Latest posts of: FrictionlessCoin

Quote from: grau on January 29, 2014, 04:59:32 PM

I suggest to add a fourth type of transaction, the swap. This makes trading assets identified by traces atomic and observable.

Rule 4. Swap
A valid swap has two inputs and one or two marker payments to project address(es). The swap has two regular outputs with addresses matching the inputs but swapping the input quantities reduced by payments to project address(es).

A is an address having ALPHA (project address) trace, B has (optional) BETA trace. a is the quantity of ALPHA swapped for b amount of BETA.

Inputs Outputs
A a B a - marker
B b A b - marker
ALPHA marker
BETA marker

Interpretation:
Swap a(-marker) of ALPHA for b(-marker) of BETA

interesting

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 29, 2014, 03:52:11 PM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 29, 2014, 03:47:32 PM

One last question about Nxt, why is it not required that transactions need to be linked to previous transactions?

It's linked implicitly (in Bitcoin it's explicitly).

Not sure what you mean by "linked implicitly". What are the implicit rules for transaction linking?

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 29, 2014, 03:44:59 PM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 29, 2014, 03:42:07 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 29, 2014, 03:32:09 PM

PS: I answered ur question, what about mine?

Professionally, Nxt coin is riddled with fundamental issues. I would not invest in it until a independent 3rd party reviews the code.

We don't even have to look at the code to know its flaws. You can go to the Russian section of Bitcointalk (google transate it) and all the problems are talked about there.

So to answer your question about 'injected flaws', I think they are more like 'fundamental flaws'.

In Nxt, the code doesn't even handle private-public key encryption correctly. Hint: A private key is meant to be private... not public!

So u will write ur own code from scratch. Any ETA on a beta version?

6-8 weeks. We will take considerable time making sure the coin is hardened.

One last question about Nxt, why is it not required that transactions need to be linked to previous transactions?

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 29, 2014, 03:32:09 PM

PS: I answered ur question, what about mine?

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 29, 2014, 03:19:33 PM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 29, 2014, 03:05:49 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 29, 2014, 12:45:19 PM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 29, 2014, 12:01:23 PM

We've been pretty much in stealth mode... however a new website will be coming up shortly.

I was away for 4 days. Have u answered my question about the situation that NEX can't use published source code due to injected fatal flaw nor decompiled binaries of the current Nxt version due to traps that r fatal too?

Maybe you didn't realize that NEX code itself is riddled with security flaws that needs a ton of work to be fixed.

This doesn't look as an answer to my question. Could u paraphrase it plz?

Curious, are you also anonymous like BCNext?

Also, are you the same person as BCNext?

Quote from: alpha_one_x86 on January 29, 2014, 02:39:08 PM

Error:

Quote

[2014-01-28 12:34:48.426] DEBUG: Error in block generation thread
java.lang.NullPointerException
at Nxt$Block.getLastBlocks(Nxt.java:1353)
at Nxt$Account.getGuaranteedBalance(Nxt.java:579)
at Nxt$Account.getEffectiveBalance(Nxt.java:516)
at Nxt$8.run(Nxt.java:6574)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:471)
at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.runAndReset(FutureTask.java:304)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.access$301(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:178)
at java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor$ScheduledFutureTask.run(ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java:293)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)

Code:

  static ArrayList<Block> getLastBlocks(int numberOfBlocks)
  {
    ArrayList<Block> lastBlocks = new ArrayList(numberOfBlocks);
    
    long curBlock = ((Block)Nxt.lastBlock.get()).getId();
    do
    {
      Block block = (Block)Nxt.blocks.get(Long.valueOf(curBlock));
      lastBlocks.add(block);
      curBlock = block.previousBlock;
    } while ((lastBlocks.size() < numberOfBlocks) && (curBlock != 0L));
    return lastBlocks;
  }

You use the return of the function without take care of the return value! Nxt.blocks.get() can return invalid value like here.
Please, be more serious with the code, don't do beginer error like that's. Because do the wallet vulnerability!
No it's because you use an language more resistant that's you can't have security problem. (With gcc 4.8 and modern CPU you can have same security with C++ code).

watching

Quote from: Dexter44 on January 29, 2014, 01:08:46 PM

Quotation from Luke Connell:
"iXcoin will have one thing almost all the altcoin's don't have aside from Dogecoin and that's access to global media agencies and news outlets."

Is there anything I don't know? It sounds like a big statement to me.

Sounds good to me.

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on January 29, 2014, 12:45:19 PM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 29, 2014, 12:01:23 PM

We've been pretty much in stealth mode... however a new website will be coming up shortly.

Maybe you didn't realize that NEX code itself is riddled with security flaws that needs a ton of work to be fixed.

Quote from: EvilDave on January 29, 2014, 01:42:21 PM

FrictionlessCoin, solracx, Carlos Perez and the CodeAudit.com corporation of Delaware, come on down!
(I'll refer to you collectively as "the FCs" for much of this post)

This posting is my reply to your threat of legal action against myself and others, accusing us of defamation of a corporation.

