NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 974.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: allwelder on February 10, 2014, 08:52:28 AM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 10, 2014, 08:18:23 AM

It's a problem only for exchanges that rely solely on transaction id. It doesn't need to be fixed. An exchange is supposed to pay attention to timestamp and other parameters of a transaction.

what parameters ,except timestamp?

Amount or ReferencedTransaction.

allwelder

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1004

Quote from: salsacz on February 10, 2014, 08:36:36 AM

important people from Berlin conf are responding on my invitation and they are very excited about Nxt

great

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: pinarello on February 10, 2014, 08:51:05 AM

CfB cut your sell on bter in smaller chunks please... Grin

don't you have a trade robot

I'm in BTC now. Thinking how to buy without driving the price up too much...

allwelder

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 10, 2014, 08:18:23 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on February 10, 2014, 08:11:50 AM

So why does nxt have this problem too? Is this something inherent to crypto currencies?

Can it be fixed?
Will it be fixed?
What should exchanges rely on instead of transaction Ids / transaction bytes?

It's a problem only for exchanges that rely solely on transaction id. It doesn't need to be fixed. An exchange is supposed to pay attention to timestamp and other parameters of a transaction.

what parameters ,except timestamp?

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: gimre on February 10, 2014, 08:27:31 AM

Quote from: ChuckOne on February 10, 2014, 06:19:11 AM

I think that's not the point here. Consider this:

Code:

b = f(a)

c = g(b)

d = h(a, c)

Let's assume c results in -2 with a certain b.

Even if c=-2 and c=3 are interchangeable mathematically, h might not work as expected as the pair (a, c) belong together.

So, it could be the case that h(a, -2) != h(a, 3) for the very same a. This must be avoided at any cost.

That IS the case, as h == verify, verify WORKS (validates) on "3" (and it SHOULD work on "3") and doesn't work on "-2",
(that's why you can see those "Generated incorrect block messages")

The point here is: 'SHOULD work on "3"' has to be proved.

Maybe, there are some negative numbers c so that (a, c') validates ALTHOUGH a is invalid. (where c' is the positive equivalent of c)
Maybe not.

So, proof of the algo as well as the code is needed.

pinarello

full member

Activity: 266

Merit: 100

NXT is the future

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on February 10, 2014, 08:46:25 AM

Quote from: salsacz on February 10, 2014, 08:36:36 AM

important people from Berlin conf are responding on my invitation and they are very excited about Nxt

Do u mean Angela Merkel?

CfB cut your sell on bter in smaller chunks please... Grin

don't you have a trade robot

allwelder

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1004

Quote from: EmoneyRu on February 10, 2014, 07:58:44 AM

Code:

63096 15'475 + 19 282 %

?

Code:

63117 2584657662098653454
2 4614209826663634159 339 %

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: salsacz on February 10, 2014, 08:36:36 AM

important people from Berlin conf are responding on my invitation and they are very excited about Nxt

Do u mean Angela Merkel?

lovebit

newbie

Activity: 36

Merit: 0

I heard on Lets Talk Bitcoin a few nights ago that the Zerocoin protocol is being developed for NXT. Does this mean that NXT is developing a Zercoin-like protocol or have the Zerocoin developers decided to build on top of NXT? Are the developers working together?

allwelder

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Eadeqa on February 10, 2014, 07:29:37 AM

Quote from: ^[GS]^ on February 10, 2014, 07:24:03 AM

tell you DGEX to send and receive your deposits in 10 minutes. lol

I don't know what Dgex problems are but I can use bter to sell and buy Nxt within minutes.

This is DGex problem, not Nxt.

Would you buy online clips (porn or not) with Nxt if you get the download link AFTER 24 hours?

That will make Nxt useless.

Even bitcoin with 10 minute for one confirmation is faster.

I will accept Nxt as a merchant with even one confirmation (1 minute), but I won't accept Nxt if transactions are reversible for 24 hours.

I would rather then find a better currency.

no body said the transaction is reversible.

