|
Think I figured this one out, it requires that a few forgers all agreeing whether or not a transaction has gone through though, a couple of them can play dirty and it still works.
Already sent it to some of you but anyone who wants to see my algorithm, shoot me a PM and I'll send it to you. I am a programmer but haven't touched Nxt source code yet and would most likely need help implementing it!
|
|
|
|
The question is do we want everything in AE to be traded via NXT.
If the market really wants this, there will be AssetA <-> AssetB direct trading.
I see no reason to force NXT as intermediate store when trading AssetA to AssetB. NXT will be used to pay transaction (bid/ask) fees. Furthermore, we should not let any fears of devaluing NXT prevent many kinds of uses of the NXT blockchain. NXT will always be needed to create an entry into the public ledger as a transaction fee, and should gain in value as more uses are created. (And IMHO, fees should be kept exceptionally low to encourage widespread adoption and use -- money flows to efficiency). Q1. Do you want USD assets to exist within NXT AE?
c) $1 billion USD
Q3. If all AE trades are denominated in NXT, then how do you propose actually dealing with $1 billion USD deposit.
The asset issuer either has the reputation and means to satisfy withdrawals to real USD via gateway(s), or it doesn't. Once it doesn't, then those assets become worthless and trade for pennies on the dollar -- Simply issuing 1 Billion 'USD' assets does not make it worth $1 Billion. I am assuming the asset issuer merits trust, eg. large international bank. Let us assume there is an automated gateway so you can always safely redeem your USD assets. [ok nothing is "safe", this is a thought experiment to evaluate denominating things in AE in USD] Do you see the problem, actually impossibility of anybody depositing $1 billion into NXT AE if all AE transactions are denominated in NXT? Maybe there is a way to break transactions up into itty bitty pieces and use up all of the NXT available in the liquid form, but not only will that create extreme volatility for the hypothetical large USD transaction, why would anybody with a $1 billion USD even attempt such insanity. So not impossible, but highly improbable Usually people who control $1 Billion+ dont do stupid things. Putting in 30 times the market cap into a trading platform that limits trading to whatever NXT is available from the market cap (5%?) would qualify as idiotic. Anybody that does that will instantly be fired, or no longer be a billionaire. This is why we MUST allow denominating AE trades in any other asset. USD, BTC, EUR, JPY, GLD, WTI, BCO, etc. Does anybody really think that allowing trades to be denominated in USD (or BTC or ...) will do anything other than help NXT? It wont affect USD to any noticeable degree. James P.S. If we end up helping BTC by .01% is that really such a bad thing? After all, how BTC goes, all crypto goes at least for the near future. Once we have billions of dollars of trading in NXT AE, then BTC wont matter much anyway. Have given myself a little time to digest the idea, and propose an argument in favor of denomination in NXT. Consider that every asset pair needs a market for bid/ask to be filled. When denominated in NXT, N assets provide N markets. However, if assets are traded directly then would require N! (N factorial) markets, which gets LARGE VERY QUICKLY. Therefore, direct trading by asset pair could greatly limit available liquidity in any single market. NXT-denominated:For a $1 Billion investor who wanted to trade A for B, and does so by A -> NXT -> B. NXT-denominated provides exactly two markets on which to fulfill orders. Anything-denominated:For the same $1 Billion investor who wants to trade A for B in an 'anything denominated exchange' would have to evaluate POSSIBLY THOUSANDS of markets for the best trade values to end up with the same trade. Perhaps today A->BTC->DOGE->LTC->MOON->B is the best value, and tomorrow is something different (and, could get far more convoluted than that!). Also remember, a $1 Billion investor could not even make an investment that large unless there were associated asks for the bids... Could there be assets within NXT that exceed the market cap of NXT? Certainly. I don't see the problem. edit: Consider NXT function in this case as BTC functions today: the 'gold standard' of cryptocurrencies. And not gold as in 'best', but in which all others are denominated. Very few altcoins have direct trades to fiat or any other altcoin. Does that mean no alt could ever exceed the market cap of Bitcoin? I think not.No, it wouldn't be factorial, it'd be N(N-1) because every asset would have to know it's price relative to every other asset, there are N assets, each of which needs to be traded against N-1 other assets.. right? I would still price them all in Nxt from a marketing and learning the value of a Nxt perspective.. no person can remember N(N-1) prices and figure out a base price from that mess. If other currencies on their become popular, you can trade them based on their prices in those currencies. But maybe they'll be 200 currencies on their that are popular enough for us to worry about pricing items against them? I wouldn't include prices for every single alt coin for example. But initially, yes everything must be denominated in terms of Nxt until we are bigger than Bitcoin. Otherwise it's kind of like free advertising for them. |
|
|
|
Very important!
