[ANN][CrowdSale Ended]🌟🌟🌟🌟 NVO Decentralized Exchange | MultiWallet 🌟🌟🌟🌟

[ChromaticStar]

I haven't seen anything in the Whitepaper about "Reputation" or "Trust" of users, but I think they would be required. This may require some form of registration process. Here are a couple of possibilities.

Regarding a peer-to-peer transaction, how do you ensure that both peers add the appropriate transaction fee to ensure it is confirmed by the network allowing both parties to receive their trade?

Example: User A exchanges Bitcoin for Dash with User B. Neither user sets a fee. User A receives Dash right away, User B sees the Bitcoin transaction broadcasts to the network but it never gets confirmed.

Could it be possible for a user to outperform the validator's verification and transaction broadcast process causing a double-spend transaction and resulting in one user ending up with nothing?

Would a "Report User" feature be required if someone gets screwed out of their transaction?

Thanks for the feed back, regarding the verifications, they will be done by the validator, if there is any issue regarding the transactions it would be a fail due to NVO, there will be several verifications done by both sides prior to allow a transaction broadcast, if the user doesn't defines a transaction fee, it will be defined by the wallet when the order is sent. in order to cheat on the validator, one would have to get access to the validator which is secured by safeNet's encryption and protocole.

My second question may not have been clear enough. Since users control their private key, it is possible for them to have a non-NVO wallet that also broadcasts transactions for the same address. If I understand it correctly, there would be a small window of opportunity (fractions of a second) between when the validator verifies funds on the network and when it broadcasts a transaction. A user could broadcast a transaction with their non-NVO wallet after the validator has verified funds but before it broadcasts a transaction. The network will accept the first transaction from the non-NVO wallet broadcast and reject the validators broadcasted transaction as a double-spend. An attacker could quite easily take advantage of this critical loop-hole, hence the need for some measure of "Trust" between users on the exchange when conducting a transaction. If exchange volumes increased to a high level, would it be possible for a trusted user to launch a continuous massive double-spend attack across the market resulting in huge losses to users? DEXs are still a new concept and I don't know if this is a vulnerability or if it has been addressed or exploited yet.

[mattermaster]

It was a little hard to bind my bitcoin address to the NVO, but finally i registered my personal BTC address to which i hold the private key.
Just waiting the day the tokens would start distributing.
Thanks to NVO

[Wipro]

It was a little hard to bind my bitcoin address to the NVO, but finally i registered my personal BTC address to which i hold the private key.
Just waiting the day the tokens would start distributing.
Thanks to NVO

Superb, You can check with the moderators to about the distributing dates of the token. Lauda, she is best person to solve the queries in any project.

I hope NVO will come across and rank up to top decentralized exchange like bitsquare.io or other famous exchanges.

[GustavGans]

I added a receiving address from my electrum wallet to the NVO(-ICO) account, as the guide says...

But I wondered if I need the private key by itself (the one which belongs to this one receiving address) afterwards or if I can use the seed (12 word phrase) to use the NVO wallet and see my NVOTs? (when they are distributed of course...)
Thanks in advance!

[Lauda]

I added a receiving address from my electrum wallet to the NVO(-ICO) account, as the guide says...

If you are investing altcoins, then that is the right step. If you are investing Bitcoin, you need to keep in mind that the address that you enter into the dashboard is not important (although, optimally it should be the same).

But I wondered if I need the private key by itself (the one which belongs to this one receiving address) afterwards or if I can use the seed (12 word phrase) to use the NVO wallet and see my NVOTs? (when they are distributed of course...)
Thanks in advance!

You need the private key of the address.

[nemgun]

I haven't seen anything in the Whitepaper about "Reputation" or "Trust" of users, but I think they would be required. This may require some form of registration process. Here are a couple of possibilities.

Regarding a peer-to-peer transaction, how do you ensure that both peers add the appropriate transaction fee to ensure it is confirmed by the network allowing both parties to receive their trade?

Example: User A exchanges Bitcoin for Dash with User B. Neither user sets a fee. User A receives Dash right away, User B sees the Bitcoin transaction broadcasts to the network but it never gets confirmed.

Could it be possible for a user to outperform the validator's verification and transaction broadcast process causing a double-spend transaction and resulting in one user ending up with nothing?

