can you imagine how much different right now would be if there were a direct buy option with coinbase/btce for fiat/NXT? |
|
|
|
friggin morons. its not like they were warned or anything. oh wait... (friggin morons) |
|
|
|
I view the fee as a blockchain spam deterrent, any possible ROI is secondary IMHO. We don't have any major activity on the blockchain at the moment. All is relatively quiet, but that will change as services are added and merchants begin to use NXT for payment. After only a few short months of very little activity the full blockchain is already over 50 megs on disk.
I think the fee should only be changed if the price of NXT goes up significantly. My 0.25 NXT minimum fee vote was based on the thought of 1 NXT going to the stable range of $0.15 to ~$0.30 cents US in the next six months.
I still say trying to tie the fee to some FIAT is the wrong direction. Ill say it again - a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain. So lets say a NXT transfer is 128bytes, and its fee is .1NXT, so then an AM or alias transaction of size 256bytes should then cost .2NXT, and other transaction types follow the same method of fee determination. We would determine a "base" transaction that is the smallest possible transaction, and set the .1 NXT fee to it. (or .01 or .05 or whatever the community decides) and then scale every other transaction's fee to be based on its size compared to the base one. But no one likes my idea.  This proposal will require a bit more code; but for the moment I think a straight .1 NXT for all works, as it will encourage more use for now. |
|
|
|
Who wants to use real live SSL certificates with NRS? Instructions on creating and using (with NRS's Jetty) a self-signed certificate, or requesting and using a CA-signed certificate (for NRS's Jetty) are in the new Wiki How-to guide http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/How-To:UseSslCerts |
|
|
|
my very smart wife suggested that perhaps the reason why the price is rising is because our whale is out of power.
I for one thank our whale. Seriously. Dropping the price gives even better opportunity for others to enter. Maybe they realized this and capitaliazed instead of maintaining their butthurt. |
|
|
|
In trust we trust:
In fide credimus
(no idea if that's a valid translation!)
Id say that "in no trust we trust" since we are trying to go trustless here SPQR  Had to troll this, apologies  wait arent you greek? LOL what are you doing saying that? |
|
|
|
@C-f-b you said that the fee won't be lowered this week. But can you give a roughly ETA? Because we need to know that to do our planing on reddit.
I'm quite busy this and next week with Asset Exchange and Voting System. U should ask Jean-Luc if he is planning to change min fee in the nearest future. It doesnt look like it will happen in the near future - I got with him and hes actually not aware yet if there will be backwards compatibility between existing clients and a new client that supports 01 NXT as lowest transaction fee and .01 NXT as lowest amount to be used in a transfer. Can you comment on what happens on current code and if a forger on exsiting code sees a signed transaction from a user on new code who signed a tranasaction to transfer .01NXT and a fee of .1 NXT? He also is concerned about existing javascript IU implementations |
|
|
|
|
what were the results of all us posting which min fee we wanted? Did .1 or .01 get the most?
and if .1 got the most votes, then i guess when it gets implemented, then I think that the lowest NXT about to be specified will be .01, which is less than the lowest fee.
|
|
|
|
I, from my side, was only talking about a landing page, not a new homepage. A 1-pager where someone who is new to Nxt (but has general understanding of cryptos) can start his way which can lead to the wiki, nxtcrypto, dgex, bter, or any other site with more specific information about a topic.
