|
anyone have a link to a high resolution image of the nxt logo?
|
|
|
|
Dress business casual, answer questions honestly and concisely but don't elaborately reveal your opinions (only yes/no/not sure if you can), appear interested in the process, and pray that they don't fill up all the juries for the day before they put you through voir dire.
Also, I haven't tried this yet, but try to get your service transferred to a superior court that has consistently heavy caseloads. The last time I was called, I went to a boondocky superior court that seemed to just have overflow from the more centrally located ones, and got sent home because only 2 cases needed juries that day, IIRC.
thanks tbz. That sounds like good advise to me. I really hope I can save some poor innocent soul from the wrath of the state. |
|
|
|
im just going to tell you guys the password to my account. it should have 200k+ on there. that will be the community fund. Please don't take more than you need and issue assets from your own accounts. Holiday Clear Storage Box |
|
|
|
|
so after 6 months the mining will stop completely?
|
|
|
|
yea 2.4% is too much of the stake. that person needs to sell for the sake of the security of the network. |
|
|
|
|
Most of the time people want to get out of it but I actually would like to get ON the jury. Does anyone have any advise of how to get ON a jury?
|
|
|
|
You are summoned for jury duty at the government center, court room A for a criminal superior session of court!!!!
-the government i may have the opportunity to save some poor innocent soul from the government!!!  |
|
|
|
Firstly for this to work each maybe you need gateway relationship to be verified bi-laterally, i.e. a gateway to gateway trust relationship is pre-established, I am not sure this exists in the Ripple model which is why I think there is a problem - is this what you mean by federation.
this is precisely what i mean by federation.
Each buyer and seller legitimise the asset with each gateway involved e.g. deposit asset in escrow or reserve somehow.
The buyer sends the transaction request to the sellers gateway to buy the asset (with the relevant buy/sell asset ids from each gateway)
The sellers gateway initiates a transaction on the block chain which is seen by buyers gateway and this is validated by forging as legitimate (e.g. 10 confirms?)
The buyers gateway then confirms the transaction by re-submitting again to be validated by forging to confirm the buyer honours the contract.
The two gateways can then release the escrow asset to the buyer and seller respectively.
The transaction ledger could be the NXT blockchain, once the transaction is validated by forging the seller gateway releases the asset to the buyer and the buyer gateway releases the asset to the seller.
The buyer/seller gateways would get their fees from the buyer/seller respectively
There is a NXT fee for each of the transactions involved.
What I am trying to achieve is the gateways are acting to ensure the safe transfer of an asset between two parties but maybe this is too hard complicated?
For widespread adoption there needed to be trust in the integrity of the transaction and that should be down to whether Anon, Bob or Sally tokens have a different trust level.
Without some level of transaction legitimacy validated by NXT itself I fear we would have a massive dispute resolution problem with scam buyers as much of a problem as scam sellers.
ok so for all of the gateways that want to federate create a multig address to hold the btc that acts as reserve for the FederatedBTCTokens. If bob issues 5 FederatedBTCTokens than he also deposits 5 btc in the multisig address. Lets say bob and betty are federated. The FederatedBTCToken that bob issued is claimed at betty's gateway. Betty signs the transaction and publishes her signed transaction on the NXT blockchain. Of course its a multisig account so 1 signature is not enough. Bob is monitoring the blockchain. He sees the signed transaction. He downloads the transaction from the blockchain, adds his signature, and then broadcasts the transaction. bob feels safe because he knows betty can not steal his btc without his signature. the buyer feels safe because he knows the btc is in reserve and that if bob were to attempt to misbehave than betty would offer some protection against this. betty feels safe because she is not extending a line of credit to bob, there is 100% reserve in a shared address. Do I have this right? I think its a great idea if i do. |
|
|
|
no i dont think so. nxt simply isnt plug and play like other coins. thats why it isnt on cryptsy. |
|
|
|
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack? in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks. What possible purpose would that serve? sure so like if some group of people formed a cartel with 90% of the stake and started forging empty blocks. we could just fork away and invalidate their stake. Who is we? What would be the point if "we" only has 10%? Also why is it 90% and why would they forge empty blocks? Other then forging empty blocks what can 90% stake do that's not agreeable to the minority? we is you and I? Because some powerful bank or government (but i repeat myself) wanted to kill nxt. Doublespend. |
|
|
|
|
i understand how multisig works. thats not the confusing part. its the idea of people honouring each others obligations and doing multisig. when i think of federating i think of people honouring each others agreements but then clearing their balances with each other periodically. so like if you and i federated and we issued 10 silver bars each. and then all 20 bars were redeemed through my gateway. you would owe me 10 silver bars. you would send the bars and then the balances would be cleared. we were able to federate because i trusted you.
oooh i get it now. i see why the wires were getting crossed. if you did a multisig account you wouldn’t be federating you would be incorporating!
