NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[jkoil]

Code:

		for (w = 0, i = 0; i < 32; i++)
			w |= v[i] = tmp1[i];

Is my pascal version correct?

Code:

w:=0;
for i:=0 to 31 do
begin
  v[i]:= tmp1[i];
  w:=w OR v[i];
end;

What exactly is the "if (i==0) { i=0;}" supposed to do???

looks fine, but are you sure your Pascal compiler supports 0 as an array index?
(Can't remember if the starting index could be set ...)

What exactly is the "if (i==0) { i=0;}" supposed to do???

that looks like a place for a "conditional" breakpoint for debugging ...  unless someone had wanted to adjust some timing in the loop

[EvilDave]

Forgive me for having a little too much joy hearing this politically correct answer/reply from BitonicNL on twitter when asked whether they are going to start selling NXT for Euros! I have been buying bitcoins regularly from this site and is a happy customer.

Here is the tweet: https://twitter.com/Bitonicnl/statuses/435398282617966592

Wow!
This would be great!
Bitonic is very good and dependable :-)

Yup, got BTC from them. Utterly sweet and trouble free (God, ilove iDeal)
Their answer is probably "No/Maybe", though.

@Rickyjames: check out the peer explorer thread on nextcoin.org:
https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,2266.0.html
For some insight into NXTs infrastructure.
I'm pretty certain that there are a lot of nodes not showing up on PeerExplorer. My private node isn't there at all,for example, maybe because its behind a NAT firewall. It'd be interesting to find out precisely what we have running right now, and how we need to expand on it.
I remember the 1000 TPS debate from a week or 2 ago, did we make any conclusions/decisions on network capacity ?


and, just for laughs, heres a block check:

68877      15401440438959943842      maandag 17 februari 2014 23:45:56   
      
      0      0 + 0      0 B   
      
      2      11632566965275100174      166 %   
   

[ChuckOne]

68877      15401440438959943842      maandag 17 februari 2014 23:45:56   
      
      0      0 + 0      0 B   
      
      2      11632566965275100174      166 %   
   

Confirmed.

[martismartis]

Chuckone, in which list do you see your node and what version is showing near it?

Which lists? I cannot see myself in the NRS. But I run 0.7.5.

What is your public node address?

[Anon136]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

[jl777]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

[brooklynbtc]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

[brooklynbtc]

also, in relation to my "not enough funds"

when I try to log into the testnet from NRS, I see a balance of -5

but the transactions themselves don't add up

2/17/2014 2:46:15 PM      4940924250576724047                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:23:50 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:19:23 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:19:23 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 2:19:23 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:53:01 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:53:01 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:48:08 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:47:47 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/17/2014 12:42:17 PM      1739068987193023818                  1'000      10+   
2/17/2014 12:32:52 PM      4940924250576724047            5'000      5      10+   
2/16/2014 3:35:45 PM      1739068987193023818                  1      10+   
2/16/2014 3:20:02 PM      4940924250576724047            1'000      1      10+   

[ChuckOne]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

IIRC, TF includes something like a penalty to accounts that were too late forging. From the perspective of a node, not forging and the forged block arrived too late are indistinguishable.
That penalty is supposed to prevent selfish mining.

Okay, let's go deeper:

Let's assume, one part of the network underwent 1) and the other part underwent 2) (because of network latency). We now have a partition of the network in nodes (say N1) having A on top and in nodes (say N2) having B on top.

How do we solve that?

[jl777]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

I need to be able to access the API directly. http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?... returns nothing

I also need some testNXT

[Come-from-Beyond]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

IIRC, TF includes something like a penalty to accounts that were too late forging. From the perspective of a node, not forging and the forged block arrived too late are indistinguishable.
That penalty is supposed to prevent selfish mining.

Okay, let's go deeper:

Let's assume, one part of the network underwent 1) and the other part underwent 2) (because of network latency). We now have a partition of the network in nodes (say N1) having A on top and in nodes (say N2) having B on top.

How do we solve that?

Next block will let to choose the winner.

[Anon136]

[2014-02-17 21:22:23.586] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from node55.nxtbase.com, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:26.391] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 13734259069497850723 at
height 68803 received from miasik.no-ip.org, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:22:50.345] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from nxt.homer.ru, blacklisting
[2014-02-17 21:23:02.295] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 209947979157787352 at he
ight 68804 received from node10.nxtbase.com, blacklisting

a
I don't understand why it keeps happening to your node, but again those two block ids are from the correct blockchain - at least on the nodes I run.

I am still not sure, who determines what is the correct chain?

i did a video interview with tai zen about how the network discovers the right chain. i cant make any promises but it may be helpful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzKyXzZJJA8

Okay, let me ask you some questions. I put these ones on the table some time ago in my analysis of 'Transparent Forging' and CfB haven't answered it, yet. So, maybe you can.

You said: "The higher the stake involved in forging a block the 'better' the block."

So, how should a node (not the network as every node decides on their own) decide when two blocks are forged: one from account A and one from account B.

Now, there are several cases:
1) A comes first, TF says A is before B => A is on top of chain, B gets rejected when arriving (and vice versa)
2) B comes first, TF says A is before B => A didn't forge => B is on top of chain (and vice versa)

3) 2) happend; A arrived late; what happens? Will B get popped off?

3) ok so im not sure specifically how the client handles this situation. you could in theory have all of the nodes reject a as punishment for being late. there would be some advantages to this. personally though i think what you described in 3) would be wiser. ask a dev for specifics.  