Would a "Report User" feature be required if someone gets screwed out of their transaction?

Thanks for the feed back, regarding the verifications, they will be done by the validator, if there is any issue regarding the transactions it would be a fail due to NVO, there will be several verifications done by both sides prior to allow a transaction broadcast, if the user doesn't defines a transaction fee, it will be defined by the wallet when the order is sent. in order to cheat on the validator, one would have to get access to the validator which is secured by safeNet's encryption and protocole.

My second question may not have been clear enough. Since users control their private key, it is possible for them to have a non-NVO wallet that also broadcasts transactions for the same address. If I understand it correctly, there would be a small window of opportunity (fractions of a second) between when the validator verifies funds on the network and when it broadcasts a transaction. A user could broadcast a transaction with their non-NVO wallet after the validator has verified funds but before it broadcasts a transaction. The network will accept the first transaction from the non-NVO wallet broadcast and reject the validators broadcasted transaction as a double-spend. An attacker could quite easily take advantage of this critical loop-hole, hence the need for some measure of "Trust" between users on the exchange when conducting a transaction. If exchange volumes increased to a high level, would it be possible for a trusted user to launch a continuous massive double-spend attack across the market resulting in huge losses to users? DEXs are still a new concept and I don't know if this is a vulnerability or if it has been addressed or exploited yet.

Sorry, maybe I haven't been clear enough, creating a multisig address with the validator means that you will use one of your addresses, and create a multisig address using one of the validator's addresses, the result will be a shared address, which means that even if a user have the private key of the parent address (the one used to create the multisig address) and tries to broadcast a transaction, the validator will refuse to sign it as any transaction would require both signatures.

[ChromaticStar]

I haven't seen anything in the Whitepaper about "Reputation" or "Trust" of users, but I think they would be required. This may require some form of registration process. Here are a couple of possibilities.

Regarding a peer-to-peer transaction, how do you ensure that both peers add the appropriate transaction fee to ensure it is confirmed by the network allowing both parties to receive their trade?

Example: User A exchanges Bitcoin for Dash with User B. Neither user sets a fee. User A receives Dash right away, User B sees the Bitcoin transaction broadcasts to the network but it never gets confirmed.

Could it be possible for a user to outperform the validator's verification and transaction broadcast process causing a double-spend transaction and resulting in one user ending up with nothing?

Would a "Report User" feature be required if someone gets screwed out of their transaction?

Thanks for the feed back, regarding the verifications, they will be done by the validator, if there is any issue regarding the transactions it would be a fail due to NVO, there will be several verifications done by both sides prior to allow a transaction broadcast, if the user doesn't defines a transaction fee, it will be defined by the wallet when the order is sent. in order to cheat on the validator, one would have to get access to the validator which is secured by safeNet's encryption and protocole.

My second question may not have been clear enough. Since users control their private key, it is possible for them to have a non-NVO wallet that also broadcasts transactions for the same address. If I understand it correctly, there would be a small window of opportunity (fractions of a second) between when the validator verifies funds on the network and when it broadcasts a transaction. A user could broadcast a transaction with their non-NVO wallet after the validator has verified funds but before it broadcasts a transaction. The network will accept the first transaction from the non-NVO wallet broadcast and reject the validators broadcasted transaction as a double-spend. An attacker could quite easily take advantage of this critical loop-hole, hence the need for some measure of "Trust" between users on the exchange when conducting a transaction. If exchange volumes increased to a high level, would it be possible for a trusted user to launch a continuous massive double-spend attack across the market resulting in huge losses to users? DEXs are still a new concept and I don't know if this is a vulnerability or if it has been addressed or exploited yet.

Sorry, maybe I haven't been clear enough, creating a multisig address with the validator means that you will use one of your addresses, and create a multisig address using one of the validator's addresses, the result will be a shared address, which means that even if a user have the private key of the parent address (the one used to create the multisig address) and tries to broadcast a transaction, the validator will refuse to sign it as any transaction would require both signatures.

I am not too familiar with multisig addresses, but I will do some research. I appreciate your persistence in this project and answering my questions. The ICO market seems way overhyped right now with people throwing money at projects they don't understand and have no idea can deliver. I don't think there is too much more for me to ask. I will send funding shortly. I wish the development team the best!