Can't say why but trust me, if this is possible, it'd huge for Nxt
Is it possible to create multiple signature addresses without one person knowing all the private keys used to generate it?
Something along the lines of, person A generates part of the key, passes it to person B who generates part two, who passes it to person C who generates the final key? Then any 2 out of those 3 keys is needed to unlock it?
Thanks!
That is how multisig works. Usually none of the parties knows the others private keys. I dont think I can divulge any details about this regarding NXT, yet However I am pretty sure CfB used the magic word "multisig" in one of his recent posts James P.S. I agree that multisig will be a massively useful feature Yeah, there are many reason that multisig will be huge once implemented. For this specific idea, I understand regarding the unlocking part, do you know about the creating part? As I understand it one person has to know all keys used originally to create the public key were held by one person or machine during the creation, then they disperse the private keys and are trusted to destroy them, right? Or is it possible for the public key to be created in parts with no one person knowing the private key at any point in time? |
|
|
|
|
Very important!
Can't say why but trust me, if this is possible, it'd huge for Nxt
Is it possible to create multiple signature addresses without one person knowing all the private keys used to generate it?
Something along the lines of, person A generates part of the key, passes it to person B who generates part two, who passes it to person C who generates the final key? Then any 2 out of those 3 keys is needed to unlock it?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
What this guy recently learned is wrong; Nxt is not Turing-complete. Nxt AT is planned to be Turing-complete, but it is a layer on top of Nxt.
Nxt AT? |
|
|
|
|
Suggestion regarding the fees to place an order in the asset exchange, if the price goes up or down by a certain percentage, allow people to remove the order and get back the fee. The fee is only actually removed from the system and given to a forger if the order goes through.
That way it ensures that people place orders that they actually intend to go through but if they place a buy order, the price doubles, which they couldn't have predicted, suddenly they doubt their order will every go through, and they aren't penalized.
|
|
|
|
Well, let me provide an update after eight hours of straight programming. Here is essentially what I will be running with for the decentralized server addition. In this example Peer1 and Peer2 are not hallmarked, which is why they are using a hallmarked server as a common networking point. The purpose of this is to allow the two "peers" to send serialized objects to each other without taking up a large amount of bandwidth on the NXT network. Here is what a serverRequest object looks like. class serverRequest implements Serializable {
private int wantedPeer;
private String sharedNode;
private java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date();
private long time;
private int sender;
private byte[] signature;
public serverRequest(int receiver, int sender, String sharedNode){
this.sharedNode = sharedNode;
this.account = sender;
this.wantedPeer = receiver;
this.time = date.getTime();
long packetLong = Long.valueOf(sharedNode) + account + time + wantedPeer;
byte[] packetByte = ByteBuffer.allocate(8).putLong(packetLong).array();
this.signature = Crypto.sign(packetByte, secretPhrase);
}
} Establish a shared hallmarked server connection. - Peer1 chooses a hallmarkedServer to share a connection with Peer2
- Peer1 sends the serverRequest object to all hallmarkedServer(s) in peerList.
- hallmarkedServer(s) check their peerList to see if they are connected to Peer2
- if they are not the hallmarkedServer(s) broadcast the signed request to all the hallmarkedServer(s) they are connected to.
