|
521
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Nxt source code flaw reports
|
on: January 31, 2014, 06:49:18 PM
|
Good algorithm works equally good on 2 wallets, 3 wallets and 101 wallets and indefinite number of wallets. Bad algorithm needs someone like Come-from-Beyond to make unverifiable claims that 'it works, believe me!'
C'mon! It's not religion, it's programming!
The right way to do this is to have some penalty for fat wallets and encourage a lot of small wallets. So 100 small wallets should make more than 1 fat wallet. ok so then i break down my one 50M account into fiftty 1M accounts come on you're going to have to do better than this. if you fell for this logical trap, I dont see how you are EVER going to do your own coin... Then go with proof of burn... the bigger the risk the bigger the gain. Just like Bitcoin, the bigger the investment on mining hardware, the bigger the gain. That sounds more fair to me than a bunch of fat cats earning coins for just hoarding them. no thanks - we want 1000's of transactions/second. so we'll stay with 100% PoS. |
|
|
|
|
522
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 06:20:56 PM
|
I'm tired of people making these dumb assumptions that proof of stake forging makes the rich richer, leading to some sort of financial crisis when they have all the nxt. this is only true if they hoard them forever and never trade them... also, the only reason someone has >10k in transaction fees is because of the alias landslide... im sure the fees each day is pretty insignificant right now.
plus, those 9 50M accounts he keeps spouting about have distributed out pretty good for only 2 months. and there are 2 NEW whales that can be discounted as they are exchanges. |
|
|
|
|
523
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Transparent mining, or What makes Nxt a 2nd generation currency
|
on: January 31, 2014, 06:19:08 PM
|
For what it's worth, come-from-beyond has a point when he says that the situation is exaggerated by an artificial situation with just two accounts. I decided to try a broader simulation, and see what the effects are. So, I set this up with 26 accounts, each having a different balance from 1000 to 26000, and bumped it up to a million trials to get consistent results despite statistical noise having a greater impact on a more complex situation. Here's the code: #include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
// takes a balance; returns an interval to block forging time.
double rollem(double balance){
double roll = 0.0;
while (roll == 0.0) roll = ((double) rand())/RAND_MAX;
return 1000 * roll / balance;
}
main(){
double balances[26], times[26];
double min, totalmoney = 0.0;
int wins[26];
int winner, count, trial, TRIALS = 1000000;
for (count = 0; count < 26; count++){
balances[count] = (count+1) * 1000;
totalmoney += balances[count];
wins[count] = 0;
}
for (trial = 0; trial < TRIALS; trial++){
for (count = 0; count < 26; count++){
times[count] = rollem(balances[count]);
}
min = times[0];
winner = 0;
for (count = 1; count < 26; count++)
if (min > times[count]){
min = times[count];
winner = count;
}
wins[winner]++;
}
for (count = 0; count < 26; count++){
printf("%c got %f%% of the wins with %f%% of the money.\n", count+'A',
100*(double)wins[count]/TRIALS,
100*(double)balances[count]/totalmoney);
}
}
The effect is still present, in that the accounts with larger than median balances get more than their share of blocks, but it's considerably less important given the number of accounts and range of account values under consideration. In particular, people do not get three times the number of blocks relative to someone with half their balance; Instead they get only a tiny fraction more than double. (note, these pairs are AB, BD, CF, DH, EJ, and so on). Here are the results:
A got 0.269800% of the wins with 0.284900% of the money.
B got 0.545100% of the wins with 0.569801% of the money.
C got 0.832000% of the wins with 0.854701% of the money.
D got 1.076900% of the wins with 1.139601% of the money.
E got 1.364900% of the wins with 1.424501% of the money.
F got 1.627700% of the wins with 1.709402% of the money.
G got 1.925300% of the wins with 1.994302% of the money.
H got 2.226500% of the wins with 2.279202% of the money.
I got 2.473800% of the wins with 2.564103% of the money.
J got 2.812900% of the wins with 2.849003% of the money.
K got 3.108000% of the wins with 3.133903% of the money.