[kaopadmoo]

Developers who are interested in getting hired for this project who are also investors. Would the positions be advertised here or elsewhere?

[obh]

I haven't seen anything in the Whitepaper about "Reputation" or "Trust" of users, but I think they would be required. This may require some form of registration process. Here are a couple of possibilities.

Regarding a peer-to-peer transaction, how do you ensure that both peers add the appropriate transaction fee to ensure it is confirmed by the network allowing both parties to receive their trade?

Example: User A exchanges Bitcoin for Dash with User B. Neither user sets a fee. User A receives Dash right away, User B sees the Bitcoin transaction broadcasts to the network but it never gets confirmed.

Could it be possible for a user to outperform the validator's verification and transaction broadcast process causing a double-spend transaction and resulting in one user ending up with nothing?

Would a "Report User" feature be required if someone gets screwed out of their transaction?

Thanks for the feed back, regarding the verifications, they will be done by the validator, if there is any issue regarding the transactions it would be a fail due to NVO, there will be several verifications done by both sides prior to allow a transaction broadcast, if the user doesn't defines a transaction fee, it will be defined by the wallet when the order is sent. in order to cheat on the validator, one would have to get access to the validator which is secured by safeNet's encryption and protocole.

My second question may not have been clear enough. Since users control their private key, it is possible for them to have a non-NVO wallet that also broadcasts transactions for the same address. If I understand it correctly, there would be a small window of opportunity (fractions of a second) between when the validator verifies funds on the network and when it broadcasts a transaction. A user could broadcast a transaction with their non-NVO wallet after the validator has verified funds but before it broadcasts a transaction. The network will accept the first transaction from the non-NVO wallet broadcast and reject the validators broadcasted transaction as a double-spend. An attacker could quite easily take advantage of this critical loop-hole, hence the need for some measure of "Trust" between users on the exchange when conducting a transaction. If exchange volumes increased to a high level, would it be possible for a trusted user to launch a continuous massive double-spend attack across the market resulting in huge losses to users? DEXs are still a new concept and I don't know if this is a vulnerability or if it has been addressed or exploited yet.

Sorry, maybe I haven't been clear enough, creating a multisig address with the validator means that you will use one of your addresses, and create a multisig address using one of the validator's addresses, the result will be a shared address, which means that even if a user have the private key of the parent address (the one used to create the multisig address) and tries to broadcast a transaction, the validator will refuse to sign it as any transaction would require both signatures.

IS NVO target for long term project?
Why nvo.io website is register only for short period only?

Registry Expiry Date: 2017-10-20

[Qunenin]

Developers who are interested in getting hired for this project who are also investors. Would the positions be advertised here or elsewhere?

I think if you are investor, you can get a lot of shares through crowdsale. If you wana help the Company by your services, you can search for this thread or also PM the dev.  Already they are offering a great Signature campaign through which one can promote their project all over the forum.

[Albortz]

I need a couple of more answers.

I read a lot about it and I am a little out of date with my "skills" lol


1)

I linked a ledger BTC address to the NVO. Does that address work? Its my personal address no exchange wallet tho basically it should work, but its a 24 word seed not 12....

Also i have multiple currencies on my ledger. Do I risk them if i open a counter wallet with my seed (in case thats possible because its 24 not 12 words)


2)

There will be 15 million coins divided by all investors. Do the devs receive further coins, or do they simply cut out 50% of the fees for themselves?


3)

From the timespan, how long does it take to have the product ready and launched? There are so many details with weeks of development that i lost count.




Hope anyone can enlighten me lol

[Lauda]

Would the positions be advertised here or elsewhere?

I would guess that it would be advertised on the website.

Why nvo.io website is register only for short period only?

Registry Expiry Date: 2017-10-20

There is absolutely no need to register the website upfront for a long period of time. You can renew/prolong the registration any day within a few seconds.

I linked a ledger BTC address to the NVO. Does that address work? Its my personal address no exchange wallet tho basically it should work, but its a 24 word seed not 12....

You need the private key of the BTC address.

There will be 15 million coins divided by all investors. Do the devs receive further coins, or do they simply cut out 50% of the fees for themselves?

100% of the NVOT tokens (15 million) are sold. The developers get 50% of the fees, and those will be needed in order to finance various staff.

From the timespan, how long does it take to have the product ready and launched? There are so many details with weeks of development that i lost count.