IIRC, TF includes something like a penalty to accounts that were too late forging. From the perspective of a node, not forging and the forged block arrived too late are indistinguishable.
That penalty is supposed to prevent selfish mining.

Okay, let's go deeper:

Let's assume, one part of the network underwent 1) and the other part underwent 2) (because of network latency). We now have a partition of the network in nodes (say N1) having A on top and in nodes (say N2) having B on top.

How do we solve that?

Subtract all of the targets on chain a, subtract all of the targets on chain b, see which number is larger.

[brooklynbtc]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

I need to be able to access the API directly. http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?... returns nothing

I also need some testNXT

https://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/ works for me

except im -5.. so maybe its not working

[xyzzyx]

CfB (or anybody that knows)

What is the best way to invoke API from C?
I just need one example of the right way, eg. is it using curl, if so can you post exact syntax

Thanks

James

I've used libsoup and json-glib to access the API successfully from C.

[jl777]

I could use some testNXT 18232225178877143084

also what is the testnet URL?

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

I need to be able to access the API directly. http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?... returns nothing

I also need some testNXT

https://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/ works for me

except im -5.. so maybe its not working

I get "curl_easy_perform() failed: Server returned nothing (no headers, no data)" for all requests done from C program
It also fails when I put "http://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?requestType=getState" in the browser

Ah, but https gets certificate warning from broswer
curl_easy_perform() failed: Peer certificate cannot be authenticated with given CA certificates
 from C program. gotta figure out how to make it ignore bad certificate

[jl777]

Does anybody have 10K testnxt? 18232225178877143084

[igmaca]

Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Today at 01:53:59 AM
Reply with quote  #35842
Quote from: jl777 on Today at 01:37:11 AM
Quote from: bitcoinpaul on February 16, 2014, 11:06:41 PM
Quote from: bitmadaboutcoin on February 16, 2014, 10:58:30 PM
but isnt part of bcexts plan to lower fees and stop greedy hoard and forge? makin it not worth while?


His idea. We don't have to follow it.
I am following BCNext's plan! He is clearly much smarter than me, who am I to second guess his recommendations.
In any case it makes a lot of sense to me that NXT itself should be as close to free to use as possible. Think how much it costs to use the Internet, or normal cash. If using the internet had a per minute fee (like Compuserve did), it would never have become what it is. Most people dont seem to under stand this. Elasticity of price demand, eg. lower cost -> more volumes.

I suggest that everybody just IGNORE any amount that comes in from forging. If it comes in, great, if not, dont worry. NXT is about building an economy. What sort of economy would it be if everybody just sat around waiting and staring at their money waiting for it to magically and spontaneously spit out more money?? The fact that NXT actually does this every once in a while is fantastic, but it is NOT the reason to own NXT. [answer to my rhetorical question is "massive economic depression"]

The reason to own NXT is to be able to build a livelihood around it. Create a product like Anon's silver bars, create a service like many people have already done. You have to do something to get something. Its not really that strange that it works this way is it?

Unless you have 100 BTC and can buy 1 million NXT, you gotta work. Even if you have 1 million NXT, it would be much better if you invested in the best ideas and allow others to make a living.

I am in the process of coming up with ways normal people can make a living by building stuff on top of NXT, but the more people that contribute such ideas the better. I cant be the only one who has ideas on how to make money with NXT.

Let's play a game. post a way you can think of that somebody can make money with NXT, using the tech that is currently being developed. The best idea as measured by (estimated revenues divided by estimated costs to implement) will win 500 NXT bounty. If there is no consensus as to what idea has the best revenue/cost ratio, i will flip a coin and pick the one I like the best.

Deadline is before I sign off tonight, probably 6 to 8 hrs

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 .

[ChuckOne]

Next block will let to choose the winner.

How?

[ChuckOne]

Subtract all of the targets on chain a, subtract all of the targets on chain b, see which number is larger.

Subtract from what?

[CoinTropolis_JustaBitTime]

Payment Processor Information

As some of you already know if you read Nikel's reports, I've been talking to the guys from ZipZap and GoCoin quite a bit for Peercoin for a month prior to the conference and then spoke to both parties (Nikel lead) at the Miami conference about Nxt.  This is important, I can move this conversation forward.

I need someone willing to put the following data together (this is what we did for Peer). We need to show trends, interest and liquidity. Who is willing to work with me on it? I CAN get in front of the GoCoin board and pitch Nxt. See examples below on what we presented Zipzap and GoCoin:

1. Exchanges

We're listed on all the major alt exchanges listed here:

http://www.peercointalk.org/index.php?topic=127.0


The bulk of our liquidity happens at BTC-e. We currently have 3.8 million dollars worth of buy orders for PPC/USD and 127,000 PPC worth of sell orders.


2. Additional Numbers

I've asked our team to put together some numbers:


A. Peercoin 6-month Transaction Volume on BTC-e (PPC/BTC Trading Pair)

https://i.imgur.com/a4InuOk.png


B. Peercoin 6-month Transaction Volume on the rest of the top 5 exchanges (Cryptsy, BTER, Vircurex, and Vault of Satoshi, with VoS conservatively assumed to be 5000 PPC per day since Sept 1)

https://i.imgur.com/VDFVLDu.png


C. Peercoin 1-month Transaction Volume on BTC-e (PPC/USD Trading Pair)

https://i.imgur.com/NnvNpda.png


D. Number of unique transactions per day

http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-ppc.html


E. Value of Peercoin being transacted per day

http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/sentinusd-ppc.html


================

Who is willing to step up?

Thanks!