L got 3.333500% of the wins with 3.418803% of the money.
M got 3.667000% of the wins with 3.703704% of the money.
N got 3.954400% of the wins with 3.988604% of the money.
O got 4.229700% of the wins with 4.273504% of the money.
P got 4.554900% of the wins with 4.558405% of the money.
Q got 4.813100% of the wins with 4.843305% of the money.
R got 5.146400% of the wins with 5.128205% of the money.
S got 5.400300% of the wins with 5.413105% of the money.
T got 5.720200% of the wins with 5.698006% of the money.
U got 6.039900% of the wins with 5.982906% of the money.
V got 6.336200% of the wins with 6.267806% of the money.
W got 6.610200% of the wins with 6.552707% of the money.
X got 7.018400% of the wins with 6.837607% of the money.
Y got 7.296000% of the wins with 7.122507% of the money.
Z got 7.616900% of the wins with 7.407407% of the money.
very cool simulation. that started leveling out very quickly from just 2 accounts to 26. |
|
|
|
|
524
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Nxt source code flaw reports
|
on: January 31, 2014, 06:15:37 PM
|
Good algorithm works equally good on 2 wallets, 3 wallets and 101 wallets and indefinite number of wallets. Bad algorithm needs someone like Come-from-Beyond to make unverifiable claims that 'it works, believe me!'
C'mon! It's not religion, it's programming!
The right way to do this is to have some penalty for fat wallets and encourage a lot of small wallets. So 100 small wallets should make more than 1 fat wallet. ok so then i break down my one 50M account into fiftty 1M accounts come on you're going to have to do better than this. if you fell for this logical trap, I dont see how you are EVER going to do your own coin... |
|
|
|
|
525
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 06:04:23 PM
|
...Whoever gets the most coins makes most coins, how is that different from ASICs on Bitcoin? Someone care to explain?
jeez man, what youve just posted is EXACTLY what we've been shouting for months. The difference is that your ASICs depreciate, consume lots of power, and require maintenance That's right. With Bitcoin early miners have their ASIC equipment depreciate. Furthermore, to keep up with the mining they have to consume power, do maintenance and acquire new rigs. With 100% proof of stake, the big holders just sits there forging coin without any real costs. He does not do any mainetance, he is not required to add new investments, he just sits on his hoard and acquires new coins. Did I miss something here? much easier than bitcoin mining, right? and imagine how dirty filthy stinking RICH these people are going to be when transparent mining REALLY kicks in to allow 1000s of transactions per second, and NXT spreads wide... just imagine. or heres a thought: instead of just imagining, you can risk your $ like everyone else here has and get your own hoard. |
|
|
|
|
528
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 05:49:12 PM
|
An account with 2 million NXT generated 28 NXT... the 50 million NXT guy generated almost 100k NXT lol
The concept is pretty flawed. Whoever gets the most coins makes most coins, how is that different from ASICs on Bitcoin? Someone care to explain?
It ain't, early adopters get richer. That is what proof of stake is. The more stake I have, the richer I become. OMG! an account with zero NXT forged 81K NXT!!! oh teh noes! com one. you can make all kinds of accusations, doesnt mean you have all the facts |
|
|
|
|
529
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 05:25:52 PM
|
You say that it is scary, but that is exactely what is happening with BTC and the brainwallet apllication. Someone created huge rainbowtables and runs a bot that detects incoming tx and just sweaps all accounts. Everything that is shorter than 12-14 digits ist just sweapt within <0.5 seconds.
Ive just sent a message to Jean-Luc: or the next release can you change "Your secret phrase is too short
and can be easily picked by a hacker!" to be "This passphrase is too short, and will most likely result in NXT being stolen! Do not use words, sentences, or any literary or common phrase or sentence. A secure passphrase will be at least 35 characters long and consist of random numbers, letters, and special characters. Or you can use a combination of 10 random words that make no sense when put together"
also, when the user attempts to unlock an account, when the popup that comes up with the text box for the user to enter the passphrase in, please also print "A simple passphrase will most likely result in NXT being stolen! Do not use any common phrase or a sentence that makes common sense, or that is common in spoken/literary world. A secure passphrase will be at least 35 characters long and consist of random numbers, letters, and special characters. Or you can use a combination of 10 random words that make no sense when put together"
|
|
|
|
|
531
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 03:54:41 PM
|
IMO, if we are to use a prefix, it should ONLY be N and not NXT, and then there should be no dash between the N and the rest of the account.