ah. cool, well if anyone ever wants any DNS name, start.nxtcrypto.org or whatever.nxtcrypto.org, let me know the IP and Ill set the A record. |
|
|
|
guys, instead of making 3 new domains/websites because you dont like the current one at www.nxtcrypto.org, why not make suggestions to the site? Everything was formed with the idea that we wanted the community to decide what they wanted, and we would make it so <gateway stuff>
Nice work on getting us all started on this. Keep in mind that for some assets such as BTC you could just imply a certain number of decimal points for more resolution. Its times like this I wish I had gone the CS route in stead of the easier IT route in university - Im no coder. Oh well, wish I could help out more. But yes, the trust thing will be difficult. Possibly some aspect of account control will assist here, whenever it comes out, since it looks like we will see account control instead of regular multisig. One of the critical parts of the gateway is the trusted server and that's your area isn't it? How much would it cost to run a hardened gateway server? Also, is there a way to set it up so that the keys used for the deposit wallet are only accessible to the gateway program itself? Here I go with the crazy stuff, but I cant help it, I spend all day researching about zeroknowledge this, magical algorithm that. It just gets to the point if I assume that anything can be done, usually somebody says, I read about something like that here <magic URL> So, let us ignore how we initialize this server as that is most tricky. I am imagining that there is a way to get a runtime signature of the gateway software code. This will be independently scanned and validated before any wallet access by a separate process. Maybe its as simple as a signed .jar file. We need a secure way to access the wallet for all the different cryptos. We want to make sure only the approved gateway code is able to do this. I need somebody who knows about multisig, crypto in general, magic, to help figure out how the runtime can be secured. Even if somebody gets access to the server, I want the most damage they could do to be to blow up the server. this is a pain, but with all the pending transactions store in AM in the NXT blockchain, after a delay, everything should be back to normal I am pretty sure somebody supertrusted needs to set things up, eg. making sure the code is compiled from the approved source and creating all the different keys and putting the backup in a physically secure place to be accessed only in emergency. Not sure at all the right process, just throwing out something as a starting point for someone who knows how to properly setup a secure server and a bit of crypto magic a hardened secure server isnt too difficult - any fool can buy the equipment and install it into a secure hosting facility. hardening it from access is a little trickier but can be done. abstracting the runtime for the server is the part that is nearly impossible - would require basically 2 people living together to accomplish that - for this business Id say that is most likely undoable. will have to think about this more. |
|
|
|
From what I read it is basically using statistics to estimate the chance of a double spend happening. As more and more nodes see it, it becomes less likely for any chain to override this. I did not see any mathematical proofs about the accuracy of this method, especially how it would fare under a selfish mining attack. For example, a selfish mining group could have many blocks prepared ahead of time and even though it would be statistically unlikely, it could happen. Since the article is talking about a statistical method, odds are good that it works, just not 100% guaranteed. Probably fine for small transactions, but if you are dealing with big amounts, just be patient. As for how it affects NXT, I dont see much here to worry about. firstgen cryptos are still limited in the number of transactions, nothing close to 1000TPS would be in the cards for bitcoin anytime soon James yeah, there were any proofs at all; it seems that there is some kind of "rule of thumb" they have discovered. They seem to confuse the selfish miner 25%/33% issue with doublespending; Im pretty sure they are complete separate issues. Someone please correct me if im wrong. Selfish mining, or a pool finding a block but not advertising it to the blockchain while it works on the next block (all other miners have no idea they should be working on the next block, so the selfish miner has the advantage; obviously the risk is that someone else publishes your block while you are headstarting) in advance, doesnt really apple to NXT's POS method. Apparently they just have some rule of thumb for probability of doublespending. If this is the case it WILL be exploited. |
|
|
|
<gateway stuff>
Nice work on getting us all started on this. Keep in mind that for some assets such as BTC you could just imply a certain number of decimal points for more resolution. Its times like this I wish I had gone the CS route in stead of the easier IT route in university - Im no coder. Oh well, wish I could help out more. But yes, the trust thing will be difficult. Possibly some aspect of account control will assist here, whenever it comes out, since it looks like we will see account control instead of regular multisig. |
|
|
|
1% transaction fee? You are kidding.
0.05% would be acceptable I think.
Why do you think a percentage is not a good idea?
