Thanks - watched the Fifth Estate - quite a good movie (although I guess Assange wouldn't like it that much).

Nice to see that James and myself are in agreement (now waiting for CfB to comment).

Watching film about Wikileaks now - will be back a little later.

Agreed - don't go there - "people in glass houses should not throw stones" (PoS is a game of chance also - maybe you have misunderstood how Nxt works).

Luckily it doesn't affect the main chain at all (technically they are like having LTC and BTC on the same computer if you are running both).

The idea of putting in "checkpoint" messages would be to simply add 1 small AM per day per chain (would hardly be noticed even if we had a thousand of them).


It makes Nxt the ideal "platform" to experiment with new blockchains and to test new ideas without risking failure to the main chain (alts are now being used to trial ideas that might be useful to Bitcoin because they simply can't risk trialing anything with Bitcoin).

Perhaps that is the "nodecoin" that was mentioned before - am not really sure whether it will be relevant once we have parallel chains.

Okay - unless we can work out some other way to do atomic cross-chain txs then I think AT will be required to be supported by all parallel chains.

I don't think parallel chains need to support AM or AE as to my thinking they are "just coins" but again that will be up to the community to decide.

Yes I think that should be one of the "settings" for a parallel chain (and maybe we ought to think about having such a limit on the main chain also).

I think that parallel chains will provide a *neater* way of doing other "coins" in Nxt, however, having gateways to "outside" blockchains is also an important thing.

If you can't "allocate your forging rights" then basically you are trusting them with your NXG (we have that situation now with NXT but I don't see any huge pools yet).


Those who are in favour of "forging on low-end equipment" and who are anti-pools would likely not care for TF.

As stated I think it would be *an option* which could be switched either way.

I would think that for a non TF chain you would not want to allow accounts to "allocate their forging power" to help with this potential issue.

We might also want to have a max. forging power "limit" available.

It was designed to favour a smaller number of very high powered machines - so it is much more centralised.

Also when it comes down to it PoS *forces* you to rely upon the stake holders - of course there is no reason why a parallel chain couldn't be PoW/PoH instead.

Basically if you have enough "honest" stakeholders and/or evenly enough spread stakes then you don't need anything else (so things like "maximum forging power" and whether you can "allocate forging" would also come into this).

The "penalty" system in TF provides extra safety but understand that it is only needed because of the fact that TF is intended to favour a low number of very powerful forgers.

That could be where this might lead to down the track but I very much doubt that it would be accepted by the community at this stage.


Yes - I think they would be able to choose that (as internet *within* China is very fast so no need for NXTChina to not be able to do TF).


Basically TF is useful for handling very large TPM rates and not much else.

How fucking ridiculous that they would try and patent something as obvious as that.

It's a bit like IBM's RLE patent (run-length encoding) and one of the reasons why I went open source on a project that otherwise I probably could have made millions from.

The benefit for "clones" is not needing to hire devs and that we could also make the creation of a "new coin" a very simple procedure.

The benefit for Nxt is to not have a divided community - each group could have their own NXG and the Nxt community as a whole will be stronger.

Indeed I would be strongly advocating that the main chain does TF *with the didn't forge penalty* as planned by BCNext. The goal of the main chain would be to offer a serious competitor to Ripple (and maybe even VISA).

For the case of NXG (assuming that is its name and assuming there is enough support to do this) I would guess there would be no TF at all.

That could be a good idea - perhaps if we added a few extra APIs that control things like fees then it would make it very simple to "add a blockchain" to a client.

It would allow for TF in a country that is blocking or slowing down access to the main chain (also allowing for "local/community currencies" that might appeal to some).

Also it would mean that there is less incentive to clone Nxt (particularly if the motivation for doing that is because of the "initial distribution").

Okay - well technically I think parallel chains are not going to be very difficult as we *already have one* (it's called "test net") so we are not talking about a huge amount of extra coding that would be required to be performed.

The main thing is going to be to work out what "features" are going to be made available to a parallel chain and what differences in rules (such as say fees) might apply and in particular to get community support for it.