Where is EvilDave ? the esteemed head of prestigious Infrastructure Committee ? I would like to discuss the transference of 48380 NXT private bounty for the best Open-Source client for NXT to the Infrastructure Committee. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412138.0Could InfCom decide the winner (could be multiple) so that I can dispatch the fund. See the link for reference. Thanks. If you ask us to, we probably will do it. If you want us to decide, there would be just four, not five people to vote, since I am a client developer myself and also in InfCom and I would absolutely vote for my client, since I think I deserved it. ;-) Is this committee the right one for software projects? Is tech a better one? I specifically declined invitations to this committee because i felt it would be a conlict as i run my nodes funded by domations and i expected to work on other infra projects that would be funded. So i felt my presence here would present a conflict of interest so I decided not to join the committee |
|
|
|
First cunicula, now adminius. Careful out there guys; the bus prowls lurking in the bushes, waiting.
lulz |
|
|
|
Polluting of the AE with spam and trash assets. It will be kept at 1000nxt for introduction of AE to keep it clean, then in the future another solution will be decided. From what I understand reading the posts in this thread.
like i said, there are MUCH more effective ways to perm spam the blockchain than AE. just create a loooong alias name, and set its value to a looooooong string of hex digits. then resend, again, again, etc. With non unique names, there is no reason for it to be large as 1000 NXT. Especially if we will increase the number of possible assets by using more digits. |
|
|
|
Thank you very much for the bounty. The last time I came up with those two flaws (i think I came up with them here in the thread) I got laughed at and so I forgot about it. Now I, just for the sake of it, posted them in the bounty thread and one of them was the 100,000 NXT hit  Thank you very much for the fast payout. Now that I own this many NXT (which I will of course hold) I would like to contribute my part to the project. I have still doubts about the account mining issue ;-) I have made a small reference implementation (which I would never make public except give it to the devs) which is capable of doing 10 Megahashes (or Megaaccounts) per second on a simple CPU. At some point in the future, this might be an issue. LOL so a few weeks ago all the hell you were raising here and just being sort of an ass, was not really about the live code that we run now, it was really just the old code with the injected flaw? LOL but, seriously, congrats on the score. |
|
|
|
since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)
can anyone think of a good reason not to?
Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts. Good idea, especially at start. Yes someone will DDOS the AE by creating loads of assets... we should not make the price too low. I disagree. There are MUCH more effective ways to spam the blockchain. We DO however, need to increase the number of digits used for asset IDs. to allow for more assets to be created. |
|
|
|
think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.
I wasn't able to read the end of ur post coz of tears in my eyes. I'm working on market-set fees code. PLEASE give us a write up of the overall design/operation |
|
|
|
since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)
can anyone think of a good reason not to?
I suggested this earlier no one responded. I definitely think it should go down to 1, or to .1, if fractional NXT comes before AE. |
|
|
|
Nxt is in dared need of a 100% trust forum. Im wondering how long it will take until we get one. I believe community fund should fund a forum to get thing structure a bit. It good to be decentralized, but not desorganized.
I'm setting one up now and if opticalcarrier agrees it can be the new forums.nxtcrypto.org: http://107.170.117.237Can we get an SSL cert for it? They are actually very cheap, I believe even free for a single server cert wwith startSSL. If you order it with nxtcrypto.org domain then I will do the email part when it comes in. But I wish I could get a domain-wide wildcard cert donated from infrastructure committee. But they refused the request. So, JLP/CFB, please tell me your opinion on these light clients with client side signing, when they connect to VPSs, are SSL connections needed? If so I will just disable SSL on all my VPSs and we can just forget about SSL altogether. Except for forums And also I wish we could get one for wiki, but the infrastructure commitee deems it unnecessary there as well. |
|
|
|
no, non-unique names is a trolling thing, that make as go in yet another circle - as perfectly shown by wesleyh. Bravo, wesleyh!
