mind if I link it as default client-selection option in the spanish site main menu.
Of course, spread the link.
I updated it with a Nxt video (not mine).
edit: I think we need a new, updated video in this style! Salsacz!
On a completely separate topic, I have a supermicro 1U server with dual Xeon, dual Nvidia Tesla GPU, SSD's and 192GB of RAM. Its perfectly fine, but I dont seem to have any time to actually use it anymore. I used it to calculate SVM's on large datasets for predicting near future forex prices.
I know it isnt worth anywhere close to what I paid for, but I want to find a good home for it. If anybody is interested in such a rig, I am open to offers, PM me.
James
I know it isnt worth anywhere close to what I paid for, but I want to find a good home for it. If anybody is interested in such a rig, I am open to offers, PM me.
James
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2%3a_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation
"Trust minimization: trusted hardware
Using commodity hardware, you can use trusted computing in the form of Intel TXT or the AMD equivalent (SKINIT) to set up a sealed hardware environment and then use the TPM chip to attest that fact to a third party. That third party can verify the hardware was in the required state. Defeating this requires someone to be able to interfere with the execution of a program that may run entirely on the CPU, even in extreme cases without any data traversing the memory bus (you can run entirely using on-die cache if the program is small enough).
Trust minimization: Amazon AWS oracles
Finally, perhaps the most practical approach currently is to use Amazon Web Services. As of November 2013, the closest we have to a working oracle is this recipe for creating a trusted computing environment using AWS, built in support of this project for doing selective SSL logging and decryption. The idea is that an oracle, which can be proven trustworthy using the Amazon APIs with Amazon as the root of trust, records encrypted SSL sessions to an online banking interface in such a way that later if there is a dispute about a person-to-person exchange, the logs can be decrypted and the dispute settled."
"Trust minimization: trusted hardware
Using commodity hardware, you can use trusted computing in the form of Intel TXT or the AMD equivalent (SKINIT) to set up a sealed hardware environment and then use the TPM chip to attest that fact to a third party. That third party can verify the hardware was in the required state. Defeating this requires someone to be able to interfere with the execution of a program that may run entirely on the CPU, even in extreme cases without any data traversing the memory bus (you can run entirely using on-die cache if the program is small enough).
Trust minimization: Amazon AWS oracles
Finally, perhaps the most practical approach currently is to use Amazon Web Services. As of November 2013, the closest we have to a working oracle is this recipe for creating a trusted computing environment using AWS, built in support of this project for doing selective SSL logging and decryption. The idea is that an oracle, which can be proven trustworthy using the Amazon APIs with Amazon as the root of trust, records encrypted SSL sessions to an online banking interface in such a way that later if there is a dispute about a person-to-person exchange, the logs can be decrypted and the dispute settled."
I've been watching NXT for few days now and I've always had this question regarding adding NXT to Cryptsy as requested by 228 people here:
https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/44434
The NXT intro video says at 0:33 that we don't have to pay fees to exchanges like Cryptsy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktMGC-Nq9Zo
Couldn't this be the main reason why Cryptsy hasn't added NXT yet?
https://cryptsy.freshdesk.com/support/discussions/topics/44434
The NXT intro video says at 0:33 that we don't have to pay fees to exchanges like Cryptsy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktMGC-Nq9Zo
Couldn't this be the main reason why Cryptsy hasn't added NXT yet?
Aha!
"When signing an input, the contents are set to the connected output. Thus, to redeem this transaction, the client creates a scriptSig containing zeros where the other signature should be, signs it, and then sets one of the slots to his new signature. The partially-complete transaction can then be sent to the merchant or mediator for the second signature."
It sure sounds like each gateway can each independently sign the withdrawal transaction and then pass it on to the next gateway. So with 5 gateways, it would take 5 blocks to get all the signatures required. ~5 minutes, but I think well worth the wait as this means fully automated trustless gateways can most likely be done!
Its a good thing transaction costs will be going to 0.1 as it adds up to at least 0.5 NXT just to get all the signatures.
Does anybody see a fatal flaw with this approach? I know we still have to deal with gateways disappearing, but it seems like we dont have to worry about gateways turning evil.
James
"When signing an input, the contents are set to the connected output. Thus, to redeem this transaction, the client creates a scriptSig containing zeros where the other signature should be, signs it, and then sets one of the slots to his new signature. The partially-complete transaction can then be sent to the merchant or mediator for the second signature."
It sure sounds like each gateway can each independently sign the withdrawal transaction and then pass it on to the next gateway. So with 5 gateways, it would take 5 blocks to get all the signatures required. ~5 minutes, but I think well worth the wait as this means fully automated trustless gateways can most likely be done!
Its a good thing transaction costs will be going to 0.1 as it adds up to at least 0.5 NXT just to get all the signatures.
Does anybody see a fatal flaw with this approach? I know we still have to deal with gateways disappearing, but it seems like we dont have to worry about gateways turning evil.
James
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack?in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks.
sure so like if some group of people formed a cartel with 90% of the stake and started forging empty blocks. we could just fork away and invalidate their stake.
we is you and I?
Because some powerful bank or government (but i repeat myself) wanted to kill nxt.
Doublespend.
This seems somewhat relevant to the current discussion here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=462236.60
I saw that, havent fully digested it, but it sure seems to indicate that we can solve this!It does seem that even without using zeroknowledge proofs or indistinguishability obsfucators, there are some pretty useful things that can be done with bitcoin scripts as it is. Until now I didnt realize all the flexibility bitcoin has built into the payment mechanism. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2%3a_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation
Rather than have me bumble around trying to figure out how to set up the details, maybe I can write out the requirements and somebody experienced with this can figure out how best to implement it.
