re: Bitcoin, Darkcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, et al..
I was listening to a podcast yesterday with one of the Ripple guys. I know almost nothing about Ethereum but I'm assuming its similar to Ripple. That's to say, a massive system that makes it possible to transfer assets globally, be it currency, contracts, whatever.
Here's what I don't get. Why the need for a native Ripple currency inside this system, if the stated purpose is a system to make it safe for transfering BTC, dollars, etc.. What would be the point of the "native" ripple currency? What's the point of "Ethers" in ethereum? What's the point in having 500 different "altcoins"?
Err nope. Ethereum plays a complete different game on a complete new level. Here please educate yourself: http://forum.ethereum.org/https://blog.ethereum.org/Of course we donīt need 500 alts. Thatīs one thing Ethereum is about. A featurless platform instead of many altcoins, everyone with one special feature. An Ethereum you can build everything, and that very easy. Do they still plan to use their own custom language? |
|
|
|
Title could be updated to show Monetary System is now live  Pow mining, trustless crowd funding, stores of value and secure retail vouchers are now all available and, more importantly, being used. |
|
|
|
Looks like we got a bump and run coward  You fooled us into thinking you genuinely wanted to understand  we can help, if you just explained |
|
|
|
This is a divided issue with the community... should the Bitcoin Blockchain be the *only* blockchain?
Altcoins run the same basic code as Bitcoin with minor tweaks - nothing earth-shattering there. For an altcoin to become bigger than Bitcoin it has to be as disruptive to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is to the current financial system. Minor tweaks won't replace Bitcoin.
However, altcoins can be compared to gift cards - retailers can offer their own currency. The benefits are discounts offered (i.e. 10% off all purchases if you use our currency... it gets customers back in the door with a discount AND they have to spend it there).
There are two ways of implementing this, 1) sidechains, or 2) stand-alone cryptocurrencies. There are mixed opinions on both.
This has already been implemented in Nxt. Monetary System is Nxt's implementation of Sidechains and allows tokens (altcoins) to be created within Nxt. Retailers can create a token where they can only be transferred to and from the retailers account and supply can be inflated to create new tokens. There are 5 properties of MS, 2 used in the example above. Retail vouchers are just one use case of Monetary System. Pow mintable coins and trustless crowd funding are others. |
|
|
|
Pumpers avoid NXT because it's too stable to manipulate...
It's #12-13 in liquidity so would be a prime target without NXT whales keeping it within a range...
(This is organic, in sharp contrast to centralized, secretive Ripple shamelessly manipulating XRP in WIDE ranges for personal gain).
I don't believe NXT magically floats at a stable range "organically". I've watched the orders on NXT a long ways back. There were always constant shovelings of the same number of coins coming down on the order book like clockwork. When something like only 12 guys owned just about every coin and not a single one flinched with any large dumps to make a quick, large profit, something is fishy. Either those guys colluded behind closed doors to try and prevent a price crash from any single member selling, or maybe those 12 guys are really 1 guy. It doesn't make sense at all. From looking at the constant large caches of same number of coins constantly being sold, it was clear the holders did want to sell, and wanted to sell a lot of coins. Several parties wanting to do the same thing all at once without imploding the price would just not be possible. There was/is clearly some kind of large scale price fixing going on, otherwise there would have been some huge spikes downward that may or may not have recovered, but we just didn't see them. NXT has always felt like a single guy, or room full of guys is just controlling everything about price. Links? Or do I just trust your beliefs |
|
|
|
New research paper and investigation into "tails switching" relating to Nothing at Stake. We have updated our github repository https://github.com/ConsensusResearch/ForgingSimulation with a new version of the PoS simulation haskell code. It now included two branches, master - for the single branch classical Nxt based code and "multibranch-experimental" - for the multibranch forging simulation. Recently new algorithm for regulating tails switching effect is proposed and implemented. With it, a possibility of the N@S attack becomes also regulated as we now can introduce deducible parameter of confirmations needed to stabilize recent blocks tails. The idea of regulating is straightforward - from time to time the node "forgets" almost all the branches and prolong only those whose cumulativeDifficulty measure is above some retargeting threshold. This threshold changes discretely, starting from 0. Unlike the Bitcoin difficulty param, the threshold always grows as the best block cumulativeDifficulty exceeds the previous threshold+delta. So nodes work as multibranch almost all the time, but sometimes becomes "single-branch" for a short time (one tick). This approach allows to have all the multibranch benefits and also get the network with regulating convergence. With a certain confirmation number calculated, we can propose the strong resistance to the N@S as the long tails switching become very-very unlikely after the confirmations. We'll present the N@S simulation results ASAP. There are more possible regulation procedures, for sure. Basing on the idea that sometimes nodes switch to the single-branch behavior one can introduce any verifiable quasi-random algorithm to do this. The proposed is the simple but efficient one, however more complicated algos (e.g. based on some nice hashes) could secure the system more likely. |
|
|
|
Further research published into Nothing at Stake- "tails switching": We have updated our github repository https://github.com/ConsensusResearch/ForgingSimulation with a new version of the PoS simulation haskell code. It now included two branches, master - for the single branch classical Nxt based code and "multibranch-experimental" - for the multibranch forging simulation. Recently new algorithm for regulating tails switching effect is proposed and implemented. With it, a possibility of the N@S attack becomes also regulated as we now can introduce deducible parameter of confirmations needed to stabilize recent blocks tails. The idea of regulating is straightforward - from time to time the node "forgets" almost all the branches and prolong only those whose cumulativeDifficulty measure is above some retargeting threshold. This threshold changes discretely, starting from 0. Unlike the Bitcoin difficulty param, the threshold always grows as the best block cumulativeDifficulty exceeds the previous threshold+delta. So nodes work as multibranch almost all the time, but sometimes becomes "single-branch" for a short time (one tick). This approach allows to have all the multibranch benefits and also get the network with regulating convergence. With a certain confirmation number calculated, we can propose the strong resistance to the N@S as the long tails switching become very-very unlikely after the confirmations. We'll present the N@S simulation results ASAP. There are more possible regulation procedures, for sure. Basing on the idea that sometimes nodes switch to the single-branch behavior one can introduce any verifiable quasi-random algorithm to do this. The proposed is the simple but efficient one, however more complicated algos (e.g. based on some nice hashes) could secure the system more likely.