I only have 1 forum member on ignore - I think that might be about to increase to 2. please dont, he may make other bad ideas we need to argue against. As having unique names WILL make it easier for scammers to scam, Its quite obvious that anyone wanting unique asset names must only want ability to squat them if they are willing to force the unique issue tht will let so many users get scammed. When users see multiple asset names for "Microsoft" they will naturally be inclined to do their due diligence. If you wanna-be-squatters get your way with unique asset names, then some scammer who is squatting "Microsoft" is more easily able to scam people out of ther NXT. So you people arguing for unique asset names, or any kind of unique ID/tag/etc for assets are, for all intents and purpose, for all I am concerned, are considered not only squatters but also SCAMMERS I do believe we should allow alisases to expire. Consider that AM's will be purged periodcally, as a spam prevention. Well, RIGHT NOW, its better to spam blockchain with alias reassignment, and this is PERMANENT. So not only will alias expiration more ably counter spam, but it allows reuse if owner dies with no plan for continued usage of alias. Of course, we should allow a time period for owner to be able to renew before others can grab it. And whenever DNS comes around, those records should expire as well, as well as with the ability of the owner to renew before any one else, if the owner is still alive. |
|
|
|
|
Ive posted a couple times already about every 0.8.x release I try, that a few times a day it just runs off on its own fork and generates every block itself. It didnt do this on 0.7.x train. Any ideas on how to debug? I enabled debug log but not much shows up
|
|
|
|
I think one way to partially untie the transaction fee from the fiat value is to use percentage based fees instead of fixed fees. You would still want a cap on that though, since people are mostly sending around large amounts of Nxt right now. For example, a 0.1% fee with a 0.5 Nxt cap. Which is a very low fee, over 10 times lower than credit cards. The cap would have to be adjusted relative to fiat but that wouldn't be as urgent. This would also allow microtransactions that are fractions of a penny if some reason wanted.
I don't think any other crypto uses percentage based fees. Why should we? We don't want to make transactions even more expensive and complicated. We need to make them cheaper and simpler. 0.1 has been agreed by the community. My suggestion of fee based on transaction size in blockchain is an extremely objective method based on blockchain resources. With % based, What about leasing forging power or recalling it? Or future transaction types? You end up being forced into picking arbitrary figuresthat have no relation to anything, |
|
|
|
make much sense what you say, very good article. Do You think about this proposal? market of byte size on the blockchain Vs Nxt
I don't know if that will fix the issues i mentioned in the article. I'm not even sure what makes one transaction have more bandwidth than another unless you are talking about large amounts of text or whatnot. I don't even want to get into this too much here because I'll probably be accused of throwing FUD. I'll be happy to field any questions on reddit though. is someone threatening you in PM or something? Im just not seeing any conflict in the thread. When I refer to fee based on transaction size, I refer to size in blockchain, which is exactly linear with network bandwidth. I have stopped responding to igmacas suggestions as I just cannot make heads nor tails from them; I cannot tell if there is just a translation issue or if he is just throwing out keywords and/or suggestions and hoping we will figure it all out based on his general suggestion, because he gives no method or model to his suggestions. |
|
|
|
Ive not noticed anyone say they were sick of your posts. I read your writing and I 100% agree with it being ridiculous to try to adjust fees in client as NXT fluctuates in its value per fiat, which is why I've been saying we should determine how to untie fees from fiat. But I must question your understanding of a blockchain though, if you are suggesting that we make it free for people to issue bid/ask orders on the AE. You must remember that one of the key functions of fees are spam control. Also, you are not considering the full functionality of AE - you seem to think its only a currency exchange market when really its an 'asset' market. Its not like there will be assets created on any of the centralized exchanges that people can operate on. And later when/if the AT currency exchange portion comes, fees on it are just going to have to be implemented for orders. The bottom line is that AE is not built for HFC, and the con to a decentralized exchange is fees per order instead of fees per % of successful trade. Of course the reverse holds for centralized exchanges. Different use - different purpose. I still say that we should implement fees as low as possible to encourage utility. With high usage that low fees can bring, forgers will make up the difference and it will be win/win for all involved. |
|
|
|
Isnt this price/MH much more attractive than regular ATI-based mining rigs? With a 6 card rig, costing around 6000 or so, you might get 6MH/s. They are advertising min of 100MH/s for only 10G. This will be interesting. |
|
|
|
Okay Nxt Community here is a quantum riddle;
My real NXT account number (Public Key) is 14730376987822377578 on NXT Mainnet. I have never used my real NXT passphrase on NXT testnet. However, 14730376987822377578 exists on NXT Testnet.
Yesterday, after I asked for TestNXT on this thread; 18232225178877143084 sent me a 1,000,000 + 1 TestNXT.
While testing this morning, I sent 1,000,000 + 1,000 TestNXT to 14730376987822377578 which showed as a valid public key and appeared to have transaction success.
