NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[rickyjames]

NXT FUNDING COMMITTEE VOTE STARTS IN 60 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://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=479167.msg5280476#msg5280476

Background:

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=345619.msg5280786#msg5280786

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!).

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.

[EmoneyRu]

[mini-ANN] Nxt-kit works at FREE VPS OpenShift.

[cryptolawyer]

What do you guys think about building some kind of decentralized insurance directly into the coin to provide peace of mind that something like Gox can't happen to Nxt?

Details and more info here:
https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,4186.0.html

The decentralized exchange helps too but being able to used an insured bank to store your Nxt would provide a certain peace of mind.  It's the reason my dad has been convinced that cryptos will fail.. because they aren't insured, therefore he'd never feel safe storing them anywhere and I'm sure he's not the only one.  It's a necessity when it comes to non-techy people in my mind.

And as Rahm Emanuel says (dislike him but he's got a point on this topic): Never let a good crisis go to waste!

The fundamental difference between a sovereign standing behind bank deposits denominated in its own fiat and any correlarry in the crypto world is that a sovereign can print more money, and can theoretically insure against loss of ALL deposits. The consequences of actually doing so would be dire, of course, but you could never backstop crypto deposits with the same level of assurance.

Capital adequacy rules could help with some of the risk, and I could imagine a decentralized approach to enforcing such rules as between assets and liabilities denominated solely in crypto (James' cross chain work could have very powerful application here). With fiat on the balance sheet, we have a TTP issue, but with adequate auditing that risk should be manageable, and in any event it would be way better than what we have now.

Will it be enough to convince our collective moms and dads to keep crypto on such a platform? That's the hard (and more important) question.

[klee]

Shit, that is bad!  

Solutions? Maybe a DAC???

Awaken man's switch??  

Dunno. Time to invest 1M NXT into development of technology that protects in such cases...  

Are you listening 50M NXT hoarders?

Why they hoard so many coins? They can't sell all of this coins anyway. From the block chain, these account(2159498187382012684,4747512364439223888,9433259657262176905,14571285356259793594) have more than 45M NXT(some of them split they account). Please sell it, donate it, anyway. The price will be never going up too far if they hoard so many coins.

The early adopters that really helped NXT are known - the others must be ashamed!

[igmaca]

Sorry, is it you or my headache Could you make an effort to explain your idea a little better?

if I'm not wrong?

with " forging power of leasing to account to another account to create pools " only node account pool must be active to participate in the forge.

With my proposal all nodes accounts must be active to participate in the forge

this means;

Extremely decentralized network (in the exemple 30.000 Nodes)
Small accounts motivated to participate in forging (In the exemple 100 Nxt account is forging every day)

You just have to solve for the fees to be sufficiently attractive.
An interesting idea is to pay for other things like leased computing power

[abuelau]

The early adopters that really helped NXT are known - the others must be ashamed!

+1

[landomata]

Opportunity

Can someone develop an Nxt equivalent of Proof of Existence so that NMAC (and other Virtual Corporations) can register itself like this company did on the Bitcoin blockchain? This well written prospectus can also be registered and published using the same method, making it official and "legal”. It gives a greater sense of legitimacy and serves as a show case of how the Nxt ecosystem can provide similar or better safeguards for investors normally enforced through government or centralized means.

Great suggestion.

[himmelsfaller2]

Just talked to bittrex, they have only 86 signups from nxt at the moment..

You should all go and sign up.

Go to https://bittrex.com/Account/Register and use SUPPORT_NXT as the invite code. This gets you past the invite code queue. Place some trades, enabled 2FA, or try any of our other features to help us stress the site before the final launch. If you find a bug, we're handing out bug bounties as well. Having a great exchange helps us but also helps the NXT community.

also just did 2 more with different email accounts, so I've no 3 accounts there

[bitcoinpaul]

it looks like some old guy with no artistic sense whatsoever did it on Microsoft Word.  

Well, ah, yes.  That would be me.

Classic

[Emule]

Shit, that is bad!  

Solutions? Maybe a DAC???

Awaken man's switch??  

Dunno. Time to invest 1M NXT into development of technology that protects in such cases...  

Are you listening 50M NXT hoarders?

Why they hoard so many coins? They can't sell all of this coins anyway. From the block chain, these account(2159498187382012684,4747512364439223888,9433259657262176905,14571285356259793594) have more than 45M NXT(some of them split they account). Please sell it, donate it, anyway. The price will be never going up too far if they hoard so many coins.

why should i? look at all the donations that people gave for marketing! 0 result

one guy gets 40k every month for burning more nxt for nothing, why should i donate, to burn even more?

till now NXT has produced nothing but hot air, i am still waiting on all that promissed features: no working clients, no working asset exchange, nothing.

what is marketing doing: exactly nothing.

when nxt is near one dollar if ever maybe then i will think about it till then you all a bunch of amateurs

i miss vision here on all fronts leading nxt to nowhere, get your act toghetter or prepare that nxt will be 0.000000001 again

[CIYAM]

Okay - after some discussion with CfB and checking out another such simulation I think I can get mine a lot closer to what is "really" going on underneath the hood (of course it is "only a simulation" so it can only be of so much benefit).

