I detected networking issues in Bitcoin and Nxt. Both the networks r fragmented more than usualy. Does anyone know anything about this?
I don't know what does it mean, so I'll probably sound stupid but I noticed that my transaction was acting a bit different than usual. About an hour ago. There were only 30 transactions in a queue instead of hundrends and thousands and it showed 4 minutes estimated time for all 20 minutes while I was waiting for a confirmation. Usually it looks different. Much higher numbers that are changing all the time until I get the first confirmation. Done two BTC transactions this morning, first has confirmed within 20mins, the other is going a bit slower but its a mining pool transfer and that normally takes a while to get picked up so not noticed any difference. |
|
|
|
Any UK Nxt holders? We need to position ourselves to get on Bittylicious to increase liquidity. The ability to purchase Nxt without Bitcoin is a big deal and one we should put some energy towards.
I was hoping somebody else would step up to the plate on this one, but since they haven't. here's my two cents, er, shillings worth. I have a UK Barclays bank account I use to fund my online poker adventures. It's a totally legal one in my own name, no funny business; I've filed the correct paperwork on it with the IRS and Department of the Treasury here in the US and even voluntarily gave up the number for it during my last security clearance interview. I go thru a proxy and look like I'm in London since the online poker sites block me otherwise coming from an American IP address block. All of these gyrations are due to the 2006 UIEGA anti-online-poker act that was passed here in America, land of the free; but I digress... Bottom line, I've got the UK bank account but I have no desire to sell any of the NXT I've accumulated. However, I understand the importance of getting NXT hooked up to Bittylicious so I'm willing to try and help. If I've got enough public trust built up here, maybe people could dump NXT they wanted to sell into one of my toy NXT accounts, Bittilocious could take it out of that account to give to a buyer, send GBP to my Barclays account, and I could send that back to the original NXT holders via Moneybookers/Skrill (I've also got accounts there, too.) This would require me to be a trusted middleman, which I'm OK with if you are. If we really want to pursue this, let me know, I'll do my part to get NXT rolling in the UK. Fantastic... way to step up! 1. It would be nice to get just a few more people willing to do the same as Ricky 2. Who could assist Ricky with the exchange? I've went through this entire process with Peercoin. If we get our ducks in a row early, it'll be a much easier sell. John CoinTropolis I've just read this, been away for a few hours  I'm a UK resident and happen to have a 'spare' UK account in my name with Cahoot, but again I don't want to sell the 100k or so NXT I've gained. Don't know what is involved, if I can help I will but it can't be a 24x7 thing. I'll go and look up bittylicious anyway and go register etc. Ian I'm also a UK citizen and I'd be happy to offer what little assistance i can. However, my stake is pretty low in comparison to most. Nice platform just bought some bit coin for GBP, took 10mins from starting the trade to the BTC Transaction appearing in my wallet including the bank transfer time... Now I just need to wait for it to confirm... NXT is not currently on their though. |
|
|
|
Any UK Nxt holders? We need to position ourselves to get on Bittylicious to increase liquidity. The ability to purchase Nxt without Bitcoin is a big deal and one we should put some energy towards.
I was hoping somebody else would step up to the plate on this one, but since they haven't. here's my two cents, er, shillings worth. I have a UK Barclays bank account I use to fund my online poker adventures. It's a totally legal one in my own name, no funny business; I've filed the correct paperwork on it with the IRS and Department of the Treasury here in the US and even voluntarily gave up the number for it during my last security clearance interview. I go thru a proxy and look like I'm in London since the online poker sites block me otherwise coming from an American IP address block. All of these gyrations are due to the 2006 UIEGA anti-online-poker act that was passed here in America, land of the free; but I digress... Bottom line, I've got the UK bank account but I have no desire to sell any of the NXT I've accumulated. However, I understand the importance of getting NXT hooked up to Bittylicious so I'm willing to try and help. If I've got enough public trust built up here, maybe people could dump NXT they wanted to sell into one of my toy NXT accounts, Bittilocious could take it out of that account to give to a buyer, send GBP to my Barclays account, and I could send that back to the original NXT holders via Moneybookers/Skrill (I've also got accounts there, too.) This would require me to be a trusted middleman, which I'm OK with if you are. If we really want to pursue this, let me know, I'll do my part to get NXT rolling in the UK. Fantastic... way to step up! 1. It would be nice to get just a few more people willing to do the same as Ricky 2. Who could assist Ricky with the exchange? I've went through this entire process with Peercoin. If we get our ducks in a row early, it'll be a much easier sell. John CoinTropolis I've just read this, been away for a few hours I'm a UK resident and happen to have a 'spare' UK account in my name with Cahoot, but again I don't want to sell the 100k or so NXT I've gained. Don't know what is involved, if I can help I will but it can't be a 24x7 thing. I'll go and look up bittylicious anyway and go register etc. Ian |
|
|
|
They seek him here... They seek him there.... Is CFB really the 'Nxt Pimpernel'  |
|
|
|
|
A lot of voting discussion seems to be about two things;
What establishes your right to vote?
What establishes the impact of your vote?