IIRC the estimate is 6-9 months, but I am not 100% sure. Wait for nemgun to respond.

[dzimbeck]

If you aren't using atomic trading how can you possibly claim decentralized exchange? Otherwise parties can just double spend. There was no mention of double spend or atomic trade in the whitepaper please explain. Users can double spend by simply mining their own transactions. If you use an escrow account then it is not decentralized either because that allows a 2 of 3 collusion attack. And 2 of 2 accounts require microtrading. What protocol is being proposed here?

Thank you for this interesting question, i hope the answer will satisfy your demand.


The validator will be hosted on a decentralized distributed storage platform (SafeNetwork) which will provide a lot of possibilities to solve issues related to live and offline trading. As an example, using multisignature addresses doesn't means centralizing the process as it will be done by a user and a decentralized process hosted into a decentralized ecosystem.

As i said, it is just one of the many possible sollutions, as they are ranging from soft, to extreme degree.

You can also check this link : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading

There is an interesting solution to the atomic trading issues you talked about.

Rest assured that the team will never release a trading pair if they are not sure about the security of the process.

"Apollo777": Correct.

1. How do you plan to distribute dividends on Bitcoin/Counterparty network ?

Think about it for a moment. Assume 10,000 investors, means that you will need to do 10k Bitcoin transactions (and pay $20,000; $2/tx) just to distribute the dividends.

...When each transactions costs $2.
Maybe it's smarter to find a way to do it without relying on over-crowded Bitcoin network ? (based on Ethereum or Ethereum classic, or some other network)
After all there is a good reason why StorJ coins migrated from Bitcoin/Counterparty to Ethereum.

2. Double-spend attacks that "dzimbeck" mentioned

Another way to double-spend Bitcoin is to use zero-confirmation RBF - Request-by-Fee (and send transaction to self with a higher fee).
Bitcoin miners will pick-up a tx with higher fee, even if arrived *later*.
How do you plan to deal with it ?
A safe BTC transaction requires 6 confirmations, but I don't see how-to achieve it in this case of decentralized exchange.

Thanks for the question.

There is a section in the whitepaper who explains how this part will be handled, when you withdraw from poloniexw, or other similar services, they don't broadcast a trasaction right away. Instead, they group them, and send a single transaction. This is how the distribution is going to be processed and it can be done as long as the TX size is lower then the block size. From there, you can create a single transaction with several outputs and pay a marginal fee.

This is one of the situations where the validator is handy, because he will ensure that you won't attempt to realise such operations, as he will check (several times) the informations sent by the users and process them in order to allow a trading, and the usage of multisignatures, smart contracts, LN channels would be also a part of the sollution.

As i already sead, NVO doesn't want to compete against other decentralized exchanges, or centralized exchanges, NVO aims at using the technologies provided by the multiple blockchains to create an as safe as possible environment for trading, and to provide a multi crypto wallet with as much "functions" as possible while giving the possibility to its users to choose what function they want to include into their wallet.

Is this project uncapped? So from my understanding, when the ICO closes, 15M tokens will be distributed based on the % of your contribution to the funding pool.

Yes the project is uncaped, and there is no price for the NVOTokens, at the end of the crowdsale, the contributions will be calculated and evaluated, every participant will receive a proportional amount of NVOT.

Actually your answer does not satisfy my demand. You are asking for money and yet you don't understand the protocol you will be using nor were you able to answer. I've been a crypto dev for 4 years and coded BitHalo and BitBay. Just linking me to wiki about AT when I already know how to do AT with checklocktimeverify is not a sufficient answer.

There is only ONE way to do decentralized exchange between blockchains and that is atomic trading. It cannot be done without checklocktimeverify because of malleability.

Also 2 of 3 escrow like BitSquare is not decentralized because of simple theft and collusion in escrow.

2 of 2 with microtrading works like in BitHalo but it's tedious and expensive and unpopular.

So the only way is AT and it must have a web front end in JavaScript and no blockchain download to become popular.