So this version is 100 years worth of blocks *without log(balance)* but instead with a "random divisor" of your balance to take the place of "time to forge" and now the figures look like this:

blocks = 52560000
a: 10
b: 10
c: 10
d: 10
e: 10
f: 50
wins( a ) = 4453471
wins( b ) = 4447734
wins( c ) = 4448973
wins( d ) = 4443112
wins( e ) = 4437624
wins( f ) = 30329086
best_streak( a ) = 7
best_streak( b ) = 6
best_streak( c ) = 7
best_streak( d ) = 7
best_streak( e ) = 8
best_streak( f ) = 31
best_combined_streak = 22

and when run with the 90/10 we now get the following:

blocks = 52560000
a: 10
b: 90
wins( a ) = 5361825
wins( b ) = 47198175
best_streak( a ) = 7
best_streak( b ) = 136

Whether this is a good enough approximation to statistically what is going on I am not sure but at least the simulator is no longer using floating point nor "log" (and is giving less skewed results).

Code:

#include <ctime>
#include <cmath>
#include <cstdlib>

#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <sstream>
#include <iostream>

#define NUM_DAYS 1
#define NUM_YEARS 100

//#define PREVENT_IMMEDIATE_REPEAT

//#define SHOW_WINNERS
//#define SHOW_WINNERS_WEIGHT

using namespace std;

#ifndef NUM_YEARS
const size_t c_num_blocks = 1440 * NUM_DAYS;
#else
const size_t c_num_blocks = 1440 * 365 * NUM_YEARS;
#endif

int main( )
{
#ifdef SHOW_WINNERS
   string winners;
#endif
   vector< int > wins;
   vector< int > streaks;
   vector< int > balances;
   vector< int > best_streak;

   vector< int > combined;
   vector< long > weights;

   int combined_streak = 0;
   int best_combined_streak = 0;

   balances.push_back( 10 );
   balances.push_back( 10 );
   balances.push_back( 10 );
   balances.push_back( 10 );
   balances.push_back( 10 );
   balances.push_back( 50 );

   srand( ( unsigned int )time( 0 ) );

   for( size_t i = 0; i < balances.size( ); i++ )
   {
      wins.push_back( 0 );
      weights.push_back( 0 );
      streaks.push_back( 0 );
      combined.push_back( 0 );
      best_streak.push_back( 0 );
   }

   size_t last_winner = 0;
   for( size_t blocks = 0; blocks < c_num_blocks; blocks++ )
   {
      long total_weight = 0;
      for( size_t i = 0; i < weights.size( ); i++ )
      {
         int divisor = rand( ) % 10;

         if( divisor == 0 )
            ++divisor;

         weights[ i ] = ( rand( ) % 10000 ) * ( balances[ i ] / divisor );

         total_weight += weights[ i ];
      }

      size_t winner = 0;
      size_t runner_up = 0;
      long best_target = 0;
#ifdef PREVENT_IMMEDIATE_REPEAT
      long second_best_target = 0;
#endif

      for( size_t i = 0; i < balances.size( ); i++ )
      {
         long adjusted_weight = weights[ i ] * 1000 / total_weight;

         if( adjusted_weight > best_target )
         {
            winner = i;
            best_target = adjusted_weight;
         }
#ifdef PREVENT_IMMEDIATE_REPEAT
         else if( adjusted_weight > second_best_target )
         {
            runner_up = i;
            second_best_target = adjusted_weight;
         }
#endif
      }

#ifdef PREVENT_IMMEDIATE_REPEAT
      if( winner == last_winner )
         winner = runner_up;
#endif

#ifdef SHOW_WINNERS
      winners += ( char )( 'a' + winner );
#  ifdef SHOW_WINNERS_WEIGHT
      ostringstream osstr;
      osstr << best_target;
      winners += "(" + osstr.str( ) + ")";
#  endif
#endif
      ++wins[ winner ];

      if( winner != balances.size( ) - 1 )
      {
         ++combined_streak;
         if( combined_streak > best_combined_streak )
            best_combined_streak = combined_streak;
      }
      else
         combined_streak = 0;

      if( winner == last_winner )
      {
         ++streaks[ winner ];
         if( streaks[ winner ] > best_streak[ winner ] )
            best_streak[ winner ] = streaks[ winner ];
      }
      else
         streaks[ winner ] = 0;

      last_winner = winner;
   }

   cout << "blocks = " << c_num_blocks << endl;

   for( size_t i = 0; i < balances.size( ); i++ )
      cout << ( char )( 'a' + i ) << ": " << balances[ i ] << endl;