New paper on tails switching effect had been publicly released (https://github.com/ConsensusResearch/articles-papers/tree/master/switching). However the results of the simulations presented in the paper have been already renewed by the simulation software at https://github.com/ConsensusResearch/ForgingSimulation/tree/multibranch-experimental with the proposed threshold algorithm. As expected the algorithm allows to have confirmation number parameter deducible from the system constants and prevents the prolongation of similar branches. With it the resistance to the N@S becomes feasible and measurable! The results of N@S simulation + switching tails length distribution are coming. |
|
|
|
|
After BTER, more people using Multigateway would be beneficial 》multigateway.org
It would also have a pan-crypto benefit as people would get used to moving away from centralised exchanges. We'd then be more prepared for Average Joe to join us, especially with simple services built on Multigateway.
|
|
|
|
OP updated, rather than Voting System in version 1.5 and 2-Phased Transactions in v1.6.. ... they will both be in the next release, v1.5 Last news: 1. Overbusy with all the stuff I'm working on at the moment. So sorry for long replies / low public activity. 2. Jean-Luc & me are working on 1.5.0e polishing + 2 devs(jones/holgerd77) are working on UI. So yeah it will include voting system & two-phased transactions 
3. After 1.5.0e I plan to switch to bugfixing / performance for a while, and also research. 4. ConsensusResearch is going to finish current simulation / theoretical work and going to practical experimental implementation with Scorex, weekends project of mine. 5. Scorex ultra-compact & intentionally not-production-ready cryptocurrency. Started from Qora source code(24K lines of Java code) it will have 6-7K lines of Scala code, no native libs, Curve25519 for signing/verification, json API, command line client. Will be opensourced in February, initial ultracompact release will be named "Lagonaki". If you want to make experiments with a cryptocurrency, start with Lagonaki Then we'll add multibranching forging and test it in real life. Kushti is implementing a test of changes to forging based on his POS research group's (ConsensusResearch) findings in point 5. Further details are scarce at the moment. Seems the devs have taken to a round of bug fixing before the release of v1.5. The latest version is now 1.4.15, for anyone not paying attention |
|
|
|
Anyone minting Uranium? There was talk of a bigger buy wall a week or so ago.
There was no such buy wall. Someone mentioned it on the forum but I checked and there was no buy wall or anything The coin creator had trouble with getting the right order type for a wall. He did it eventually and it got eaten very quick. Sre the nxtforum thread. He said he would put a bigger one up in a couple of weeks. But I don't think it has happened. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone minting Uranium? There was talk of a bigger buy wall a week or so ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Nxt allows transactions to be prepared offline and then broadcast online, so your passphrase isn't exposed to an online machine.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it help if there were more testnet nodes?
|
|
|
|
|
Any word from James, Olivier or Roger?
|
|
|
|
Looking at the stats, nxtforum.org had I good month in January. New topics: 757 New posts: 13039 New members: 302 Most online: 234. Feb has already beaten most online with 311. And most of those stats are the best from the last 2-3months Looks positive |
|
|
|
Bump. And I forgot to say, nice one Bill! |
|
|
|
Bump. Testcoin with modified forging algo is still in development. Kushti will have more time after release of version 1.5 of Nxt.
is that for the challenge to break a nxt clone? if so, why modify the forging algo? would a straight clone not be the best candidate so as to acquire the most accurate results? Two separate projects. CynicSOB still thinks he can break Nxt and is still trying AFAIK. Kushti is testing improvements that could be adopted by Nxt, all being well. |
|
|
|
|
Bump. Testcoin with modified forging algo is still in development. Kushti will have more time after release of version 1.5 of Nxt.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