You can't just launch a project and be like "give me money and I will build a decentralized exchange"

Sure man that's what everyone is doing right now and I'm getting tired of it. Make a full fledged decentralized exchange and then.launch a token. But your marketing whitepaper and response shows me you didn't have a specific protocol in mind to stop double spend and malleability

Like I said there is one way and to my knowledge Blocknet is the only coin doing it (maybe also Komodo)

Atomic trading

OK maybe you can build LN in every coin but that would be insane engineering costing millions or years

By the way when peoples money is on the line there is no such thing as "safe as possible given the tools in the coin" there is completely secure and not secure. It works or it can be hacked period.

It is the first post who is really perturbating me, especially when it comes from a legendary who says he is a developer, i think you are more a project reader then a developer, and then you come and speculate on projects.

I don't agree with you when you say "give me money and I will build a decentralized exchange", we are not scaming people and i don't tolerate such a lack of respect, and please don't try to minify the project saying the team isn't capable to deliver it.

Now let me answer as a developer, the one who will make the validator (for free, not to bother the development funds), as Yani will work on the wallet, and manage the development team, there will be another developer who will work on coins implementation, and another one for the API clusters, i own't disclose any information regarding because they are still not recruited, they will be paid hourly.

Yani will manage the development team, after the beta2 yani and i will work on the plugin system as it is also into my interest to build it, we will even deliver a plugin for coinpayment integration, it is an insider information but i think that most of the people knew about it.

Now let me talk as a developer and explain to you how your informations are restricted, as you are talking about have been done, and what is going to be done.

- OP codes manipulation is an option, and it may not be used. Because this is related to bitcoin only, and it would restrict NVO and would deprecate the plugin system.
- 2 OF 3  multisig addresses isn't an option at all as the two other participants could cheat on the validator, then the validator won't receive fees, and it is not in the interests of NVO.
- 2 Of 2, you are seeing it as like as you open a direct streem between A and B, which is useless because in the end, what will do the validator here ? in your case the Validator is what you call an Escrow even if it is not his main purpose. In the case of NVO, the 2 OF 2, i will try to explain it in the most way so that you can understand it :

A and B want to trade, A will create a 2-OF-2 with the validator, B will create a 2-OF-2 with the validator. Once the validator verifies the order informations are good, and the transactions are valid, he will issue the required redeem scripts.

The validator will be hosted on safenetwork, i wish a good luck to any hacker who wants to hack into it, or even find it into the safenetwork. Actually with your closed logic, it will take you up to a life or two, unless someone gives you the sollution but it would too late as you won't be able to use it again.

Do not say that you are a developer as long as you can't innovate, developer = innovation not stagnation.

- NVO isn't a blockchain, it is a multi function wallet, with a DEX built on the safenetwork. You can still check their website, with the help of the plugin system, NVO can be a payment processor.

- Now talking about having enough, and fledged DEX, and about marketing, i asked not to give too much details about the validator on the whitepaper, because i wanted to explain it myself, and to explain the phenomenous amount of possibilities offered by the validator and the plugin system, as if i had to explain exactly in details the validator, we would have to create a lot more whitepapers, as he answer to Two big issues about decentralized trading, double spending and offline trading.

For marketing and community reasons, i prefered to let people's toughts open, so that future project developers can innovate using the NVO plugin system and its validator, which will enrich much more the NVO project.

- I don't want to say bad things about komodo but personally i don't really see how it can be usefull. I don't want to insult these projects, but most of them recreates blockchains, this a difference that most of the people have troubles to understand, NVO isn't a blockchain, it is a project who USES blockchains, it integrates them and complete their services.

- I never said that we will create LN for each coins, i said that it would be usable in order to let people know what is the actual stage of developer, in case someone decides to create  an LN DEX, and it wouldn't cost millions, nor years. And actually a lot of coins are already implementing their LN, you can check them.

-You know, even Bitcoin can be hacked in the future, everything is hackable, the technology is moving vary fast it is not frozen in 2017, there is no such "secure" system, and there will never be, even matrix (the movie) have been hacked.


To conclude, you gathered all the shits from the other projects and you throwd them here without even understanding the project, i would have appreciated if you asked me questions about NVO first, instead of throwing unrelated projects problems, and then you insult me even more when you say that i ask for people's money.

No longer insult me without real arguments.

You are saying I'm not a dev? Are you insane? I developed single handedly the world's first smart contracting platform BitHalo which was also the world's first multisig client and first dual coin software and also dev Bitbay. Never have I hired out a coder and write the 50,000 line software alone.