#ifdef SHOW_WINNERS
   cout << winners << endl;
#endif
   for( size_t i = 0; i < wins.size( ); i++ )
      cout << "wins( " << ( char )( 'a' + i ) << " ) = " << wins[ i ] << endl;

   for( size_t i = 0; i < best_streak.size( ); i++ )
      cout << "best_streak( " << ( char )( 'a' + i ) << " ) = " << ( best_streak[ i ] + 1 ) << endl;

   cout << "best_combined_streak = " << best_combined_streak << endl;
}

[bitcoinpaul]

Confusing words. Do you propose something like this?

Instead of leasing forge power, you commit with your account to share fees among others in the same "share fee group" if you forge a node. You still have to try to forge a block on your own, but you commit to share the incentive with others if you are successful. ... Could this be done with AT and would that make sense?

[bitcoinpaul]

using floating point

James is laughing

[CIYAM]

using floating point

James is laughing

No doubt about it. 

[superresistant]

Shit, that is bad!  
Solutions? Maybe a DAC???
Awaken man's switch??  

Dunno. Time to invest 1M NXT into development of technology that protects in such cases...  

Are you listening 50M NXT hoarders?

What are you doing 50M-Nxt-hoarders ?? We need money for projects.

It is stupid to hold such big amount. The value of Nxt will not increase if you don't help.

[l8orre]

I seem to have a bit of a hard time getting access to 0.8.2e on my raspi.

It seems to running ok, but I don't know how to access the browser interface.

Neither http nor https on any of the ports gets me access.


[2014-02-26 13:02:23.747] Started peer networking server at 0.0.0.0:7874
[2014-02-26 13:02:23.820] Started API server at 127.0.0.1:7876
[2014-02-26 13:02:23.861] Started user interface server at 127.0.0.1:7875
[2014-02-26 13:02:23.901] Nxt server 0.8.2e started successfully.


Maybe I have to modify the ncxt/conf/nxt-default.properties ? I have tried a few possible entries, but apart from the obvious ones, I have no idea:


nxt.allowedBotHosts=127.0.0.1; localhost; 192.168.178.25; 192.168.178.26; 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1;

nxt.allowedUserHosts=127.0.0.1; localhost; 192.168.178.25; 192.168.178.26; 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1;
 
As the start script is:
java -Xmx128M -Xmx450M -cp nxt.jar:lib/*:conf nxt.Nxt

Do I maybe have to give an extra reference to the nxt-default.properties?

[bitcoinpaul]

Another thought (not 100% related to our discussion right now):

I say if we don't have mechanisms like penalization, Nxt won't succeed.

Trust noone - this is a very important principle. Nxt doesn't rely on trust but solves the problem of trust in another way. It evolves to a system that doesn't care about trust coz everything will be very clear. Transparency extended to absolute leads to inability to cheat thus removing necessity to think if someone should trust another one.

Who cares about transparency, if no mechanism exists which uses this transparency.

Anyone?

[igmaca]

Confusing words. Do you propose something like this?

Instead of leasing forge power, you commit with your account to share fees among others in the same "share fee group" if you forge a node. You still have to try to forge a block on your own, but you commit to share the incentive with others if you are successful. ... Could this be done with AT and would that make sense?

right (I'm sorry but I'm not a native speaker of English)

I do not know how you can implement technically but that's the idea

this means;

Extremely decentralized network (in the exemple 30.000 Nodes)
Small accounts motivated to participate in forging (In the exemple 100 Nxt account is forging every day)

You just have to solve for the fees to be sufficiently attractive.
An interesting idea is to pay for other things like leased computing power

[bitcoinpaul]

Just stop the big bold font please.

[ZeroTheGreat]

Why would anyone who spends that much money to acquire 50% of Nxt, then do anything that will destroy his own wealth?

A good point - and understand that I am not "advocating to do anything" at this stage - just presenting some statistical analysis (something that this project needs to have done before making "claims" about percentages and "safety").

Even with leasing we're generally safe: if some pool actually'll forge bad chain, Nxters'll argee on rollback and don't lease any power to that concrete pool and'll stay aware of leasing so much % to any pool for a long time. Threr's no possibility of rollback in PoW: malicious 51%, game over. But in PoS with leasing, where pools're dominating as forgers, it's pretty doable.

And if not a pool, but single forger (insanely rich + crazy; for real we'd care only about social engineering, potential PoX superiors and about Internet health) will successfully attack Nxt, community'll switch to another PoS-coin, may be to even 1:1 clone.