NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[salsacz]

lyynx: so if Ethereum is Oil, Bitcoin is Gold, Nxt should be... water?

[pinarello]

Hi guys

Congratulations with NXT! Really great job of you all!

I made a video why I invested half my bitcoins into NXT. Hope u like it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ruYAxKeWxnM


(I'm an early investor in Bitcoin, see all my video's here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Marcdemesel/videos?shelf_id=1&view=0&sort=dd)

Hi Marc,

I see you are an investor, I think you can be of great help to put NXT in the picture, in the investorworld!

great video!

please go here to recieve a bounty for it!

https://asktom.cf/index.php?topic=412243.msg4465984#msg4465984

[landomata]

   Looks great . I have joined in .
   But I have a question, can the investor transfer their shares with price to other people ?

1) Do you mean sell them on the ASSET EXCHANGE?

2) You could always transfer your assets to another account if you like.

[Uniqueorn]

lyynx: so if Ethereum is Oil, Bitcoin is Gold, Nxt should be... water?

I don't think NXT should be compared to anything really, it's something completely new.
Also I don't see how Ethereum is gold, they wont be up and operating until 6~ months and by then, unless NXT fuck up completely, we should already have the market they are aiming at.

[bitcoinpaul]

I think different Nxt-Assets from the same underlying Asset from different Gateways would be interesting. Different Gateways will naturally emerge, so we shouldn't fight it but instead maybe pave the way for proper implementations by providing guidance, papers, how-tos?

In simpler terms, you might think of trading different assets of the same underlying asset from different gateways like trading on different exchanges (New York, Frankfurt, Tokio, ...). I know, this is not a 100% accurate analogy, but you get the point.

[igmaca]

look at this link I think can help you understand contracts ethereum  

http://www.projectactus.org/
https://web.stevens.edu/hfslwiki/index.php?title=ACTUS

[alxx77]

I think different Nxt-Assets from the same underlying Asset from different Gateways would be interesting. Different Gateways will naturally emerge, so we shouldn't fight it but instead maybe pave the way for proper implementations by providing guidance, papers, how-tos?

In simpler terms, you might think of trading different assets of the same underlying asset from different gateways like trading on different exchanges (New York, Frankfurt, Tokio, ...). I know, this is not a 100% accurate analogy, but you get the point.

So the gateways would have to trust each other...? 

[bitcoinpaul]

I think different Nxt-Assets from the same underlying Asset from different Gateways would be interesting. Different Gateways will naturally emerge, so we shouldn't fight it but instead maybe pave the way for proper implementations by providing guidance, papers, how-tos?

In simpler terms, you might think of trading different assets of the same underlying asset from different gateways like trading on different exchanges (New York, Frankfurt, Tokio, ...). I know, this is not a 100% accurate analogy, but you get the point.

So the gateways would have to trust each other...? 

It seems the analogy is confusing.

[bitcoinpaul]

Hi guys

Congratulations with NXT! Really great job of you all!

I made a video why I invested half my bitcoins into NXT. Hope u like it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ruYAxKeWxnM


(I'm an early investor in Bitcoin, see all my video's here: http://www.youtube.com/user/Marcdemesel/videos?shelf_id=1&view=0&sort=dd)

This is an extraordinary video. Great content!

@marc: Keep in mind that we are probably 90% attack secure, not only 51%, with the latest TF algo ideas. Take this into your calculation and Nxt is some more magnitudes safer (in relation to btc) than as you thought it is already.

@all: Important point regarding marketing. We need to market this product the right way, otherwise it is the betamax of crypto currencies. And market it strong.

[ChuckOne]

I was reviewing BCNext's plan as told by CfB here (http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/BCNext%27s_Plan), and again was pulled up short by this line.

"Selfish miners (those who only mine to earn fees) should be "removed" from the system. They are not interested in the success of Nxt and only want to cash out."

Have others already talked about what this might mean? How could/should such removal occur? There is a technical question about how to determine if an account is linked to productive, supportive assets, services, etc. And there is a followup question about how such removal occurs.

This is relevant to the fee discussion that has generated some heat here. But I am more interested in the philosophical question: what does it mean to support NXT? Does it only mean to create/buy/sell assets, second-order currencies, etc.?

(If I've missed the discussion, just point me to a post or thread, please. I didn't see this particular "removal" line addressed in the other forums.)

Basically, this discussion has been had over the last week.
It's immediately linked to forging payouts.

"Selfish" (although some, including me, prefer the term "passive") forgers will, if they are not rewarded more than "break even" for running a node, in all probability not run a node if they have other motives than earning "free Nxt".

"Active" forgers, ie. forgers that run a service, would do so, because it allows them to run their service, and cut out operating costs.

So, passive forgers would not be "cut out" in any active sense. It would just not be attractive in their terms to do so.

However, this discussion is still ongoing. James (jl777) for instance, has proposed methods for these people to earn coins by aggregating CPU power.

I am not certain that it's over. The selfish-mining problem is still present in the current implementation and we have two different approaches to tackle it:
 - penalty
 - limiting forging power of an account

[ChuckOne]

Suggested NIP (Nxt Improvement Proposal)

Adding "meta information" to Arbitrary Messages.

As AMs are going to become a key communication tool for various other parts of the Nxt system (including NIPs themselves) I suggest that we decide on one of the two ways of providing minimal "meta" information for AMs.

This could be done in the following 2 ways:

1) Encode them as URIs (making it simple for web apps to handle different kinds of things).

or

2) Use the first x bits of the AM to indicate the type.