Typically democracy recognises both;
Your right to vote is often recognised by age, residency or some other time based measure of your membership of a community and therefor your contribution to it - gbeirns previously posted idea of how long the NXT has been in that account on the block chain is one appropriate analogy to this recognised right to vote - similar to validity for forging it is a kind of proof of stake but a stake based on length of membership.
The impact of your vote - democratic systems universally reject the impact of vote being based on wealth and I think if NXT adopts this then the voting system will be see as aligned with a shareholder system, with real power in the hands of a few and would in the end kill the system.
The ONE ACCOUNT = ONE VOTE linked to the block chain height validated stake would I think represent a very real approach to achieving something akin to a decentralised democratic system that is very difficult to cheat for a particular vote.
Large stakeholders splitting stakes to vote multiples times is limited this way because they would have to do this so that the distribution was validated in the block chain, something as simple as if the account has NXT that can forge then the account can vote, if the account has no valid NXT for forging then it is too recent and can't vote. We might need a longer limit but this could be a vote parameter.
If you think about an account that can forge being an account that can contribute to the network then it follows that that account should be able to vote. There are other parameters to be debated such as voting fees and I would suggest we start with something simple.
The other interesting concept is the need to obtain a petition (minimum number of pre-votes) in order to trigger a vote across the whole network - this is valid and valuable too and should be considered - I would liken this to the minimum number of confirmations or minim consensus before the network accepts that something is valid.
|
|
|
|
+2 Me too - with potential beyond just an avatar reference. |
|
|
|
Yes, this would be the solution - if that alias of account number was locked and only the account itself can own it, then we can do this. If it is squattable, then it isn't possible to do.
CFB, what are your thoughts?
Squatting is allowed. Let's find another way. Of course it is - squatting is one of the value's of aliases... So lets not call it an alias (even if that might be its implementation) you have previously proposed locking 10 accounts in a special way for a specific reason.. So why not give all accounts a single new attribute which would support client/app/service development? Alias might be the basis of its implementation but you could call it what you like. |
|
|
|
I don't think there is an api call to filter AM's where recipient = X and sender = Y, right? (this should be added)..
Just call getAccountTransactionIDs for the account then loop and find the first one where recipient == avatar_account. Erm what's the processing time for every thousand transactions... sounds a bit like avatar mining  |
|
|
|
Upload the avatar to an AM using FileReader.readAsDataURL() and the encoded data can work inline in HTML.
Then use an Alias with a URI like "nxtavatar:AM_TRANS_ID_HERE".
Prefer to store a link to the avatar which any client can pick up. Expanding on this... How about this - all accounts automatically own the alias <account number> This alias is locked to the account. You use this alias to store in URI format a hierarchy of parameters for the person who owns the account - this can be set and managed though the clients - one of these is the avatar. Yes, this would be the solution - if that alias of account number was locked and only the account itself can own it, then we can do this. If it is squattable, then it isn't possible to do. CFB, what are your thoughts? Well if <account number> is currently squattable you could always release a 'special' that is not available in the current code like @<account number> or pick a prefix string that no-one knows when you do the code update guys |
|
|
|
Upload the avatar to an AM using FileReader.readAsDataURL() and the encoded data can work inline in HTML.
Then use an Alias with a URI like "nxtavatar:AM_TRANS_ID_HERE".
Prefer to store a link to the avatar which any client can pick up. Expanding on this... How about this - all accounts automatically own the alias <account number> This alias is locked to the account. You use this alias to store in URI format a hierarchy of parameters for the person who owns the account - this can be set and managed though the clients - one of these is the avatar. |
|
|
|
I guess one option would be for someone to create a site that will host all avatars.
http://gravatar.com ? why can't you just specify an avatar url in an alias and put it in the client profile. trying to store avatar data in the alias is a bit crazy and limiting. and one site - how decentralized is that? Once once client dev comes up with a good solution all the other client devs will copy it hopefully |
|
|
|
I've ran out of beer and have to use fiat to buy more. This should be fixed ASAP. Will be back in 30 minutes.
Have it delivered.... Better still give your local supplier a NXT account - we'll keep it topped up and he can deliver. |
|
|
|
did I somehow forge an empty block or are there unlucky blocks and I've been unlucky 3 times in a row?