Now first of all, I'm not insulting you. ALL I care about is security its what I do for a living. I'm happy to see you guys are doing dev work but there is a problem with your branding. And please cool it with your assumptions I'm not calling names. Your response was amusing and shows you don't really read properly (I never once insulted you, your paper doesn't adequately explain the protocol)

What you just described 2 of 2 linked to 2 of 2 is NOT SAFE.

Basically the validator holding keys in each account can pretend to be the buyer or seller and double spend their payment. Basically what you are describing is multisignature exchange not decentralized exchange. It has some very serious security holes.

Validator can pretend to be buyer or seller, default on outgoing payments and cash in on live trades. Validators sign key can also be hacked and then double spent.

The only way to do decentralized trustless exchange is atomic trading (and maybe lightning network).

What you propose is more secure than let's say Poloniex but it is absolutely not decentralized. Now you can get angry, call this fud whatever. There is nothing in this for me except to point out the flaw of collusion in this design. Fix it or not is your call but investors be aware this is a multisig exchange, not a Dex.

On that note good luck.

[Taki]

Developers who are interested in getting hired for this project who are also investors. Would the positions be advertised here or elsewhere?

I think here you will wait the necessary information too long. PM to the thread's head and I'm sure you will get all details quickly.

[mescalito]

I'm wondering why this project should succeed unlike e. g. Bitsquare.

[migello]

i invested a little bit 

IMHO i think dzimbeck would be a great addition to the dev team

[Noobquestions]

Uhm. Refer to my nickname:



I sent some money to my new counterwallet.io adress. There, i generated a new address, just to be on the save side. I took this address and posted it on nvo.io, like its meant to be. Then i took the BTC address from nvo.io and sent my funds there.
Now i got all the other altcoin addresses with 0 amount but also no amount displayed at the BTC address.

Did i fuck up?

Thanks!

[nemgun]

I haven't seen anything in the Whitepaper about "Reputation" or "Trust" of users, but I think they would be required. This may require some form of registration process. Here are a couple of possibilities.

Regarding a peer-to-peer transaction, how do you ensure that both peers add the appropriate transaction fee to ensure it is confirmed by the network allowing both parties to receive their trade?

Example: User A exchanges Bitcoin for Dash with User B. Neither user sets a fee. User A receives Dash right away, User B sees the Bitcoin transaction broadcasts to the network but it never gets confirmed.

Could it be possible for a user to outperform the validator's verification and transaction broadcast process causing a double-spend transaction and resulting in one user ending up with nothing?

Would a "Report User" feature be required if someone gets screwed out of their transaction?

Thanks for the feed back, regarding the verifications, they will be done by the validator, if there is any issue regarding the transactions it would be a fail due to NVO, there will be several verifications done by both sides prior to allow a transaction broadcast, if the user doesn't defines a transaction fee, it will be defined by the wallet when the order is sent. in order to cheat on the validator, one would have to get access to the validator which is secured by safeNet's encryption and protocole.

My second question may not have been clear enough. Since users control their private key, it is possible for them to have a non-NVO wallet that also broadcasts transactions for the same address. If I understand it correctly, there would be a small window of opportunity (fractions of a second) between when the validator verifies funds on the network and when it broadcasts a transaction. A user could broadcast a transaction with their non-NVO wallet after the validator has verified funds but before it broadcasts a transaction. The network will accept the first transaction from the non-NVO wallet broadcast and reject the validators broadcasted transaction as a double-spend. An attacker could quite easily take advantage of this critical loop-hole, hence the need for some measure of "Trust" between users on the exchange when conducting a transaction. If exchange volumes increased to a high level, would it be possible for a trusted user to launch a continuous massive double-spend attack across the market resulting in huge losses to users? DEXs are still a new concept and I don't know if this is a vulnerability or if it has been addressed or exploited yet.

Sorry, maybe I haven't been clear enough, creating a multisig address with the validator means that you will use one of your addresses, and create a multisig address using one of the validator's addresses, the result will be a shared address, which means that even if a user have the private key of the parent address (the one used to create the multisig address) and tries to broadcast a transaction, the validator will refuse to sign it as any transaction would require both signatures.

I am not too familiar with multisig addresses, but I will do some research. I appreciate your persistence in this project and answering my questions. The ICO market seems way overhyped right now with people throwing money at projects they don't understand and have no idea can deliver. I don't think there is too much more for me to ask. I will send funding shortly. I wish the development team the best!