The advantage of 1 is the simplicity for web apps (i.e. no coding necessary) and the advantage of 2 is size (we only have 1000 bytes for an AM currently).

Which way we go is up to the community - but whichever way I would like to see then an NIP AM (which might just contain the hash of an NIP document - the document itself could be posted on forums or wherever else).

By having such information your "inbox" could automatically place messages in different folders and could also perhaps sound an "alert" according to the AM type received (e.g. we might expect to also have an "alert" AM a bit like Bitcoin alerts).

What happens if the URI becomes unavailable?

[CIYAM]

I am not certain that it's over. The selfish-mining problem is still present in the current implementation and we have two different approaches to tackle it:
 - penalty
 - limiting forging power of an account

I have been advocating for the latter (and for scrapping the idea of the former) and CfB came up with a great idea to stop the effectiveness of forgers trying to extend multiple chains of equal weight (each client will only build on the 1st chain of equal height that they see).

Understand that the *best* way to protect the blockchain is always going to be having forging power divided up into roughly equal smaller pieces (whether or not the software tries to enforce that or not).

[CIYAM]

What happens if the URI becomes unavailable?

AMs are not intended to hang around forever anyway (they are expected to be removed when a pruning occurs) so I don't see that as being an issue.

The point is that layers on top of the basic Nxt platform will need to use AMs (especially things like ATs) so we need to make it easier for "clients" to know how to handle different "message types".

[chanc3r]

I think different Nxt-Assets from the same underlying Asset from different Gateways would be interesting. Different Gateways will naturally emerge, so we shouldn't fight it but instead maybe pave the way for proper implementations by providing guidance, papers, how-tos?

In simpler terms, you might think of trading different assets of the same underlying asset from different gateways like trading on different exchanges (New York, Frankfurt, Tokio, ...). I know, this is not a 100% accurate analogy, but you get the point.

So the gateways would have to trust each other...? 

For transaction processing clusters - which aka the 3 gateways are - normally there is an audit node which does not process any transactions but verifies the integrity of what the 3 nodes are doing.
As the nodes already verify each other then perhaps the audit node verifies the cluster of nodes as a whole to ensure as a system they are behaving properly - there could be the ability for external nodes to verify the operation of the cluster by reconciling all inputs/outputs.
The quality of what is bought/sold e.g. crap-subprime-derivative-coin i am not sure we can control nor shares from Scamscrypt.com
But would an external audit function should be able to highlight whether the 3 nodes are cheating?

This could be a service like 'coinmarketcap' e.g. NXTGateWayTrust.com publishing a 'trust' level for services based on the auditing of the many gateways that people publish to NXT, and people who are not open and allow this auditing to happen would not get a trust rating.

Yes I know then the operators of the Trust Audit System/Website could be compromised and must not run a gateway themselves, but we can never completely eliminate risk but we can reduce it by increasing the number of parties that have to be compromised in order to allow a fraud to take place and ensuring suspicious data that indicates a potential fraud is highlighted early to allow investigation.

Most financial TX platforms have a formal separate AML or Transaction Monitoring / Fraud system, NXT itself doesn't need this but maybe the gateway(s) can be monitored for suspicious patterns, as the data is public such transactions would simply be published as reasons why a trust level had reduced and this would be available for community inspection - this kind of TX visibility with send/receive addresses shown would deter a lot of people from trying things and hopefully would alert early to any innovative scams that were being perpetrated.

[igmaca]

I was reviewing BCNext's plan as told by CfB here (http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/BCNext%27s_Plan), and again was pulled up short by this line.


I am not certain that it's over. The selfish-mining problem is still present in the current implementation and we have two different approaches to tackle it:
 - penalty
 - limiting forging power of an account

three

share fee group (share fee pool or Hubs)

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 try to forge a block on your own, but you commit to share the incentive with others if you are successful (with special conditions like committing to run the node for some time, ...)

Perhaps creating nodes coins proposed by jl777 implementing shared  fees pool  would be technically easier.

Could distribute node coins to the participants in the pool at all times proportion to the funds of each participant if any member had success in forging

Then there would logically be a market between NXT Coins VS node coins

[CIYAM]

Addressing how TF will be implemented should be focused on protecting the blockchain (#1) and the network (#2).

Issues of "fairness" (perceived or otherwise) are at best a #3 priority (if even that).

[ChuckOne]

Not sure how one guy would be in charge of three INDEPENDENT gateways. This is what I have been saying. We need to find three different, independent, separate, not the same guy, gateway operators.

That is not possible. You cannot formally prove that.

[CIYAM]

Not sure how one guy would be in charge of three INDEPENDENT gateways. This is what I have been saying. We need to find three different, independent, separate, not the same guy, gateway operators.

That is not possible. You cannot formally prove that.

True - and presumably you should also be able to choose from 1 of x such 3 server gateways.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Addressing how TF will be implemented should be focused on protecting the blockchain (#1) and the network (#2).

Issues of "fairness" (perceived or otherwise) are at best a #3 priority (if even that).

"Fairness" issue can't be resolved while money exists, IMHO.

[bitcoinpaul]

Not sure how one guy would be in charge of three INDEPENDENT gateways. This is what I have been saying. We need to find three different, independent, separate, not the same guy, gateway operators.

That is not possible. You cannot formally prove that.

True - and presumably you should also be able to choose from 1 of x such 3 server gateways.

And that's why I mentioned the different Assets of same underlying Asset idea. Then 'the market' can decide.