Right. There are still many empty blocks on network. So what causes the empty blocks and will there always be so many? Because then the description of the likelihood to forge a block i'm sure is correct, but the likely hood of a reward from that is 25%  based on my current experience. |
|
|
|
Apologies if this is answered already but i've been following this since page 10 and I can't remember... I've forged four blocks so far according to the block chain, I received a fee of 4 NXT for the first block I forged and ZERO for the other 3 - is this right? If every transaction has fees then how can a block reward be zero or did I somehow forge an empty block or are there unlucky blocks and I've been unlucky 3 times in a row? |
|
|
|
Yes, I've tested it (I presume it's the same version, which runs on his site). You can test it yourself: https://nxtnotify.appspot.com/convertNXTDM-MTZUD-G9LBC-VQELG <- correct address NXTDM-KTZUD-G9KBC-VQZLG <- make 3 typos NXTDM-KTZUD-G9K6C-VQZGG <- it corrects it to an incorrect, but valid account. Boom, money lost! And as I said, error correction is very limited: if you forget to type just one character or type just one extra character - it won't help you anyway. Persistent The concept is essentially verifying the decoder output by adding an error detection to the expected output before encoding, my first example was a bit primitive and therefore expensive. This could also be done with a smaller number of bytes by appending a Luhn check digit and then recalculating this after decoding - that would reduce the risk and the overhead. After all the error correction is part of the AWESOME bit isn't it - we should try to keep it. |
|
|
|
I am not explaining myself perhaps, so I'll have one more go
Adding any sort of check pattern is just increasing redundancy. You suggest to add about 32-bit more redundancy to what's already there (20-bit). This will make addresses 6 characters longer: DM-MTZUD-G9LBC-VQELG DM-MTZUD-G9LBC-VQELG-FJWKJD just to save the superficial error correction, which is only useful in those rare cases where you actually have to type the address. Without error correction we already have both short addresses and a pretty decent collision ratio of 1 in a million. It means there are million times more possible addresses than valid addresses. So the most reasonable solution here is probably to just drop the error correction. I would have to agree based on this example but the concept is essentially verifying the decoder output by adding an error detection to the output of the decoder - see below |
|
|
|
Not an expert in math but one solution I have seen before to this type of problem is to insert a known pattern into the encoded data before encoding, and then check it after decoding.
Interesting idea, but it won't work in this case. The RS algorithm treats the whole message as a polynomial, so you can't just arbitrary insert values in it, it will be the same as introducing more errors. And if we insert this pattern into addresses before sending, it will be the same as just increasing the parity and will make addresses longer. I am not explaining myself perhaps, so I'll have one more go RS is used in data sending.... The data blocks are pre-encoded with a known check pattern which is ALWAYS there If the decoder fails because of too much noise then the encoded block is rejected because the check pattern is corrupted too. They are not arbitrary values but a pattern defined in the encoding standard (i.e. not added by the user but your software) that is always added into an account number before encoding and must always be present and intact after decoding otherwise you reject because the input was too corrupt to reproduce. The user never sees it or knows it. |
|
|
|
Anyone here with math background who can help with Reed-Solomon codes problem?It's needed for the New Address Format: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=524Original ricot's idea was to use RS codes to auto-correct typos to get superficial, but cool advantage over bitcoin addresses. But it seems there is a problem. We know that with parity = 4 the algorithm can reliably detect up to 4 errors or correct up to 2. What isn't mentioned is that those choices seem to be exclusive. You can either detect 4 errors for sure and get general 1/million collision probability (we use 20-bit redundancy) OR you can try to correct errors. In almost quantum-physics-style weirdness, if you try to correct errors, you cannot use the previous check anymore!And error correction fails miserably if there are more than 2 errors: it cannot detect that there are more. So it corrects into an incorrect address and there seems to be no way to verify this. To put it in layman’s terms: you make more than 2 typos and you will almost certainly lose your money. This is unacceptable. So can anyone either confirm this behavior or tell me what I am missing? Not an expert in math but one solution I have seen before to this type of problem is to insert a known pattern into the encoded data before encoding, and then check it after decoding. if the decoder fails the known pattern will fail to be reproduced and then you can trap the error, to my knowledge if the error correcting capability of reed solomon is exceeded then it will always generate an incorrect result but the probability of it maintaining the check data pattern and only corrupting the real data payload should be low - this would need some testing. e.g. take account number 3323287590575539129 introduce known check pattern for example a progression 33 123 228 375 490 557 655 739 8129 9encode it NXT-ABCD etc if you make a mistake decoding 33 124 223 475 490 657 655 739 8129 9You don't know what the account number should be but your algorithm can expect the check pattern to be correct hope this helps. |
|
|
|
1.2 Trillion units? Why not 12 Trillion? It's not that much further.  Had an idea for a coin called googleplxt (you can guess how many coins that is!) reckon I could create them all with one Mastercoin... |
|
|
|
In my mind a true democratic system would be each person has an equal say regardless how much you own (NXT in this case).
"Decentralized" doesn't imply "democratic" i think. Comments? That's a fair point. Agree A lot of voting discussion seems to be about two things; What establishes your right to vote? What establishes the impact of your vote? Typically democracy recognises both; Your right to vote is often recognised by age, residency or some other time based measure of your membership of a community and therefor your contribution to it - gbeirns idea of how long the account has existed on the block chain is one appropriate analogy to this recognised right to vote - it is a kind of proof of stake but a stake based on length of membership. The impact of your vote - democratic systems universally reject the impact of vote being based on wealth and I think if NXT adopts this then the voting system will be see as aligned with a shareholder system and would in the end kill the system. The one account one vote linked to the block chain type proof of stake would I think represent a very real approach to achieving something akin to a decentralised democratic system that is very difficult to cheat for a particular vote. The other interesting concept is the need to obtain a petition (minimum number of votes) in order to trigger a vote across the whole network - this is valid and valuable too and should be considered - I would liken this to the minimum number of confirmations or minim consensus before the network accepts that something is valid. I do not think that wealth or amount of NXT should define the ability to access and use the voting system. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