Thank you for your support, if you find anymore questions during your researches, feel free to ask them.

Developers who are interested in getting hired for this project who are also investors. Would the positions be advertised here or elsewhere?

If you are a developer and want to help or work with NVO, feel free to join slack, we can talk about it.

IS NVO target for long term project?
Why nvo.io website is register only for short period only?

Registry Expiry Date: 2017-10-20

Yes, NVO is a long term project, the registration can be prolongated. Thanks for pointing.

I need a couple of more answers.

I read a lot about it and I am a little out of date with my "skills" lol

1) I linked a ledger BTC address to the NVO. Does that address work? Its my personal address no exchange wallet tho basically it should work, but its a 24 word seed not 12....
Also i have multiple currencies on my ledger. Do I risk them if i open a counter wallet with my seed (in case thats possible because its 24 not 12 words)

2) There will be 15 million coins divided by all investors. Do the devs receive further coins, or do they simply cut out 50% of the fees for themselves?

3) From the timespan, how long does it take to have the product ready and launched? There are so many details with weeks of development that i lost count.

Hope anyone can enlighten me lol

1- I advise you to either create a paper wallet and use it, or use counterwallet directly.
2- No, the 15M tokens will be distributed, NVO won't hold any token.
3- 6-8 months depending on SafeNet's status.

-snip-
-snip-
-snip-
-snip-

You are saying I'm not a dev? Are you insane? I developed single handedly the world's first smart contracting platform BitHalo which was also the world's first multisig client and first dual coin software and also dev Bitbay. Never have I hired out a coder and write the 50,000 line software alone.

Now first of all, I'm not insulting you. ALL I care about is security its what I do for a living. I'm happy to see you guys are doing dev work but there is a problem with your branding. And please cool it with your assumptions I'm not calling names. Your response was amusing and shows you don't really read properly (I never once insulted you, your paper doesn't adequately explain the protocol)

What you just described 2 of 2 linked to 2 of 2 is NOT SAFE.

Basically the validator holding keys in each account can pretend to be the buyer or seller and double spend their payment. Basically what you are describing is multisignature exchange not decentralized exchange. It has some very serious security holes.

Validator can pretend to be buyer or seller, default on outgoing payments and cash in on live trades. Validators sign key can also be hacked and then double spent.

The only way to do decentralized trustless exchange is atomic trading (and maybe lightning network).

What you propose is more secure than let's say Poloniex but it is absolutely not decentralized. Now you can get angry, call this fud whatever. There is nothing in this for me except to point out the flaw of collusion in this design. Fix it or not is your call but investors be aware this is a multisig exchange, not a Dex.

On that note good luck.

Cool at least we're not grudging, you're welcome, let me explain how its going to work.

The situation you describe is true in the case where the validator is a single entity hosted on SafeNet, even if in order to get the private keys, one must basically break safenet.

The difference now (and this is a disclosed information) will be run simultaneously from different wallets, each wallet will have its own validator Instance, its job is to verify the orders and the transaction informations. During a trade, if someone manages to get access to its private key, he will be the unique victime of his cheating attempt, as the other instances won't accept his order.

It doesn't means that NVO will allow 0 confirmation bitcoin transactions, at this stage it would be hypotethical, a minimum of 1 block confirmation is required, however, LN integration is a must, as it solves a lot of issues experienced by the DEXs, Segwit will be helpfull too.

Regarding the possibility to send a transaction with low fees, the different validators will check this information too as the minimum will be determined by the validator depending on the network state.

I know about Bitbay and BitHalo, and i understand that you defend your ideas about atomic trading and i appreciate the exchange of idea.

[nemgun]

Uhm. Refer to my nickname:



I sent some money to my new counterwallet.io adress. There, i generated a new address, just to be on the save side. I took this address and posted it on nvo.io, like its meant to be. Then i took the BTC address from nvo.io and sent my funds there.
Now i got all the other altcoin addresses with 0 amount but also no amount displayed at the BTC address.

Did i fuck up?

Thanks!

Can you please join slack ? Yani will help you there.

[mvidetto]

When you invest, is it possible to send two transactions from the same address which you own the private key to (and receive the same amount of NVOT)?

Thanks