Then it will do nothing for branding, because it will just look like part of the address (that's also true for the ridiculous NxxxxXxxxxT scheme). I also prefer short addresses, but since some people strongly believe in branding we added an optional "NXT-" prefix. the fact that its THERE though. at the very front. accomplishes the same function I dont particularly care for the N prefix AT ALL. but if we absolutely MUST then please just make it part of the address, with no dash. it removes the balance of the address. |
|
|
|
|
532
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 03:35:45 PM
|
...
If there ever was a NXT wallet, it would be an illusion for general public users. NXT is a brainwallet, all a user's NXT is stored on the encrypted blockchain itself and not in a separate file that can be taken offline and stored in a bank safe deposit box. This is why long 40+ random passwords are so important - with NXT your holdings are available to you anywhere at any time, but they can be attacked continuously by hackers as well. There is no hiding your NXT away from others offline, it is always in the cloud.
...
I dont think this is correct. You could completely skip the passphrase step and just generate 256 bits of entropy in a NXT wallet.dat file to be used as a private key and have the client to use this data directly instead of asking for passphrase. I believe it would also be possible to create a bitcoin client that uses a brainwallet password as well, where a passphrase is used in an algorithm to generate the appropriate bitcoin addresses (though this scenario would have the same risks we are seeing with short passphrases, though the difference is that with bitcoin, there wouldnt be a 2^64 vs 2^256 thing we have) I believe BCNext chose the brainwallet method to make it possible to actually contain an account in your head, so as to be able to leave absolutely no trace on paper or disk if so desired. But theres just nothing from preventing a client to use the bitcoin method |
|
|
|
|
536
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 03:17:48 PM
|
Funny thing. Lyaffe made a challenge with guessing a passphrase https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,3718.0.htmlI decided to simplify rules, created an account with simple passphrase and sent 100 Nxt to that account. The passphrase was an answer to the question: "I'm a big fun of soap operas and have no idea about security.". Guess what. Someone stole 100 Nxt before I even managed to post the question  What the hell? How is that possible? It is already known that there is a bot running that checks the balances of very simple passwords. If you send some NXT to accounts of passphrases "1" or smthg, it will be gone within 45 seconds! This is really scary. There is apparently a continuous, ongoing attack against NXT looking for weak passwords. There is no way to know how many hackers are doing this or how much computer horsepower is being directed towards this because the attack can be run offline against a copy of the blockchain. Every day we are signing up 100 users on average and we are hoping to get many, many more. NEW USERS ARE NOT BEING TOLD OFTEN ENOUGH OR STRONGLY ENOUGH ABOUT THE IMPORTACE OF A LOOOONG RANDOM PASSWORD. Every day new users are coming in and using a short password and immediately lose their NXT just like dzarmush did. They do not put a happy smile after their experience. They do not put a happy smile after their experience. They do not put a happy smile after their experience. I truly believe that one of the biggest threats to NXT is word of mouth about poor security. "Yeah, I tried to buy some NXT, it was stolen in 24 hours, better steer clear of that coin..." That kind of talk - and the poor security hygene that precipitate it - needs to be nipped in the bud NOW. We only get a fresh reputation once - and people are losing NXT at an alarming rate, at least it seems that way to me. Some day when I am all caught up (ha ha ha) I want to start a Wiki page listing every known past instance of lost NXT and have new users record their experiences on what happened to them in some kind of table. This is data we need to be accumulating. I wish my idea would get some traction. Also, look at the HUGE EMPTY BOX available when we type in a passphrase. Why is there not some info in that box for a new user to read, warning that their NXT WILL be stolen if they use a simple word/phrase, even a long sentence if it is in some vulgate? |
|
|
|
|
538
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Transparent mining, or What makes Nxt a 2nd generation currency
|
on: January 31, 2014, 03:31:26 AM
|
The analogy with throwing dice is for illustrative purposes only.