- if they are connected to Peer2 they send the serverRequest to Peer2
- Peer2 connects to IP (sharedNode) in request packet
- Peer2 sends a signed timestamp + sharedServer packet to the shared server (essentially just verifying the serverRequest)
- the shared server will now relay all serialized objects sent from Peer1 to Peer2 (on port 6666) and vice-versa.
Countermeasure to "passive" denial of service Every minute a object with the amount of sent data during the last minute is sent to hServer hServer sends this to the other Peer If this packet is not received by the other peer the shared hServer is forgotten and a new sharedServer is found Very nice intmain()!! |
|
|
|
Getting on Reuters is not the same as getting published in mainstream press outlets. BUT; We can use aphoditecoin as a test of the effectiveness of PRweb/newswire. Can u (or someone who's not me) keep monitoring aphroditecoin (ie Google it once/twice per day) and see if the mainstream picks up on it over the next few days? If we can see it working well for an obvious crapcoin, then maybe NXT should bite the bullet and spend some serious money to get some real press coverage, for example when AE launches. The thing I suspect will happen with these is as soon as people can claim their coins, the value will plummet because most won't be able to do anything with it but will see it as an opportunity to cash out into their own well known fiat.. especially those who need it most. |
|
|
|
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. I just want to add support for the untying idea, too. Nxt should make sense in relation to itself. Trying to keep matching it to what happens with it in relation to outside entities will have us debating and jumping to keep up all the time. If anything, it introduces extra variables that we *don't* control into the mix. Occam's Razor suggests we look to minimize the variables. 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. You would also have to include a bottom cap so that people don't use this as an opportunity to spam the network with very small transactions but again adjusting that would be less important because you could leave a big range for the top and bottom caps and most people would pay the very low percentage. Personally I'd switch the fee over to the receivers side, so that people don't feel like they are being penalized for sending someone money and if I'm getting money, personally I'm more willing to pay a small fee to get money than give it. |
|
|
|
NxtBook
Actually not true about nxtbook, you will be able to store that much info eventually using Nxt's decentralized storage, basic idea is you pay people for storage space and then you store your data across multiple harddrives, so that if any one of them goes down, others are holding onto it and if someone goes down, you copy it to another machine from one of the ones still there. So the idea is that you only need to store it on 3 or 4 machines at a time and you'd paid to keep it online. The more you are willing to pay per byte, the more machines and therefore security we can offer.
Similiar to multi-sigs you wouldn't have to store the entire data on every machine, just enough so that 2 out of 5 machines could reconstruct it or whatever.
If people hook up 2 or 3 TB drives and allow Nxt to use them for the decentralized storage system and get paid for them, they could make money off of the process and we'd end up with a lot of available storage space.
This could be used to host such images and will eventually be implemented. It would also allow us to provide an email service and store encrypted emails in a distributed manner, so google can't read your emails for example. I think that decentralized storage should be a big priority once asset and decentralized exchanges are finished. Especially because once we have decentralized storage working, then we can create the distributed computing option, and Nxt will become a supercomputer running across multiple forging machines.
p2p storage would be interesting. It would nice if something like Symform could be built on top of Nxt. Symform, is already offereing p2p storage: http://www.symform.com/Very interesting.. will have to further investigate, I see us running something very similar in the near future, except paying people for their storage space. Going back to the idea of running a supercomputer on top of Nxt, I had a thought, internet bandwidth is going to continue steadily increase for the next few years to the point where most people should be able to easily run a desktop remotely. ( http://blogs.cisco.com/news/the-2017-internet-a-look-at-the-future-courtesy-of-the-cisco-vni-forecast/ ). I already do sometimes when working remotely from home, I'll just log into my work computer and work from there. What if we tailored this decentralized computing to allowing people to buy essentially terminals that are bare-bones machines, probably $100 each, they plug into the Nxt network and essentially run their computers remotely paying by the hour or maybe more likely by the number of instructions executed? That way people using more processor intensive processes would still be paying more and counting instruction cycles would probably prevent limit cheating.. idk maybe not. We could probably begin with Linux and turn it into a decentralized operating system. Then you shift people around between computers and different cores as needed, when only running a word processor someone could run it on one core of someone's machine and run a different person on a different core. In fact every thread the program runs could potentially be run on different machines. Still a baby idea and needs further development and analysis and would require a lot of work and steps along the way and may not be worth it but could be very cool and help Linux better compete with Windows. I suspect once I finish with my current business idea I'll analyze this one further. |
|
|
|
My 2 cents on HFT: it's becoming very obvious that trading bots are being used to HFT the fuck out of some exchanges. Cryptsy trading is now becoming almost impossible for manual traders in popular markets. I spent 15 frustrating minutes trying to place a buy order for LTC->NXT last night, got topped by 50 satoshis on every buy order I placed wihtin less than a second of placing the order. In the end, i just hodled the LTC, which made me cry a little this morning.
I started off not liking the idea of a fee on the AE for just placing an order, but HFT is taking predatory capitalism to new heights (or lows, depending on your point of view) and fees may well exclude these traders from the NXT AE, which is a good thing IMHO
hmm.. maybe we should charge a very small fee for placing an order and see if that prevents that, the normal transaction fee for it going through (maybe minus the initial fee?), as that does sound like an issue. |
|
|
|
P.S. For nodecoin haters, do you still think nodecoin is bad for NXT?
Is nodecoin good for NXT? If it helps detect when there are significant forks in progress and especially if your node is on a minority fork, do you think that is good or bad? Of course, more competition is bad but I still think Nxt has them beat. Nxt is so much more than just a coin. |
|
|
|
0.01 Nxt would still be a high fee for messaging though... I would recommend a fee of about 0.0001 Nxt per message, if the only thing being sent is a message, the catch is you can only pay that low of a fee if the message is automatically deleted from the blockchain. I think the messages need to be perceived as being really cheap as we are competing against WhatsApp that offers messaging for 99 cents per year. The average teen sends 3,339 txts per month!! ( http://mashable.com/2010/10/14/nielsen-texting-stats/) This would be about 40,000 txts per year. Assuming he/she uses WhatsApp, that costs $0.99 per year, that works out to be $0.000025/txt Assuming Nxt will soon reach 10 cents that would be a fee of 0.00025 Nxt to compete with them on price alone, we also offer encryption but I'd say we really should try to compete when it comes to price as well. Because if we do it right, I do feel like this could be a killer app because we could probably even compete well with them price-wise. The money made off of this could then compensate for even lower transaction fees and the forgers could be profitable. And I worked through all the math but just deleted it to avoid clutter, I believe that we could even afford to charge lower than this assuming we delete messages once the app on the other end receives it, after all most text messages will be stored by the local apps on both sides and the blockchain/decentralized storage can be temporary.. only a few seconds in most cases. Forgers supporting the text messaging would have to be paid for their extra bandwidth though. Regard facebook built on top of Nxt.. actually I see some sense to that, we can afford to charge people a very low fee per post, that varies based on how long they want to store it, store it using the decentralized storage, the people in charge of make money off of that and use that money to advertise itself and grow a business. Why would people use it? Same advantage Dispora has, Diaspora is indeed very similar but I see it being hard to advertise itself, build it into Nxt and I know I would sign up for a Nxtbook account! Price isn't everything. I don't know anything about "WhatsApp", however as a long-time irc user, that $0.99/yr sounds rather steep for something I havn't been paying at all for for many years, so they must have some other draw considering they aren't competitive price-wise. I would consider endpoint-endpoint encryption a must, and that would be one of your draws imo. The problem with full-blown nxtbook though is that people don't want to just post text, they post pictures, videos, etc, and you just can't store all that in the blockchain, even on a temporary basis. Not everything, true but it's a part of it. I agree that encryption will be a big advantage of it. WhatsApp also offers the ability to form group, sort of like a chat room, I image (haven't used it myself) as well as send image, video, and audio clips. They intend to start offering phone calls, which would be tricky in a decentralized system, I think you'd have to assign individual computers to handle the call and include everyone who's on the line, if that computer drops out, then you reconnect. Would be an interesting feature to eventually offer. Point is though, there are cheap options out there and we do need to compete price-wise, we should approach it from the point of view of what is the minimal amount we need to charge to ensure that forgers to break even, add a little to make them profitable, and charge that much. 0.01Nxt seems arbitrary. NxtBookActually not true about nxtbook, you will be able to store that much info eventually using Nxt's decentralized storage, basic idea is you pay people for storage space and then you store your data across multiple harddrives, so that if any one of them goes down, others are holding onto it and if someone goes down, you copy it to another machine from one of the ones still there. So the idea is that you only need to store it on 3 or 4 machines at a time and you'd paid to keep it online. The more you are willing to pay per byte, the more machines and therefore security we can offer. Similiar to multi-sigs you wouldn't have to store the entire data on every machine, just enough so that 2 out of 5 machines could reconstruct it or whatever. If people hook up 2 or 3 TB drives and allow Nxt to use them for the decentralized storage system and get paid for them, they could make money off of the process and we'd end up with a lot of available storage space. This could be used to host such images and will eventually be implemented. It would also allow us to provide an email service and store encrypted emails in a distributed manner, so google can't read your emails for example. I think that decentralized storage should be a big priority once asset and decentralized exchanges are finished. Especially because once we have decentralized storage working, then we can create the distributed computing option, and Nxt will become a supercomputer running across multiple forging machines. |
|
|
|
I'm with Marcus here, lets keep most of our biz here on the forum, in the public eye. Moving on to business: Secondleo sent me a copy of a paper on energy consumtion and efficiency compared between the BTC and NXT networks. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J8uhdshu9epGRrQHBaloGc4itdvuAHZDAUtNDjOhz-8/edit?usp=sharingI've had a quick look thru it, and it is full of useful information, might deserve some bounty even as a stand-alone project. But SecondLeo also has a further proposition/project to do with an efficient forging soution. He got in contact with me via Nextcoin.org: I am one of the authors of the recently published paper about the energy efficiency of the Nxt network.
On the basis of the work put into the paper I have plans in motion to offer a powerful and minimum effort solution for forging.
I would appreciate it if you provided a point of contact for the committee so I can present the project there and see if I can get any support.
i'd like to hear more, so I've invited secondleo to come on over and tell us everything.... Generally, I think the paper might deserve funding. Would you please set up an Issue for this in the issue tracker at: https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issues/new(Set the "component" to "Projects/Bounties to fund".) Hey, I'm the other author on that paper, we're still trying to figure out how to reasonable estimate how many forgers we'll have forging for Nxt, if anyone has any thoughts I'd love to hear them. I'm thinking maybe we should incorporate 5 servers that have cloudflare protection for DDOS attack? I understand that's our current solution? Regarding which machines to recommend people forge with, that is SecondLeo's area. Also, you should know, Salascz did give us 5000 Nxt as a bounty for the paper already. I'd love to discuss it with anyone who would like to. We're still tweaking that one last number then are probably ready to publish it and hope to spread around, say publish it on coindesk and other places that would allow it to market Nxt, up the price, and hopefully make these committee funds more valuable. |
|
|
|
Nope, I have mostly completed the messenger and friend functions, they both piggyback onto the block-chain in a really lightweight manner.
