Tweeted!!  I just added a little more |
|
|
|
|
Added summary of versions 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 to OP. Plus links to Nxt APIs and full release notes for all versions.
Also added documentation links for Monetary System and Minting (Mining of Monetary System coins).
|
|
|
|
OP updated with more detailed info and made clearer. Video walkthroughs, video discussions and teasers added for all core features listed in OP. More release history and links will be added in time. Props go to MrCluster87 and Tai Zen. Post if the you have any problems with the links. |
|
|
|
On Nxt's Smart Contract implementation (there are several options on the table) and how Ethereum plans to do the same Guys, you know we have a lot of hot discussions on AT Project then Smart Contracts proposal from cfb. I wasn't a fan of AT project(I wasn't strictly against that as well though). And I was strictly against Smart Contracts, I really don't like the idea of projecting core implementation details into the blockchain. Having a job during last days to investigate current state of Ethereum, I would like to say it's good Nxt has delayed AT project adoption. It's not a scalable approach, it has a lot unexpected properties and so on. Quick example, its possible to write some random crap into blockchain as contract code, e.g. https://etherscan.io/tx/0x4bb32548d3b28d8bbdbe969888dff6285a0404bb314b7a8e5d81a61a313781eb (contract https://etherscan.io/address/0x190cf16a720f69d1b1ac68e873d9c5b06c1f0f2b). It starts with invalid instruction 2f then some meaningless stuff. Fee is minimal as code execution aborts immediately. Trying to submit something about 60kb after this 1kb tx, I've got my geth stuck and broken And please note this is not a bug, even more, this is the best behaviour probably(and with arbitraty-input JMP instruction it's not possible to analyze code execution correctness at all, probably). And scalability would be a problem for Eth. Considering the same logic, e.g. polling to get done against Nxt & Eth, in the former case it's code running on top of JVM while in latter it's about code running on top of EVM which is running on top of JVM/pyVM/LLVM. Some researchers around are working on solving general problems of Ethereum-like contracts, namely scalability and privacy. I made the blogpost comparing two known proposals, Hawk and Enigma http://chepurnoy.org/blog/2015/10/towards-a-new-frontier-of-the-smart-contracts-hawk-and-enigma/ . In both cases contract execution is happening off-chain, and blockchain is being used to store commitments / MACs or CRSes(common reference string for non-interactive Zero Knowledge Proof with size of tens kilobytes). Surprisingly(or not), Nxt is already well ready for storing that complementary data. The only thing we need is to promote Nxt chain for being used for things like that(so to use Nxt in both systems). Thoughts? Source: https://nxtforum.org/general/nxt-and-smart-contracts/msg196912/#msg196912 |
|
|
|
Price immediately plummets 20%.
 ... |
|
|
|
This thread was to encourage an update due to a bug. There is no longer a need for it but users should keep their Nxt client up to date. The latest versions of the core Nxt client can always be found here: https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/Those versions with an 'e' suffix (e.g. NRS v1.6.1 e) are experimental releases and should only be used by more advanced users (as there may be bugs to work out before the official release). Everyone else stick to the newest stable release, which are the highest version number that doesn't have an 'e' (e.g. NRS v1.5.15). Thread is now locked. |
|
|
|
This thread was to help test and raise awareness of blockchain pruning on the Nxt testnet. Nxt successfully implemented Prunable Data and it has been on the main net for many months now, contributing to reducing blockchain bloat of the Nxt blockchain. So thread is now locked. Thanks for everyone who helped out |
|
|
|
As you know, the Tennessee Project has the full support of the core developers. The success of this fundraiser is closely linked to the future development of Nxt, and I want to post here our current roadmap, as it stands now. You can see our development plan is long term - we need a long term marketing and business plan to go with it.
Development Roadmap
Disclaimer:
The NXT developers provide no commitment to deliver any of the features described herein, and reserve the right to change this product roadmap from time to time at their sole discretion.
NXT 1.7 (Dec 2015)
Coin shuffling
Account control for phased transactions
Immediate execution of phased transaction on approval
Stable block times, 60 s average, max 10 min
Fee spreading and throttling of unique resource allocation
Account properties
Singleton assets
Mac installer
To guarantee development past release 1.7, when faced with continued price decline and almost no marketing, we need your support for the Tennessee project. Show us that you care.
NXT 1.8 (April 2016)
Two factor authentication
Account transfer (panic button)
Account control
Controllable assets
Exchange API
NXT 2.0 (December 2016)
White label prunable blockchains
Source: https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/%28marketing-business-and-development%29-the-tennessee-project-fundraiser/msg197291/#msg197291For completeness, Tennessee Project is Nxt's funded marketing plan for the next 12 months. Tennessee used Nxt's trustless crowd funding feature for raise 10 Million NXT from the community (approx $70,000 USD). If the target wasn't met, all donations would have been returned automatically through the protocol. Tennessee project thread is here: https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/%28marketing-business-and-development%29-the-tennessee-project-fundraiser/ |
|
|
|
I am not sure, have you heard about NXT?