I think it this way: percentages will lead to higher fees in total, which will lead to higher distribution of NXTs.
ok thats not a bad rate at all. I was expecting some yahoo to want a much bigger cut. so then we have something like amt percentage fee rounded 1.00 0.05% 0.0005 0.01 10.00 0.05% 0.005 0.01 100.00 0.05% 0.05 0.01 1,000.00 0.05% 0.5 0.5 10,000.00 0.05% 5 5 100,000.00 0.05% 50 50 1,000,000.00 0.05% 500 500 10,000,000.00 0.05% 5000 5000 100,000,000.00 0.05% 50000 50000 Those lower amount transactions have their fees rounded up to .01 as it appears that will be our lowest expressable amount of NXT in the near future. CfB has stated that .01 is fairly easy to accomplish, but that lower than that will be 'complex' Can you elaborate on why you think it will improve distribution? I say that its the fatcats that are forging that will suck those up, actually making the distribution worse, countertuitive to your logic, but I may be wrong, can you walk me through it if you think Im wrong? Then there is the issue of all the high rollers's transactions always having priority over lower ones. IMO a percentage based fee goes against the spirit of the concept of decentralized banking. Where now, thats how the bankers do things - they get their % cut. With a single fee everything is equal, unless you WANT priority by paying for it. |
|
|
|
Well, can't see why a percentage would be bad.
Centralization is an issue. How do we counteract?
dude, if you think the thrashing to NXT reputation has been bad so far, just wait till howling about how "the 73 big fat rich NXT stakeholders have decided to mandatory charge a percentage based transaction fee". Think about it this way: will you still think its a good idea the next time YOU want to transfer 10000 NXT and are hit with a 100 NXT transfer fee instead of our soon to be base fee of .1 NXT? Especially when that 100 NXT ends up going to a 'big fat rich stakeholder'? If you do this, prepare for NXT adoption rates to plummet. Lower transaction fees will actually end up ENCOURAGING more transactions. WTF people, I swear its like all the libtards here in the US wanting to raise taxes EVERYWHERE to pay for their social programs, resulting in lower activity in business, and then they wonder why shit isnt working. WTF people, yeah all the 0bamacare bullshit is REALLY helping out, people are starting to wake up now that employers are starting to cut hours of employees to prevent having to pay healthcare. nice move dumbasses |
|
|
|
yes those were the instructions I used. Actually most of that has already been done, as the NRS client as provided by JLP already has SSL enabled with a default keystore and a self-signed cert. I just imported my cert in there as per those instructions, should be fairly simple, but... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont think approaching anything from the "rich getting richer" is a good idea in a 100% POS system. IMO though fee should be based on transaction byte size. And even if it were based on scale of larger transactions = larger fee, the 'rich' are more apt to mine those higher fee blocks anyways. There just doesnt seem to be a way to prevent the 'problem', as it were. Regardless, 'the critics' wont matter the more and more NXT features are released.
The real concern here is people just giving up forging, or centralizing their forging power into central pools.
I understand that in a POS system the people with the most stake are getting more rewarded. But how about people with less money/BTC and also want to join Nxt? I have over 100k, but in 24/7 I forge 9 NXT in a month... So from today I quited forging, to much risk for the reward. I am sorry.  I am just thinking out loud about how we can get Nxt more fair and better. BTC: buy tons of mining power, which depreciates, and the cost of the BTC you earn also depreciates by 10% each year. Or buy tons of NXT to forge NXT, which doesnt depreciate. NXT is just as 'unfair' as BTC is; Id say the fact that asic power depreciates puts NXT over the top. As well as NXT is deflationary since some bozos destroy their NXT. Dude, RIGHT FREAKING NOW is the opportunity to buy TONS of NXT, BEFORE it really goes mainstream. We are at the point now comparable to BTC's stage when BTC was $0.01/BTC. I just dont understand what people are bitching about. Oh, but some other people bought 49M NXT for only 1BTC, WHAAAAAAAA! Well what about the point when BTC cost was only $.0001/BTC, was that also not unfair? |
|
|
|