I will use a specific number of 5 gateways, but of course it can be more (but probably not less). All these gateways will run the same software so they are all in agreement about what to do, the only difference is that each server will have a different private key that is only accessible to that gateway's trusted personel. For each withdrawal 4 of the 5 gateways would need to independently and securely approve the payment, which will be made by the gateway selected by the user.
The issues I see are:
a) how does the selected gateway securely get the approvals from the other gateways, since the different gateway servers are presumably in totally different locations.
b) there must be other problems, but I am not sure what they are
Since all gateways commit to running the same software, the moment any of the gateways start doing unexpected things, the other gateways can take corrective action.
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion?
so buyer beware....
HOWEVER, I think I might have a way to allow all the gateways to trust each other without any bodily parts being involved. I do need somebody who is familiar with multisig to confirm this, or more likely correct where I am being plain silly.
I do not see a problem with deposits of crypto, the end user sends in the crypto to a deposit address and the gateway sweeps it into an account. The problem is with the withdrawal, eg. since I am proposing all assets that represent BTC be fungible with each other, each gateway needs to have access to potentially all the actual BTC.
So, we have a possible solution where all the gateways sweep into a common account. Wait! If all gateways are able to withdraw from it, then if ANY gateway gets hacked or hypnotized by Evil Bob, all the deposits are gone. Not good at all.
This is where I think multisig comes in. What if the sweep account is a multisig acct. All the gateways can easily sweep into the multisig acct, since it is just a matter of sending coin to the right address. Now on withdraw, if we required the signatures from all gateways to do a withdrawal (or super majority?), then no gateway would be able to take off with the deposits, unless all gateways (or super majority) turn evil at the same time.
No I dont know how multisig works well enough to know if this will work, but IF there is a way to do a safe remote multisig authorization and all the gateways are using the same business logic to approve withdrawals, eg. proper AM was sent with appropriate asset, then I think this could work.
Not totally trustless, but as long as all (or super majority) of gateways dont spontaneously turn evil, I think the community would be able to rely on the federation of gateways.
I hope somebody that knows about multisig and another somebody that knows about secure remote signing will be able to validate this, or fix it so it works
James
P.S. I just figured out that we can use a set of AM's for secure remote signing. Granted it is a lot of AM to send if we had to do it for each withdrawal, so maybe we only invoke this level when the amount is larger than the bond put up by the gateway. I think this is getting close to a real solution. Smart guys, please help!!
just like it only without a central point of weakness
Since nobody that knows exactly how multisig works, I will try to read up on it and see if this really does the trick. If it does, that means we get somewhat decentralized automatic gateways that we can can trust. All the gateway deposits and withdrawals will be publicly viewable, so there are no controversies in that area. If ever anything like lophie is going happened, it would just be a matter of looking in the NXT blockchain, reparse the AM's and find out where it went.
We probably need to have some sort of manual "fix it" mechanism, but this should be a pretty rare event. All the gateways would have to work together to clear this up. Maybe all minus 1, in case one of the gateways goes MIA, wouldn't want all the funds to become inaccessible. Maybe a deadman's switch can be invoked in case one of the gateways goes away and the key delivered to an independent party. I heard about an electronic escrow service that can be setup for this.
Notice that even if one of the gateways goes defunct, nobody loses anything. At that point, the missing gateways passkey would be used one last time to transfer all the funds to a new account with appropriate new multisig signers. So no gateway can withdraw any money that all the other gateways dont approve. It seems safer than any centralized exchange to me, but I hope someone more versed in this stuff will comment.
The more I think about this, the more I think it could work. I just wish I knew more details about how multisig works...
James
Hello guys, I woke up from my slumber
. I had the pleasure to fiddle with multisig a little. What you are suggesting (automatic gateways), are NOT applicable. The closest you can reach to automation is that every stake holder that you require his/her signature must have a signing bot or a signing mechanism that is online 24/7, But then again if it is 100% automated....... which trust 5 and not only one? it would certainly make things faster and easier!If it is about trust then yes, no one can steal and if ONE refused to sign, the coins are as good as burned.
Once we can figure out a cumbersome manual process that solves the requirements, we automate it.
Instead of unanimous, just do N - 1. Or 2/3'rds. also I heard there was a way to have an electronic escrow so that if a certain event happened or didnt happen, a message is delivered. We can set up a dead man's switch so that if a gateway disappears, their key is sent to an independent trusted party. Or maybe under some scenarios, the key can be recovered. Not sure about this. Getting a bit late and not the best time for complicated scenarios
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack?in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks.
sure so like if some group of people formed a cartel with 90% of the stake and started forging empty blocks. we could just fork away and invalidate their stake.
i understand how multisig works. thats not the confusing part. its the idea of people honouring each others obligations and doing multisig. when i think of federating i think of people honouring each others agreements but then clearing their balances with each other periodically. so like if you and i federated and we issued 10 silver bars each. and then all 20 bars were redeemed through my gateway. you would owe me 10 silver bars. you would send the bars and then the balances would be cleared. we were able to federate because i trusted you.
oooh i get it now. i see why the wires were getting crossed. if you did a multisig account you wouldn’t be federating you would be incorporating!
I am probably using the wrong terminology, looking at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2%3a_Escrow_and_dispute_mediationoooh i get it now. i see why the wires were getting crossed. if you did a multisig account you wouldn’t be federating you would be incorporating!
makes my head hurt. I am not sure if a transaction can be passed from one party to the next, each adding a signature, without being privy to any of the other signatures. If that is possible, then the only way a withdrawal is authorized is if enough of the group approve it.
I am not caring about the specific method, the key is to require a trustless way that all (or all - 1) members of the group need to securely sign it before it gets disbursed.
James
P.S. Will my silver bars have a nice NXT logo on them?
Jump to: