|
with transparent forging, could a block forger choose to not send ANY transactions except its own, a block chock full of only his own transactions, and do so for free while completely ignoring everyone elses transactions?
|
|
|
|
Also, someone who's likely going to go to such lengths will also be untrustworthy with their large stake. Likely selling out and ruining a market before it's even taken off.
I think at the very least, the creator should stop people from asking for a stake if they made their account AFTER the date of the thread.
your very last sentence there echoes my statement, but the ounder here's stance is that he is marketing NEM to brand new users of crypto currency. So looks like just not doable |
|
|
|
It could be made so that an account that has a transaction in the current block is disallowed to forge the current block -- if the account forges the block and has one or more transactions contained in it, the block will just be rejected by the peers and the next account in line gets the opportunity to forge.
I had thought about that also and then decided I didnt like it - I dont like the idea of preventing transactions at all. Some things are just going to be mission-critical and the idea that you can be blocked out would be bad for NXT as a currency. I say just let the transaction go, but you still pay the fee. The fee just gets distributed according to some algorithm that uses accounts that paid fees from the past few blocks as candidates to receive the fee. It would be a cool random way to receive NXT that also rewards people who sent transactions. So maybe if you wanted to send a transaction in your own block and you set a fee of 1 NXT you would be allowed to do this - you would just also be forced to also include a sendMoney transaction in the amount of that fee (in this case 1 NXT) to an account that sometime in the past 100 blocks paid a fee for something (if it paid a fee then the passphrase for that account is known) to send a transaction. It could not be arbitrary - it would have to have some set algorithm that would be followed to choose that account - that way it could be enforced. With transparent forging, lets face it, many people are going to get free transactions. A block forger could even choose to not send ANY transactions except its own, a block chock full of only his own transactions, and do so for free while ignoring everyone elses transactions...[/i] Do we want this behavior? May be a good idea for us to discuss this more. And actually, I think similar logic could be used for a fair voting system.... let me think on that a bit. |
|
|
|
On the plane home from Miami. Thank you to everyone for the kind words, it was a great experience and I look forward to helping with the next steps.
dude, thanks a TON for ally youve done. Hope you had a blast! |
|
|
|
The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..
It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?
I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process. Well, they are the majority. So let it be. They're not the majority. That's the point here. They are. If you have 50$ and the other guy 1$ then you have the majority of wealth. So you are should be allowed to say more. Fortunately, our democratic systems do not work this way (not yet, I fear). You should be allowed to say more if you spend more of you wealth: Say, if you spend 1/10 of your wealth it's more than if somebody spend 1/10000 of theirs. It appears it's not so important to them. NXT is an economic ecosystem, not a state. In PoS 1 NXT is equivalent to 1 person (like SSN, birth certificate, or whatever) because this is the only way to truly account for the validity of each NXT, so 1 NXT = 1 Vote. All other methods will be gamed by the rich to make the poor poorer. For example, using 1 account = 1 Vote, a large stakeholder can create 10k accounts easily, while a small stakeholder will go broke doing it. No matter what you do, the rich can always afford more accounts than the poor can. Thus voting on an account basis is unrealistic. I think a good analogy would be (within the NXT ecosystem), 1 NXT = 1 Person, Account Owner = Representative. So if you own 10k NXT, you are their representative and represent their "views", but you cannot speak for all the NXTs under other representatives. I can understand your point of view. But do not make the Nxt ecosystem for Nxt. We do it for the people. And when people don't like it because it does not seem fair they won't support it. There are more different methods as only these two (1 Vote = 1 Nxt and 1 vote = 1 account) and variants of them. The problem with these two is, there is nothing at stake. You can vote whatever and whenever you want. If you have to pay for each vote and the amount of what you pay directly influences the voting power, you really think of voting when and what and how much is it worth to me.So, something is at stake now. I cannot simply pay 10.000.000 to simply outvote everyone else. Because, in the next voting session would won't have any coins left. Can you produce any valid argument against fee-based voting? I would really like to hear them as I want Nxt to thrive because people love it. Technically, everyone who votes, as a stakeholder, has something at stake. Large stakeholders won't vote for things that would destroy the value of their NXT, correct? They will not also vote to harm small stakeholders, because that would hurt or prevent new users from coming into the system, thus hurting their own stake. Perhaps, like others have mentioned before, we should have different voting methods for different things. 1) For bigger things like deciding decimal points, which feature should be prioritized, etc. then we can use 1 NXT = 1 Vote. On these issues, everyone should care, but the larger stakeholders technically have more at risk, so they should have more say in what direction NXT should follow. This will also encourage everyone in the NXT ecosystem to vote because there is no fee, plus they wouldn't want to hand all the power to large stakeholders. Additionally, with the wealth dispersion that is on-going, not all the large holders will vote for the same thing all the time, so I think it'll work out. 2) For more trivial things like banners, logos, etc. we can use 1 Cost = 1 Vote. The idea is that since these things are not as important, people only will pay as much as they care, which makes sense. Plus, if someone really wants a particular banner and pays 10000's of NXT... let them and redistribute NXT to everyone else. My only concern with 2) is that it may be abused, or that many stakeholders will end up not voting because they will think, "oh, I'll let other stakeholders fight it out with their NXT, not mine." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect) So I still feel 1) is the best course of action because everyone is voting with their stake, at stake. and the one thing everyone keeps ignoring the "james bond villian" scenario where large stakeholders DONT behave the way you expect. |
|
|
|
Totally agree. Fees adjusted to voting power are absolutely necessary.
IMO the best way with voting is to make the fee for the vote proportional to the stake.
What fee?  If transaction fee then stakeholders would return them by forging own transactions in own blocks.  If fee to some voting address with somewhat redistribution after voting then it is gamed again by creating many accounts.  The more I think about it the more I think it may be a good idea for you to to be forced to forfeit fees you pay in blocks you generate, specifically for reasons like this. Not sure where they would go, maybe just send to a random account that had a recent outgoing transaction. That would be sort of cool, actually. the whole gaming thing though, it why like I said before Im sort of predisposed against global voting as a method of implementing NXT operations though. so far no one has come up with anything bulletproof, so maybe it is just impractical... the only thing I can think to even come close to penalizing for gaming by using multiple accounts would be to make voting cheaper the more NXT you have. but then that is very unfair for the people with not much NXT! so maybe no solution at all? |
|
|
|
not sure what these are all about: [2014-01-26 18:21:46.114] 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$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
[2014-01-26 18:21:47.119] DEBUG: Error in block generation thread
java.lang.NullPointerException
at Nxt$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$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
[2014-01-26 18:21:48.121] DEBUG: Error in block generation thread
java.lang.NullPointerException
at Nxt$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$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
[2014-01-26 18:21:49.125] DEBUG: Error in block generation thread
java.lang.NullPointerException
at Nxt$Account.getGuaranteedBalance(Nxt.java:596)
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$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
[2014-01-26 18:21:50.128] DEBUG: Error in block generation thread
java.lang.NullPointerException
at Nxt$Account.getGuaranteedBalance(Nxt.java:596)
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$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
[2014-01-26 18:21:51.144] DEBUG: Error in block generation thread
java.lang.NullPointerException
at Nxt$Account.getGuaranteedBalance(Nxt.java:596)
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$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
[2014-01-26 18:21:52.147] DEBUG: Error in block generation thread
java.lang.NullPointerException
at Nxt$Account.getGuaranteedBalance(Nxt.java:596)
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$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:744)
[2014-01-26 18:21:52.583] Re-scanning blockchain...
[2014-01-26 18:21:57.305] Generated an incorrect block. Waiting for the next one...
[2014-01-26 18:21:59.210] ...Done
|
|
|
|
|
im wondering if there should have been a cutoff as in a date to get in on genesis block distribution. As in, only accounts that were made by a certain date could access the IPO. Make that date be like the date of post 1 of this thread.
hell, maybe even go so far as to say those accounts even had to have a certain activity level.
this way, they distribution would still be "much much more "fair" than nxt"
and sock puppet accts would be minimized a great deal. I have no doubt there are tons of sock puppets in on here even
best part of this method would be that buy in could be .001 BTC for every person, regardless of when they got in.
|
|
|
|
I am ok all say.
Why the generator would not be paid with fee of the previous block ?
Generator, no gain if waiting
Generator, no fee free
We can not demand so somebody write his compendation.
Compensation must be written by somebody else
It is common sense
very interesting suggestion |
|
|
|
The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..
It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?
I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process. Well, they are the majority. So let it be. They're not the majority. That's the point here. They are. If you have 50$ and the other guy 1$ then you have the majority of wealth. So you are should be allowed to say more. Fortunately, our democratic systems do not work this way (not yet, I fear). You should be allowed to say more if you spend more of you wealth: Say, if you spend 1/10 of your wealth it's more than if somebody spend 1/10000 of theirs. It appears it's not so important to them. NXT is an economic ecosystem, not a state. In PoS 1 NXT is equivalent to 1 person (like SSN, birth certificate, or whatever) because this is the only way to truly account for the validity of each NXT, so 1 NXT = 1 Vote. All other methods will be gamed by the rich to make the poor poorer. For example, using 1 account = 1 Vote, a large stakeholder can create 10k accounts easily, while a small stakeholder will go broke doing it. No matter what you do, the rich can always afford more accounts than the poor can. Thus voting on an account basis is unrealistic. I think a good analogy would be (within the NXT ecosystem), 1 NXT = 1 Person, Account Owner = Representative. So if you own 10k NXT, you are their representative and represent their "views", but you cannot speak for all the NXTs under other representatives. A larger holders vote should have weight proportional to their stake, but they should also pay a proportional fee to their total stake. That could be a significant cost, preventing impulsive, foolish or uneducated voting. It is the stake holders responsibility to vote in a responsible and educated manner. It is those who are pushing the changes (or dissenters) to make sure they are educated on what is being changed and why it is important/needs to be done. I can't see how anything else matters or why all these complicated, gameable voting systems are even being brought up. not saying you are wrong but i just wanted to point out that a large stake holder already has a strong incentive not to make a bad decision. if he does it will lower the value of his stake. i have stayed out of all the VS stuff until now voting on stuff really concerns me. unless tere is something to prevent someone from making a vote to steal money from someone, or something along those lines, it shouldnt be done at all. IMO the best way with voting is to make the fee for the vote proportional to the stake. |
|
|
|
I think the general policy is buyer beware - if someone's been scammed then they mustn't have been using the necessary due diligence to prevent being scammed in the first place.
it wasnt a scam, it was a trojan client that stole passwords then the theif drained accounts, to the tune of thousands of dollars |
|
|
|
|
and theoretically, whats the worst thing that someoone could do if they had the genesis acct passphrase?
|
|
|
|
Hey, guys and gals, I would be interested in representing NXT at the Texas Bitcoin Conference on March 5-6. I am in the American South not very far away (relatively speaking) and just checked, I can get a round trip jet ticket to Austin for under $300 if I book soon. The conference fee is $275 until the end of January, $325 starting in February. If the devs/community could back me for $1000 (currently around 10K NXT), I volunteer to cover this. I will kick in 20% of my annual vacation time from my day job. I am an aerospace engineer in real life, one thing I know how to do is make concise, organized presentations of complex topics... http://texasbitcoinconference.comwant a wingman? |
|
|
|
|
Hey CfB, are we at a point where still more public vpss are useful? Some donors are wondering if we should be good with what we have
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone here contacted theymos yet about looking for that ip address that was on the thiefs digex acount?
|
|
|
|
new 9 digit vanity account: 640915453 {"hallmark":"0eef079d88b20e41c1ac1f0ad7ece8ef94d34a27096d048ed96207ffd5b21f750a0049726f6c6c5568617465640000008a2d330193dfc7fe4c327db84be870b50ec9dc5d7182722f7711db721f7f0f9cc246383d0a94d485da999d1131ad49817ffe2605b07c7b670cfb98c4211e2fcf75e06af443"}
Which vanity engine are you using, the Java version? Reason that I ask is that some are suspecting the vanity engine in thefts. If the java client, have you also reviewed this code? The code I looked at only has the following imports: import java.math.BigInteger; import java.nio.charset.Charset; import java.security.MessageDigest; <- SHA256 conversion routine import java.security.SecureRandom; import java.util.Arrays; import java.util.Random; import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger; import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong; import java.util.regex.Pattern; I modified jean-lucs java vanity generator to make it search for short accounts. Im sure its safe since fromhim |
|
|
|
|
Hello, I am an admin at forums.nxcryto.org and working in conjunction with forums at nextcoin.org we have discovered thousands of dollars in theft. We have IP logs and were wondering if anyone can work with us in seeing if the IP is in any of the logs here tied to a user account.
|
|
|
|
new 9 digit vanity account: 640915453 {"hallmark":"0eef079d88b20e41c1ac1f0ad7ece8ef94d34a27096d048ed96207ffd5b21f750a0049726f6c6c5568617465640000008a2d330193dfc7fe4c327db84be870b50ec9dc5d7182722f7711db721f7f0f9cc246383d0a94d485da999d1131ad49817ffe2605b07c7b670cfb98c4211e2fcf75e06af443"}
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the stolen funds, i have already searched logs for forums.nxtcrypto.org to see if any users are in the 188.132 space. cansomeone ask admins here if they can match any user here?
Ill see if graviton can search logs from nextcoin
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