TL; DR;

So you are saying that you are in the Neatherlands and remain completely anonymous and therefore a claim cannot be made against you for financial damages?

Now you are now moving in very dangerous territory here by hinting about accusing the corporation of wire fraud. Do you want to go there?

Is that what you are saying? If so, I will turn on the ignore button again.

Thank you for your interest.

Quote from: EvilDave on January 29, 2014, 01:43:41 PM

INTERESTED. I hereby pledge one NXT to be exchanged for 50 nex.
Hey, I am now a corporate investor in the nex project from Code Audit.com. Yay!

TL:DR

Exchanging a vritual currency like Nxt for another virtual currency like NEX does not mean you are an investor in CodeAudit Corp.

If CodeAudit Corp sold you a virtual coin, say a DOGE coin, it does not mean that you are an investor in the company.

Now this notion that you are in the Neatherlands and can't be sued for defamation. Let me check the lawyers about that.

Besides, why would a private company send any information to an individual who is anonymous?

In fact, why is everyone in the Nxt community, anonymous?

Quote from: SuperZeus on January 29, 2014, 11:58:06 AM

Quote from: ipsum100 on January 29, 2014, 11:05:20 AM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 26, 2014, 10:53:31 AM

We will pay 100 IXC for the winning submission.

We will also distribute 50 IXC to the two how made contributions.

Please leave your IXC address here.

I made some logos

xcybjpqSvFbmejaHA51y7yYC7K11GgRYeQ

Thanks

I think the winners were jimhsu, sm3ck, and newflesh, but I'll send you some IXC for participating anyway.

Yes, that is correct.

jimhsu - 100 IXC
newsflesh - 100 IXC
sm3ck - 50 IXC

ipsum100 - your logos were okay, however they didn't make the cut.

We've been pretty much in stealth mode... however a new website will be coming up shortly.

Quote from: Jeffersondk on January 29, 2014, 11:53:22 AM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 29, 2014, 11:33:30 AM

Quote from: jimhsu on January 29, 2014, 06:14:59 AM

Did the ixcoin.co site get updated? I see the new logo's up on there, but it's fairly ugly as of now. I'd much prefer the new versions that newflash posted up (with the clear backgrounds). And someone please do something about the ugly stretched logo up on the top left.

I'm willing to give access to folks so they can tweak the website.

Who wants access?

Is it HTML/CSS? Anyway i can do some tweaks now and then. Send me a PM.

It is all wordpress.

However, as much as I would like a helping hand, your handle isn't familiar and I haven't seen an earlier contribution from you.

Anyway, I would like to see someone volunteer who is willing to commit the time and effort.

Quote from: Dexter44 on January 29, 2014, 06:43:36 AM

All these delays are dragging the coin down. Within a few months it will be choked under tons of scamcoins.

Yes, this indeed is a competitive environment that you can't rest on your laurels.

I have no idea why so many of these coins that got released just yesterday gets so much trading volume.

One consolation is, two other coins that were higher before in cap with iXcoin are now lower:

Freicoin - This coin has one of the better dev. teams and has been cited in coindesk and several other media outlets.

Terracoin - This coin is listed in BTC-E.

So should coins like MoonCoin, KittehCoin and Particle that got released just a week ago be worth more than iXcoin? How much do you think these coins will be worth 1 or 2 1/2 years from now?

There is a game that is being played, if you panic then you may end up holding a crap coin rather than one with real value.

In the past month, these coins that where once higher in iXcoin in market cap are now lower:

Freicoin   $ 1,763,407   $ 0.048   36,390,518 FRC   $ 400   +2.22 %
Terracoin   $ 1,694,606   $ 0.34   5,032,370 TRC   $ 21,996   -0.25 %
EarthCoin   $ 1,229,152   $ 0.0012   1,039,275,798 EAC   $ 47,866   +2.12 %
Sexcoin   $ 1,208,541   $ 0.021   56,834,825 SXC   $ 109,326   +66.42 %
LottoCoin   $ 1,153,164   $ 0.00021   5,400,145,811 LOT   $ 91,474   -6.83 %
Cryptogenic Bullion   $ 971,090   $ 1.03   938,375 CGB   $ 17,323   +9.07 %
TagCoin   $ 964,836   $ 1.26   767,236 TAG   $ 6,376   +4.86 %
GoldCoin   $ 923,932   $ 0.031   29,525,855 GLD   $ 2,374   +9.28 %
BBQCoin   $ 862,351   $ 0.028   31,239,422 BQC   $ 980   +4.35 %
Fastcoin   $ 605,619   $ 0.011   55,233,946 FST   $ 6,888   +14.08 %
Frozen   $ 547,013   $ 0.10   5,248,356 FZ   $ 7,130   -7.15 %
Datacoin   $ 440,856   $ 0.23   1,936,453 DTC   $ 1,099   -4.05 %
StableCoin   $ 409,819   $ 0.041   9,977,530 SBC   $ 1,967   -3.11 %
42 Coin   $ 269,630   $ 246,725   1.0928397 42   $ 8,674   -0.01 %
Philosopher Stones   $ 261,397   $ 0.16   1,675,076 PHS   $ 724   +3.76 %

Quote from: jimhsu on January 29, 2014, 06:14:59 AM

I'm willing to give access to folks so they can tweak the website.