Are there any jetty experts here? Im trying to add new SSL cert to NRS's default keystore which is using default password of storepwd. I used the keytool command to import a pkcs12 keyfile (containing server.key, server.crt, and intermediate.crt) as per instructions at http://www.eclipse.org/jetty/documentation/current/configuring-ssl.html but after 'NRS 0.7.3 started successfully.' message in console it bombs with java.lang.reflect.InvocationTargetException
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Unknown Source)
at org.eclipse.jetty.start.Main.invokeMain(Main.java:297)
at org.eclipse.jetty.start.Main.start(Main.java:724)
at org.eclipse.jetty.start.Main.main(Main.java:103)
Caused by: java.security.UnrecoverableKeyException: Cannot recover key
at sun.security.provider.KeyProtector.recover(Unknown Source)
at sun.security.provider.JavaKeyStore.engineGetKey(Unknown Source)
at sun.security.provider.JavaKeyStore$JKS.engineGetKey(Unknown Source)
at java.security.KeyStore.getKey(Unknown Source)
at sun.security.ssl.SunX509KeyManagerImpl.<init>(Unknown Source)
at sun.security.ssl.KeyManagerFactoryImpl$SunX509.engineInit(Unknown Source)
at javax.net.ssl.KeyManagerFactory.init(Unknown Source)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.ssl.SslContextFactory.getKeyManagers(SslContextFactory.java:904)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.ssl.SslContextFactory.doStart(SslContextFactory.java:297)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.ContainerLifeCycle.start(ContainerLifeCycle.java:117)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.ContainerLifeCycle.doStart(ContainerLifeCycle.java:99)
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.SslConnectionFactory.doStart(SslConnectionFactory.java:64)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.ContainerLifeCycle.start(ContainerLifeCycle.java:117)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.ContainerLifeCycle.doStart(ContainerLifeCycle.java:99)
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.AbstractConnector.doStart(AbstractConnector.java:259)
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.AbstractNetworkConnector.doStart(AbstractNetworkConnector.java:81)
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.ServerConnector.doStart(ServerConnector.java:218)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
at org.eclipse.jetty.server.Server.doStart(Server.java:336)
at org.eclipse.jetty.util.component.AbstractLifeCycle.start(AbstractLifeCycle.java:69)
at org.eclipse.jetty.xml.XmlConfiguration$1.run(XmlConfiguration.java:1250)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at org.eclipse.jetty.xml.XmlConfiguration.main(XmlConfiguration.java:1174)
... 7 more
no idea what Im doing wrong. Does anyone see anything wrong with my keystore? # keytool -list -keystore /root/nxt-kit/nxt/etc/keystore -storepass storepwd Keystore type: JKS Keystore provider: SUN Your keystore contains 2 entries jetty, Nov 7, 2008, PrivateKeyEntry, Certificate fingerprint (SHA1): 66:62:5A:2B:2F:96:E1:88:E7:27:19:E0:0E:C6:60:B0:FC:86:B2:64 1, Feb 12, 2014, PrivateKeyEntry, Certificate fingerprint (SHA1): 0B:50:A2:84:81:4A:9C:15:42:6C:19:30:13:98:1D:B2:53:B6:C4:B1 # |
|
|
|
Am I right in seeing that the fees for the asset exchange get sent to the Genesis account (destroyed)?
wow I hope thats not the case.... was hoping for some mega craziness for asset issuing, like there was for around block 22000 for alias release or it could just be that someone is forging on holms with the genesis acct. LOL |
|
|
|
Sometimes I feel a bit frustrated about the fee-system of Nxt, when I see these kind of blocks passing by:  Fee = 0,0016%  Fee = 33,33% It's not really fair and the rich are getting even richer this way. I love Nxt, but there are small flaws which needs to be addressed. The critics will talk negative about Nxt because of these kind of issues. Maybe a percentage instead of a fixed fee? Curious to hear about the options. I dont think approaching anything from the "rich getting richer" is a good idea in a 100% POS system. IMO though fee should be based on transaction byte size. And even if it were based on scale of larger transactions = larger fee, the 'rich' are more apt to mine those higher fee blocks anyways. There just doesnt seem to be a way to prevent the 'problem', as it were. Regardless, 'the critics' wont matter the more and more NXT features are released. The real concern here is people just giving up forging, or centralizing their forging power into central pools. |
|
|
|
[2014-02-12 22:46:03.661] DEBUG: Blacklisting vps1.nxtcrypto.org because of: Invalid timestamp: 6925580 current time is 6925564, previous block timestamp is 6925570 Hey, who is the owner? You node run too fast! results of 'date -u' on that server is dead on to just 2 secs of UTC. |
|
|
|
I can assist, Ive done a lot of experimenting with AE API |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