|
|
|
|
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack? in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks. What possible purpose would that serve? sure so like if some group of people formed a cartel with 90% of the stake and started forging empty blocks. we could just fork away and invalidate their stake. |
|
|
|
Jeez we sure did cover a lot of ground didnt we. It felt like it flew by at the time. That's only half of it. I still have half more to edit and still working on it. I'm getting good feedback on it though because people like to associate a face with nxt. Tai Zen im glad to hear you are getting good feedback. i haven’t gotten much myself. |
|
|
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... Keep in mind this is the first step on the path toward fully automated DAC gateways. Also, to remove the confusion that is inherent in having many different Assets that are all representing the same thing I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. HOWEVER, I think I might have a way to allow all the gateways to trust each other without any bodily parts being involved. I do need somebody who is familiar with multisig to confirm this, or more likely correct where I am being plain silly. I do not see a problem with deposits of crypto, the end user sends in the crypto to a deposit address and the gateway sweeps it into an account. The problem is with the withdrawal, eg. since I am proposing all assets that represent BTC be fungible with each other, each gateway needs to have access to potentially all the actual BTC. So, we have a possible solution where all the gateways sweep into a common account. Wait! If all gateways are able to withdraw from it, then if ANY gateway gets hacked or hypnotized by Evil Bob, all the deposits are gone. Not good at all. This is where I think multisig comes in. What if the sweep account is a multisig acct. All the gateways can easily sweep into the multisig acct, since it is just a matter of sending coin to the right address. Now on withdraw, if we required the signatures from all gateways to do a withdrawal (or super majority?), then no gateway would be able to take off with the deposits, unless all gateways (or super majority) turn evil at the same time. No I dont know how multisig works well enough to know if this will work, but IF there is a way to do a safe remote multisig authorization and all the gateways are using the same business logic to approve withdrawals, eg. proper AM was sent with appropriate asset, then I think this could work. Not totally trustless, but as long as all (or super majority) of gateways dont spontaneously turn evil, I think the community would be able to rely on the federation of gateways. I hope somebody that knows about multisig and another somebody that knows about secure remote signing will be able to validate this, or fix it so it works James P.S. I just figured out that we can use a set of AM's for secure remote signing. Granted it is a lot of AM to send if we had to do it for each withdrawal, so maybe we only invoke this level when the amount is larger than the bond put up by the gateway. I think this is getting close to a real solution. Smart guys, please help!! IMO,it is like XRP gateway.Right? just like it only without a central point of weakness |
|
|
|
Yes, we should add more to the list if needs be. I think we should give QBTC 100k now for Nxtcrytp site and to keep everything up and running. Passion when Nxtvote is fully operational. l8orre when the asset exchange is released (should be soon).
What features do you want for NXTvote? It is already fully operational.  Is it possible to make free voting? Even it Soviet Union it was free to vote even if we ignore the spam problem, free voting is its self less desirable than voting which entails a cost. the cost insures that people are not voting arbitrarily. it insures that they actually care about what they are voting about and so have probably done atleast SOME amount of cursory research on the topic before taking a position so strong that they are willing to pay to voice it. If someone would like to spam the network he could use the max sized AM for ex. I am okay with paying the fee for the voting creation (to prevent the spam), but paying for the participation in voting? I already do pay the transaction fee for the voting, why should i pay even more? Oh and the Passion_ltc could vote for free at any stake size since he will get his money back anyway. If you are interested in raising the costs of the voting - then you could do the favor for the forgers and you could calculate voting power based on transaction fee. Ok so its difficult to make any claims about what the ideal amount is that voters should be charged in order to get the best outcomes. I have no idea what the right amount is. Maybe the 1 nxt tx fee is perfect, maybe its more than it ought to be, maybe its less than it ought to be. Inorder to find out that would require some sort of market discovery process which would be difficult if not imposable in this context. The point is just that when voting entails no cost people tend to vote based on aesthetic considerations. When voting entails a cost than they tend to be less likely to vote based on aesthetic considerations and more likely to vote based on conviction. Of course there is no guarantee that they will be right just because they have conviction. But there is a strong correlation between conviction and having done atleast SOME amount of research on the topic. This lecture deals with some of these topics and is very well worth an hour of anyone life who isnt already familiar with these arguments. It very well may be one of the most important videos you ever watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVCSfaWF2bA |
|
|
|
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack? in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks. |
|
|
|
Jeez we sure did cover a lot of ground didnt we. It felt like it flew by at the time. |
|
|
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. A federation could be fine but homogonizing all gatewayes is a VERY bad idea imo. It allows the externalization of costs from the maleficent actor to the good actors. Insurance allows the homogonization of certain actors into federations by pricing the risk so competative federations could be good, though one homogeneous asset would be terrible. If all the gateways are issuing a BTC asset, why is it a bad idea that all gateway BTC assets are all equal to each other, eg BTC? Also, if we had a multisig requirement for all withdrawals, would that minimize or eliminate the harm bad actors can do? It there is something wrong, I would like to understand it and hopefully fix it. This is why I am asking because Anon136BtcToken is not the same value as SuperScammerSamBtcToken. They are not homogeneous assets. The different risks need to be priced. Insurance companies can help to price in this risk and homogenize it, but if they are homogenizing extremely reliable assets with extremely risky assets than they are infact externalizing the cost of the risk from the risky actors onto reliable actors. They are causing the homodeneous asset to be more expensive than the reliable assets would have been by its self. This is a transfer of cost from superscammersam to anon136. with that said there are certain advantages to federating. So even though the problem just described will always exist, if the difference in price between the more reliable asset and the less reliable asset is marginal than the advantages of homogeneity can outweigh the problem of externalized costs mentioned in the previous paragraph. Only when the discrepancy is marginal though. thats why i some federating is good and too much is bad. as for clever scripted workarounds and stuff like that. Like smart contracted bonds or things, or DAC's that allow federation without externalizing costs, that stuff would be great if someone could figure it out. Until we get there though it would be wise to bear some of the previously mentioned things in mind. Let say there are 5 reputable gateways that are part of the federation. Anybody is free to issue their own BTC, but the federation gateways would only honor the other federation members Assets. They share a single multisig acct for sweeping the deposits and 4+ sign off on withdrawals. Do you know if this is even possible technically? If it is, wouldnt this provide a much better security for the end users as all the members of the federation are keeping tabs on each other. Kind of the peer verification model NXT nodes do, but at the critical point of withdrawing from the sweep acct. its overloading my brain trying to figure it out. >.< |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
In one account. Holy crap.