So you have to pay 1 nxt to send a message or friend somebody? Yep. But, one could bundle several messages into one AM.  and the fees are planning on dropping to .01 right? i keep reading this. Correct.  Nxt Facebook
That's what I'm working on ! I keep thinking "Diaspora". What makes your project different? Fees dropping to 0.01 - that will be very interesting. 0.01 Nxt would still be a high fee for messaging though... I would recommend a fee of about 0.0001 Nxt per message, if the only thing being sent is a message, the catch is you can only pay that low of a fee if the message is automatically deleted from the blockchain. I think the messages need to be perceived as being really cheap as we are competing against WhatsApp that offers messaging for 99 cents per year. The average teen sends 3,339 txts per month!! ( http://mashable.com/2010/10/14/nielsen-texting-stats/) This would be about 40,000 txts per year. Assuming he/she uses WhatsApp, that costs $0.99 per year, that works out to be $0.000025/txt Assuming Nxt will soon reach 10 cents that would be a fee of 0.00025 Nxt to compete with them on price alone, we also offer encryption but I'd say we really should try to compete when it comes to price as well. Because if we do it right, I do feel like this could be a killer app because we could probably even compete well with them price-wise. The money made off of this could then compensate for even lower transaction fees and the forgers could be profitable. And I worked through all the math but just deleted it to avoid clutter, I believe that we could even afford to charge lower than this assuming we delete messages once the app on the other end receives it, after all most text messages will be stored by the local apps on both sides and the blockchain/decentralized storage can be temporary.. only a few seconds in most cases. Forgers supporting the text messaging would have to be paid for their extra bandwidth though. Regard facebook built on top of Nxt.. actually I see some sense to that, we can afford to charge people a very low fee per post, that varies based on how long they want to store it, store it using the decentralized storage, the people in charge of make money off of that and use that money to advertise itself and grow a business. Why would people use it? Same advantage Dispora has, Diaspora is indeed very similar but I see it being hard to advertise itself, build it into Nxt and I know I would sign up for a Nxtbook account! |
|
|
|
|
Anyone know if someone giving out assets would be able to change the number of assets? Anyone know?
I'd like to issue assets and destroy them on the fly so that the block chain can record exactly how many assets have been issued.
|
|
|
|
Regarding Asset Exchange:
1. Is there a way to give out dividends?
2. I am envisioning that there would be tons of people creating whatsoever assets, I believe a way to manage it is necessary. Like categories? favorites?
3. I also think there should be a moderator who could flag assets that are fraudulent.
1) I know BCNext at some point was coming up with a way that you could indeed give out dividends. 2) Great idea! Should be currencies, stocks, assets, and I'm probably missing a couple. Not sure if that's being worked on. 3) Agreed, needs to be some kind of system for flagging assets as fraudulent and giving people a trust meter. |
|
|
|
Will we be given some kind of heads up regarding when the asset exchange is opening? It'd be nice to let everyone know so we all can plan to be sitting at the computer and try to reserve our favor assets instead of these assets being taken lottery like based upon the first people to realize it's been released. It'd probably also distribute them a little bit more fairly between people trying to pick off the good names. Because I can think of a couple asset names that everyone would love to own.
Anyway, owning assets names to never use them sucks.I bought many aliases ,which could be speculation, but i find assets a more serious thing that should only be taken if you are really issuing the asset. What do you want, to have 10.000 assets which are really nothing??That would kill asset exchange, if you have to dive into thousands of assets to find something is worth > 0. In fact, i would try to give jl777 preference to create first all the assets with a gateway, so people could knew all assets with coin name in account XXXXXXXX are safe.This exchange letting trade all the main coins is what NXT needs!!!! If you get hundreds of people trolling asset names,it will be a mess no one will want to touch. I'd be fine with that too.. maybe something where if you want a specific highly wanted asset name you must submit a plan for using that, they will wait for 30 days to allow competing plans to come in, then assign it to the person they deem has the best plan? But I have a big and very good for Nxt plan in mind, it just involves snagging up a specific asset name (or something very close to it). In fact maybe the first week could be run like this for all assets? Give a deadline, people say they want this asset, prove they have Nxt they are willing to pay with, and submit a proposal for how they intend to use it. I really dislike the way all the aliases were snapped up for what 0.1 cents each or whatever Nxt was going for at the time? |
|
|
|
|
Will we be given some kind of heads up regarding when the asset exchange is opening? It'd be nice to let everyone know so we all can plan to be sitting at the computer and try to reserve our favor assets instead of these assets being taken lottery like based upon the first people to realize it's been released. It'd probably also distribute them a little bit more fairly between people trying to pick off the good names. Because I can think of a couple asset names that everyone would love to own.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
