NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[xyzzyx]

Would be really dumb not to cancel transactions if equally "are not real" until they reach the 1440 confirmations.
I can pay you now, but will have to wait until 1440 to be effective confirmations. that is, it is not real.
and 1440 confirmations are 48 hours!

if you can not cancel, so I have to wait 1440 confirmations? make it immediately effective and voila!

I don't like the idea of being able to cancel transactions.
...

Okay, it was just an idea.  
...

Oh, I should mention we do have something similar but in reverse: referenced transactions.  It is possible to link transactions in such a way that if an original transaction is orphaned (or otherwise cancelled), the linked transaction (be it AE or a service provider's action, etc) can be automatically cancelled in return so a product or service isn't given for free.

Just FYI.

[coloredcoin]

will color coins be included with nxt? and if so will nxt be first to market with color coins?

Colored coin will support many crypto,Nxt also may be included.

[^[GS]^]

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

Yes, I understand the point that cancel transactions is a bad idea.

but the problem with DGEX(and another's) is really NXT...

[Bitventurer]

retweett plz...

BitVenturer ‏@BitVenturer 1m

HODL NXT!!! pic.twitter.com/2mz1EsLF5T

[Hacer88]

So let's bury/ignore the idea with possibility of canceling transactions.

Moving on.

+1

Cancelling because you made a mistake and already clicked accidentally is a different story though.

So something like a cancelling option within 10 seconds could be nice if this is wanted by the community.
But 24 hours is too much indeed.

[CIYAM]

So something like a cancelling option within 10 seconds could be nice if this is wanted by the community.

Easily added into a client (i.e. just don't broadcast the tx until 10 seconds have elapsed with a button to cancel and a countdown) - no need to muck around with the protocol for something as simple as that.

[delulo]

2 questions:

Any idea when about the decentralized exchange will be ready to use?

Is nxt vulnerable to the Transaction Malleability problem bitcoin has?

anyone?

[Hacer88]

So something like a cancelling option within 10 seconds could be nice if this is wanted by the community.

Easily added into a client (i.e. just don't broadcast the tx until 10 seconds have elapsed with a button to cancel and a countdown) - no need to muck around with the protocol for something as simple as that.

Nice!

[pinarello]

Raising awareness.

IMO that is the *wrong* way to do it - and is only going to motivate other coins to start posting FUD memes about Nxt in retaliation.

You *reap* what you *sow*.

the man has a point here.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Is nxt vulnerable to the Transaction Malleability problem bitcoin has?

Bitcoin doesn't have Transaction Malleability problem. MtGox does.

Nxt exchanges shouldn't rely on transaction ids though. Coz ids can be changed in a way similar to Bitcoin.

[mcjavar]

So something like a cancelling option within 10 seconds could be nice if this is wanted by the community.

Easily added into a client (i.e. just don't broadcast the tx until 10 seconds have elapsed with a button to cancel and a countdown) - no need to muck around with the protocol for something as simple as that.

Nice!

A cancel till the first confirmation would be great. I am always affraid of clicking on "send" when I know it is irreversible.

[CIYAM]

Nxt exchanges shouldn't rely on transaction ids though.

Now what was I saying about "glass houses".

[delulo]

Is nxt vulnerable to the Transaction Malleability problem bitcoin has?

Bitcoin doesn't have Transaction Malleability problem. MtGox does.

Nxt exchanges shouldn't rely on transaction ids though. Coz ids can be changed in a way similar to Bitcoin.

thanks from beyond there.

What about the the decentralized exchange? How far is it and any expectations when it will be ready?

[^[GS]^]

The idea was to prevent hacking and emptyings.

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

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.

[EmoneyRu]

Code:

63096 	15'475 + 19 	282 %

?

[CIYAM]

Nxt exchanges shouldn't rely on transaction ids though. Coz ids can be changed in a way similar to Bitcoin.

So - there we have it from CfB - Nxt has THE SAME problem as Bitcoin.

Can you please stop the stupid tweets now as I can see CfB's statement being used as the "payback".

[abctc]

Code:

63096 	15'475 + 19 	282 %

?

- correct.

[BitcoinForumator]

Nxt exchanges shouldn't rely on transaction ids though. Coz ids can be changed in a way similar to Bitcoin.

So - there we have it from CfB - Nxt has THE SAME problem as Bitcoin.

Can you please stop the stupid tweets now as I can see CfB's statement being used as the "payback".

Delete this asap  

Edit: i will delete it to 

[jkoil]

if you're asking if negative input is legal, yes it is.

To simplify it, it's similar to how modulo operates in C.
If you do:

Code:

int x = (1-3) % 5;    // -2 % 5

you'll get "-2" as a result, but what you're actually interested in is:

Code:

int x = (1-3 + group_order) % 5;    // (-2 + 5) % 5  = 3 % 5 == 5

group_order == 5, and you'll get 3 as a result...

Yes, I know.

So, the problem is that -2 or 3 is processed further and we are not certain if -2 behaves differently than 3 does. That is certainly a problem.

EDIT: we are not certain if the 3 resulting from a -2 is process the same way as we would give it another try.

"-2" is passed as input to verify() which was expecting to see "3" not "-2"...

But it is not sure, if -2 in form as a 3 would result in the same outcome as it would be a 'real' 3 from the beginning.

In math  -2 mod 5 equals 3.   Is that the result, which is wanted?    ... in that case C implementation is wrong there and should not use % with negative numbers. (change to positive by adding 5)

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.

yes ... and no    
No; I didn't mean that c=-2 and c=3 are interchangeable. The results and consequences are likely different, possibly in "many" cases, where the c will be used (in h(a,c) as you  stated).
Yes; as you said "this must be avoided at any cost."   I agree, when not knowing the background of the original implementation (has it been assumed that no negative input or something else...) 

[CIYAM]

Delete this asap  

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