Who wants access?

Quote from: raskul on January 29, 2014, 10:18:19 AM

Quote from: FrictionlessCoin on January 29, 2014, 12:13:31 AM

Quote from: raskul on January 28, 2014, 10:47:33 PM

my ixcoin wallet is telling me no addresses are valid, got a fix please?

what version is this?

it's version 0.3.24.30-beta
is there going to be a mac version? that would be so much easier for me

There is a 0.8.6 Mac OS X version downloadable here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/ixcoin-ng/files/iXcoin/ixcoin-0.8.6/beta/

Quote from: bitfreak! on January 29, 2014, 05:27:05 AM

Quote

So it may make sense for an implementation to have a LRU cache of transactions in the case of forks?

Not necessarily a cache of transactions, a cache of the changes made to the account tree would make more sense.

Quote

Because transactions are removed, won't users lose the ability to have a record of their transaction?

Yes, without a blockchain which saves every transaction that ever happened it wont be possible to go back and examine old transactions. This may offer a little bit of extra anonymity however it's likely that some people will choose to store every transaction for historical purposes. Each node will have the ability to change how long they want to store transactions, but it cannot be any shorter than the cycle time of the mini-blockhain.

Quote

Would it make better sense to hold like a year's worth of transactions and the Account tree is really just there for a check point mechanism?

If you're going to save so many transactions you may as well just go back to using a full blockchain. The whole point of the mini-blockchain is to make the blockchain as small as possible so that the network becomes extremely scalable. The account tree is just a way to keep track of the address balances without requiring all transactions to be recorded forever.

Is a SPV client feasible with this kind of setup?

If you discard the transactions (and likely the merkle roots in the blocks) you aren't able to do a Simple Payment Verification that a transaction exists in a block. Is there something similar where you can have a lightweight client?

Quote from: bitfreak! on January 29, 2014, 04:54:32 AM

Quote

What happens when the block chain is forked? Would there not be two sets of competing account trees?

Yes in that case there would be two competing blockchains and two account tree corresponding to each chain.

Quote

In the case that an account tree becomes the losing tree, I gather the protocol needs to go out in the network to refresh its info?

Yes that is correct. If the losing chain is just a couple of orphaned blocks then there should be enough of a backup stored in memory to undo the orphaned changes. But then the nodes would need to query the network to catch up to the correct chain. In the case where the nodes cannot undo the changes then they will have to go through the resynchronization process.

So it may make sense for an implementation to have a LRU cache of transactions in the case of forks?

Because transactions are removed, won't users lose the ability to have a record of their transaction? Would it make better sense to hold like a year's worth of transactions and the Account tree is really just there for a check point mechanism?

Quote from: russellthies on January 29, 2014, 04:29:26 AM

Cointerra also delayed, albeit only by a month. Their first miner was shipped today, according to Coindesk. Originally the goal for their first batch shipment date was "late December", all things considered, that's pretty good.

Also, their goal of reaching 2 terra hashes with the Gold Strike 4 miner has come up a little short (1.7), while the power usage is higher than hoped for, 2000 watts as opposed to 1650.

We miners must understand that these companies (AMT included of course) do not have a history of producing the product we're buying, therefore, they can only give us their best estimates on delivery dates, production levels, power consumption, etc. It's just the way it is, and actually somewhat understandable if you've ever tried to estimate how long it would take to do something you have never done; almost always off by a wide margin. Undecided

I had thought that Cointerra was the most experienced manufacturer of them all, for them to miss their technical targets doesn't bode well for everyone else.

My gosh... 2000 watts! So we should expect the 1.2 THs to be around 1200 watts. Maybe I should stick to GPU mining!

Quote from: bitfreak! on January 29, 2014, 04:06:02 AM

Quote

It is pull based, so any node can request older transactions.

Why would a node want to request an older transaction that is not being relayed? Oh... you mean transactions that have been previously included into blocks and not orphaned transactions? So what you're asking is what determines when the the transactions in old blocks are discarded? The answer to that depends on the length of the mini-blockchain cycle. If the cycle is set to a week then transactions will be kept by nodes for a week before they are discarded. Then the remaining block header becomes part of the proof chain.

Quote

Does an account have an identifier or hash that will distinguish it from other version of itself in the network?

Since the account tree is structured as a hash tree, yes, every single account in the tree has a corresponding hash obviously.

Quote

How is the account information requested from a node? Do I ask the node, "give me account for block height 13?" If the block height is already at 15, do I return an error?

http://bitfreak.info/mbc-wiki/index.php?title=Network_synchronization

Quote

So are you saying that, once a transaction is included in a block it is never accessible or propagated through the network?

I believe my first answer should answer this too.

What happens when the block chain is forked? Would there not be two sets of competing account trees?

In the case that an account tree becomes the losing tree, I gather the protocol needs to go out in the network to refresh its info?