This is the problem. 100K account does have advantage over 100x 1K accounts. But this advantage is small. In ur example it's noticeable coz u use conventional dice. If u used dice with 2^64 faces u would get other results. Um, okay. Let's look at it with continuous probabilities on the range 0..1 then. Wallet A has a 100K account and wallet B has a 50K account. Wallet A throws am infinite-sided die mapped to 0..1 and gets N1, wallet B throws the same infinite-sided die and gets N2. Wallet A then takes a default generation time of (say) 10M seconds and divides by 100K x N1, while Wallet B takes the same default generation time and divides by 50K x N2. If B gets the shorter/first time, B forges the new block while if A gets the shorter/first time, A forges the new block. So, for A: 10M seconds /(100K x N1) = 100 seconds / N1 while, for B: 10M seconds/(50K x N2) = 200 seconds / N2 And that means that if N1 < N2 (ie half the time) A always forges the block. Otherwise, if N1 < N2/2, (ie, half the remaining time) A always forges the block. Otherwise, N1 > N2/2, and B forges the block. I ignore the case where N1 == N2/2; we were throwing infnite-sided dice so the probability is infinitesimal. but doesnt that correspond with what we expect as normal, where 1 out of every 3 blocks is forged by B, and 2 out of every 3 blocks is forged by A; since A has 2x as much NXT as B, then it will forge 2x as many blocks? |
|
|
|
|
539
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 31, 2014, 03:10:13 AM
|
I'm still reading about Zerocoin and do not yet understand it fully, so take that into consideration with the following: You don't necessarily have to use JNI if you intend to have Zerocoin live in AM storage. Make a stand-alone program linked to libzerocoin that will use JSON (JSON-GLib with libSoup) to talk to the Nxt server. I am, however, not clear on exactly how one would mint Zerocoin from NXT and transform previously minted Zerocoin back to NXT without a change to the Nxt server. We can easily destroy NXT that is converted to newly minted Zerocoin by sending the NXT to the genesis account. We cannot, however, generate new NXT when we want to redeem Zerocoin for NXT. What might be needed is to change the Nxt server to allow for some sort of global public NXT accumulator to keep track of number of "converted" coins at any given time (account # -1, perhaps?). But I haven't finished reading about Zerocoin so this might not be needed? I might not understand how this part is supposed to work yet. Not sure. libzercoin also appears to be tailored to the Bitcoin blockchain. Just a thought, but couldn't a parallel blockchain be used elusively for mixing purposes? You send your NXT to alt block chain, pay whatever fees, do zerocoin magic, and then your NXT appears in the parallel chain. The NXT in the parallel chain is completely identical to NXT in the main chain, so just do the reverse to get your coins back in the main chain in whatever account you specify. Nodes are encouraged to forge the parallel blockchain from the fees produced by people sending coins in and out of the mixing chain. Side-effect is that this will not bloat the main chain. I'm not sure of the implications of the security risks though... The improved zerocash algos create 288 bytes per transaction, so that is 3 transactions in an AM. I think that is small enough that we don't have to worry about bloat. I want to use as much of the existing infrastructure as possible. I sort of like this approach, it allows the user to optionally use anon or not, since anon will obviously be more expensive |
|
|
|
|
540
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Announcements (Altcoins) / Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
|
on: January 30, 2014, 09:40:04 PM
|
Nope.5 Nxt 76,860 BTC 7.686e-05 BTC 999,997,986 NXT* 185 BTC +0.79 % 6 DogeCoin 74,506 BTC 1.88e-06 BTC 39,630,915,288 DOGE 3,206 BTC +6.29 % DOGE did overtake NXT for a short time earlier today, but market changes and NXT went back up. Expect this to happen occasionally as people reach their limits and dump |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