Yes. Good. ^^^ I lol'd  |
|
|
|
PoS is apartheid. You must ask permission to become part of the economy. If the stakeholders are racist, then they will exclude that race from participation. So far that isn't a problem, but it is an excellent tool for despots to promote. This is not evolution. That is social darwinism.
Can you expand on this pls? |
|
|
|
To this date, I have not seen a satisfactory debunking
of the "nothing at stake/costless simulation" issue,
which is the fundamental problem with Proof of Stake.
Please be more specific with the POS implementation and the attack you are referring to. The 4 descriptions of nothing-at-stake describe in enough detail to be tested rigorously have been found to not hold any water > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632 |
|
|
|
multigateway.org has been up and running for a year or so and is a good approximate to a decentralized exchange.
|
|
|
|
Once factom is out you can use it to backup a hash of the file on the bitcoin blockchain.
I asked the devs but they went off on providing negative proofs or such like... is ^this^ the core of what factom is about? Storing the hash of data on a blockchain? |
|
|
|
Interesting about Openbazaar, they seem to believe that it will demolish Ebay on account of it being decentralized and cheaper... The first nail in eBay's coffin.. AWESOME!!!
Can't wait for the day eBay shuts its offices and fires their incompetent employees. I will put extreme efforts into this project to make it a success.
I second that! I despise EBay .. good riddance to them. I open OpenBazaar puts them out of business the thing is openbazar will strike ebay it will be a long time but every day a new person joins bitcoin world.....soo ebay will start to loose one by one after this goes lives ebay is the king but ,facebook is the king now it werent before.... bitcoin is the new facebook huge potencial and a lot support on it already
etc.. It seems for ordinary items people prefer centralized, safe places for now and are willing to pay for it. Fair point about the user friendliness, I guess the devs are aware? Blackyblack1 is usually switched on. |
|
|
|
Doesn't that duplicate some of the functionality going into SuperNET?
Maybe, via two different implementations. But that is the beauty of Nxt. If a third party dev (jl777 in this case) see merit in something for his own projects, he can use the APIs for the core features (the toolbox) to build as he sees fit. Nxt will have competition within itself, with the winners benefiting the platform. The internet has many email providers, the ones deemed the best take the bigger share. The internet doesn't care how many email providers there are, in the same way Nxt is indifferent to the number of privacy providers that might get built on top of Nxt. |
|
|
|
Oh wow that keys to the past trick is killer!
It certainly explains why checkpoints were introduced! Nxt et. al. improved checkpoints by making transactions irreversible after 720 blocks. In fact, cynicSOB was invited to try attacking Nxt after he managed to double-spend a minor PoS alt. Thanks to you both for your informative replies. I should point out that these are decentralised checkpoints: every client is hardcoded not to allow reorganisations more than 720 blocks deep. Any attempt to do so for behind this (i.e. 'simply' take the keys of old accounts and build 'a better chain') are prevented from doing so. I am surprised at cynicSOB's comments since this has been discussed with him previously. I for one would like him to finish his work if possible > https://nxtforum.org/testnet/nxt-security-audit-attack-simulations-on-testnet/I don't think Nxt is as he expected it but would still like a small write up of any findings (none of his claims have stood up to scrutiny so far). I find many people talk about POS but don't realise there are multiply implementations of it. Akin to me asserting there are serious issues with scrypt POW and using that as evidence as why Bitcoin isn't secure. |
|
|
|
I thought there was some way you could run umpteen daemons or something like that, each basically hoping to be the lucky instance that gets a block, all using the same wallet/stake since there is nothing preventing you using the same wallet/stake in billions of separate copies of the program?
Try a billion times to form the next block, and whichever copy succeeds thats cool, all the copies that failed cost you no coins they are in effect just a kind of hashing, a doing of work, the more different attempts you make to form the next block the greater your chance of doing so, while it costs you no additional stake since all the copies are all using the same stake. Its only the one that actually gets lucky and finds a block that anyone else sees.
As I recall it didn't actually require umpteen copies of the daemon, at least when it was first discussed years ago; you just modify the code to multiply your attempts at successfully finding a block with your stake.
I do not know the details as proof of stake was shot down when Sunny King came out with Peercoin and there has been no word since of anyone ever actually fixing the problem other than Sunny King making some vague handwavings smakescreens or whatever so it all amounted to oh pooh pooh who cares we are all making money so fuck it no oen actually cares that the whole thing is utterly broken from first principles.
The basic problem being it costs no stake to "use" stake for mining so you can use it in parallel as many times as you have RAM and CPU etc enough to do.
-MarkM-
This is known as stake grinding, mining on all chains your see. In concrete implementations of POS, this makes the attack harder as the number of branches you see increases exponentially with time. Attempting this tends towards POW in terms of computer cycles. You may find this thread interesting: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0The OP gives a summary of the findings and is updated here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