Bitventurer

sr. member

Activity: 491

Merit: 250

S P 8 D E

Quote from: salsacz on February 10, 2014, 08:36:36 AM

important people from Berlin conf are responding on my invitation and they are very excited about Nxt

let's decide how much coins we will tip away...infecting people with NXT from our smartphones...

salsacz

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 504

important people from Berlin conf are responding on my invitation and they are very excited about Nxt

gimre

legendary

Activity: 866

Merit: 1002

Quote from: ChuckOne on February 10, 2014, 06:19:11 AM

I think that's not the point here. Consider this:

Code:

b = f(a)

c = g(b)

d = h(a, c)

Let's assume c results in -2 with a certain b.

Even if c=-2 and c=3 are interchangeable mathematically, h might not work as expected as the pair (a, c) belong together.

So, it could be the case that h(a, -2) != h(a, 3) for the very same a. This must be avoided at any cost.

That IS the case, as h == verify, verify WORKS (validates) on "3" (and it SHOULD work on "3") and doesn't work on "-2",
(that's why you can see those "Generated incorrect block messages")

^[GS]^

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on February 10, 2014, 08:13:07 AM

Quote from: ^[GS]^ on February 10, 2014, 07:57:43 AM

The idea was to prevent hacking and emptyings.

Is almost impossible to make a error sending by placing the phrase and all. Tongue

My next idea to prevent hacking and emptyings consists to create a second key 16-32 characters.
That would register like the ALIAS. Key is not used to unlock the account, only to send!
The key can be changed.

BCNext implements Account Control. Let's wait for that...

ahhh! I did not know! expect expect! Grin

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: wesleyh on February 10, 2014, 08:11:50 AM

So why does nxt have this problem too? Is this something inherent to crypto currencies?

Can it be fixed?
Will it be fixed?
What should exchanges rely on instead of transaction Ids / transaction bytes?

It's a problem only for exchanges that rely solely on transaction id. It doesn't need to be fixed. An exchange is supposed to pay attention to timestamp and other parameters of a transaction.

pandaisftw

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: wesleyh on February 10, 2014, 08:11:50 AM

So why does nxt have this problem too? Is this something inherent to crypto currencies?

Can it be fixed?
Will it be fixed?
What should exchanges rely on instead of transaction Ids / transaction bytes?

Only thing I can think of off the top of my head is individualized accounts, so you can constantly poll getGauranteedBalance on them.

Question: If what parts of the transactions can be faked? The sender ID? All of it?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: wesleyh on February 10, 2014, 08:11:50 AM

So why does nxt have this problem too? Is this something inherent to crypto currencies?

Can it be fixed?
Will it be fixed?
What should exchanges rely on instead of transaction Ids / transaction bytes?

It is due to the way a tx is constructed and hashed - if the signature(s) do not include every byte of the transaction then it will always be possible to modify the tx and if the hash is of the entire tx (not just the signed part(s)) then there is not much you can do about it apart from:

Don't rely upon the tx hash (something Mt. Gox should never have been doing in the first place).

Nxt does actually make things simpler in that you can just use Account #s (you don't have to deal with UTXOs).

An exchange should only display a txid *after* the tx has been confirmed (until then it should just be displayed as "unconfirmed" with no hash at all) and even then the txid should only be handled as "descriptive" data (i.e. not indexed for any important purpose).

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ^[GS]^ on February 10, 2014, 07:57:43 AM

The idea was to prevent hacking and emptyings.

Is almost impossible to make a error sending by placing the phrase and all. Tongue

My next idea to prevent hacking and emptyings consists to create a second key 16-32 characters.
That would register like the ALIAS. Key is not used to unlock the account, only to send!
The key can be changed.

BCNext implements Account Control. Let's wait for that...

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

So why does nxt have this problem too? Is this something inherent to crypto currencies?

Can it be fixed?
Will it be fixed?
What should exchanges rely on instead of transaction Ids / transaction bytes?

BitcoinForumator

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1000

Quote from: CIYAM on February 10, 2014, 08:08:55 AM

Quote from: BitcoinForumator on February 10, 2014, 08:04:15 AM

Delete this asap Grin

Just as those who "couldn't resist" trying to "score points" from the FUD - I can't resist keeping the "told you so".

Grin

I know

But many/most? of us actually put a lot of weight to your words.

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 974. (Read 2761629 times)