Upon looking at the history of 14730376987822377578 from NxtTestnet, I see "This account has a balance of 1'063'416 NXT" ; 1,000,000 being the TestNXT transferred this morning and 63,416 an old real NXT balance of real NXT account 14730376987822377578.
And even more bizarre, looking down into the transaction history I find dozens of Asset transfers between 3/11/2014 and 3/14/2014 all to the same account number 18232225178877143084. WHICH is the SAME TestNXT account that sent me 1,000,000 TestNXT on 3/19/2014.
Maybe I need another cup of coffee.
did you take a ride with the ambien walrus? |
|
|
|
what did the trap do?
Lets to do 51% attack even with 1% of the stake. So the traps require external influence, and are not automatic from the software? In that case, anyone doing something detrimental may backfire on NXT |
|
|
|
...
Im going to just stop responding to you. You give zero justification or method of application for your proposals. And I dont believe you are thinking things through. For example, what if power costs are different at different locations? Should people charge different fees then? In the NXT application, different forgers charging different fees is simply ludicrous, and will break instant transactions. |
|
|
|
|
how about increasing the number of digits used to identify assets? This coupled with the now non-unique "name" (I like to use the work description now, since they arent unique) should allow us to reduce the fee charged with issuing an asset.
I like the change to non-unique as it completely removes the idea of squatting
|
|
|
|
Yes of course some services like AM it can indexed per bytes but other
can be indexed per amount transacted
all AE like Cryptsy, BTC, Bitstamp use % amount transacted
We're going to reinvent the wheel?
why not?
what this clear that will be a lot more economical to maintain than BTC network or clones
NXT AE, is, by definition, 'reinventing the wheel'. You have to have a better reason than, 'thats the way its always been done'. The other argument is basing everything on size in the blockchain. Please argue your reason of % based with its own merits, or argue reasons against our suggestion. Alright.
Say there is a transaction A and B. A is 100 MB large and B is 10kB tiny.
Nodes can and will refuse A just because it is toooo big EXCEPT A gives the right incentive to verify, store and re-broadcast A. The fee is this incentive.
Each node can choose with pricing model it uses:
- fees should depend only on payload
- fees should depend on the amount of time it might require: bigger transactions like A need more time, encrypted messages might need more time, asset transactions might need more time THAN a simple transaction
- fees could depend on both
Node providers (that is a guy running a set of nodes) can freely decide which transactions his nodes will process.
Does that make it clearer?
You seem to believe NXT block generation is a free market commodity auction, where I can throw a transaction up for someone to give me the lowest price to include it into a block, and I then choose someone to forge my block. What you are suggesting will break instant transactions, one of the big cornerstones of what NXT is intended to do. what you are suggesting allows for collusion, not exactly ideal for our trustless model. |
|
|
|
I dont understand a bit how these correlate to any defined computational effort. How are some transactions more computationally intense than others? Also, consider that AM are periodically purged, so perhaps their fee structure should be a little different somehow? (smaller, larger, not sure)
It is just effort to be done by a node. That effort is related to how efficient the implementation is. Each machine instruction of that node requires electricity. So, storing the blockchain, broadcasting the blockchain, creating new blocks etc. etc. everything of it requires electricity. Nothing is for free. That is the node provider needs to be reimbursed adequately by the amount of effort he has put in to build up and maintaining his node. One could consider the fees and the expenditures of a node provider as an implicit market. That is: expensive nodes require higher fees. People want lower fees, so only the nodes that can afford these low fees will process the incoming transactions. As node providers want to people to send their transactions to their nodes, they will workaround until they can provide such cheap nodes. On the other hand, if no node provides such low fees, people's transactions will not be distributed or included in a block, so people are willing to raise the fees. Supply and demand will drive the fee negotiation in the long term.FTR, I am 100% against charging fees based on amount of NXT being transferred.
Agreed. I just dont get it. Consider 2 people with the same identical hardware cost are block forging nodes, but one has balance of 10million and other has 1 million. So one forges 10x as many blocks as other. Are you saying that the smaller one should charge higher fees? This doesnt seem feasable as it will directly conflict with our desire of instant transactions. And I still dont see how different transactions have different computations - Wont any transaction will require full knowledge of the blockchain? You have me completely lost. Can you provide an example model, modified with your computational model? Like if I suggested a model of a transaction of 128bytes to have a fee of .1 NXT, then if an asset creation took 256 bytes, then its fee should be .2 NXT (yes, I know AE issue probably isnt 256bytes, and its fee is currently 1000 NXT, but work with me here for an example) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
