NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[opticalcarrier]

Not a theft, they want us to port, they describe exactly how to do it.

They wanted bitcoin to adopt their libzerocoin
They wanted altcoins to adopt their solution
Nobody did, so they were forced to start developing their own coin
They are professors, not really into making new coins
...

they why did they REPEATEDLY ignore all of Klee's requests for information on implementing it in NXT?

[1714068363]

1714068363

[1714068363]

1714068363

[1714068363]

1714068363

[jl777]

Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.

I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.

I forgot, you still recovering.
zerocoin on top of NXT will be so fantastic I cannot express it.

[NxtChg]

Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.

I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.

Their solution is ugly. It uses accumulators, requires large data amounts and has all sorts of restrictions.

If we could take the core idea and find a way to implement it in a simpler way, that would be fantastic...

I will also read and think more tomorrow.

[jl777]

Not a theft, they want us to port, they describe exactly how to do it.

They wanted bitcoin to adopt their libzerocoin
They wanted altcoins to adopt their solution
Nobody did, so they were forced to start developing their own coin
They are professors, not really into making new coins
...

they why did they REPEATEDLY ignore all of Klee's requests for information on implementing it in NXT?

busy professors don't usually respond to emails from people they don't know
they have published integration instructions
it is open source
LACK of action is not an action opposing, it is just a lack of action.

[jl777]

Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.

I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.

Their solution is ugly. It uses accumulators, requires large data amounts and has all sorts of restrictions.

If we could take the core idea and find a way to implement it in a simpler way, that would be fantastic...

I will also read and think more tomorrow.

They felt the same and made improvements and presented it "We will be updating this site soon to include details of our new version described by Matt Green at Real World Crypto 2014" from zerocoin.org

Something like 98% reduction. I will search for the details on RWC 2014

[opticalcarrier]

busy professors don't usually respond to emails from people they don't know
they have published integration instructions
it is open source
LACK of action is not an action opposing, it is just a lack of action.

sounds reasonable.  Maybe this is the right path then; and possibly, if we get started on it FIRST, and show the profs that we are serious, that they may even be willing to help then.

[jl777]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh6erfE9HYE

Matthew Green's half hour presentation at Real World Crypto 2014

[Come-from-Beyond]

If you're doing API 2, it would be a perfect opportunity to switch to the new address format!

Old API will continue working with old account IDs and new will return new addresses.

API 2 won't care about addresses. Transactions will be signed on client side.

[Bitventurer]

nxt got in to the Joe Rogans video ., while  A. Atrouplous  talked about alts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cexawnOlR8&feature=share    skip to 1:52:33

[xyzzyx]

busy professors don't usually respond to emails from people they don't know
they have published integration instructions
it is open source
LACK of action is not an action opposing, it is just a lack of action.

sounds reasonable.  Maybe this is the right path then; and possibly, if we get started on it FIRST, and show the profs that we are serious, that they may even be willing to help then.

I have to agree. I imagine they must get a hell of a lot of mail -- starting work on an implementation of ZC and asking questions may be the signal they need for dialog to happen.

 <shrug>

[pinarello]

With a divide and conquer approach, we might be able to get zerocoin functionality for NXT before zerocoin!

I'm not sure it's not a theft...

its definitely not theft. the idea of theft requires that someone else be deprived of property. copying code doesn't deprive the other person of his copy. i mean maybe its immoral but if so than not because its theft, it would have to be some new moral construct that doesnt have a name yet. something meaning "immoral copying". i vote that we call it flibber.

Or we could just ask them... or ask their permission...

+1

i mean why not be polite about it. no sense in flibbering all over someone elses work unnecessarily.

I like to flibber... mmmm

[msin]

Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.

I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.

In my search for a crypto algo reviewer, I was referred to a crypto expert named Matt Green.  He did get back to me yesterday and said he was currently advising Zerocoin but might have some time to review our code.  I did mention to him that we were interested in implementing Zerocoin with Nxt POS and would like him to review our code if he could.  Here is his blog, seems like a really nice guy; http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/

Also, I've had a hard time getting crypto people to review the code, they would rather review a protocol design document instead of code.

[NxtChg]

API 2 won't care about addresses. Transactions will be signed on client side.

But when you return addresses for transactions?

Like current getTransaction.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Also, I've had a hard time getting crypto people to review the code, they would rather review a protocol design document instead of code.

Oops, I forgot about that 10 BTC. Could anyone remind me address where they r stored on?

[marcus03]

@CfB: what is the plan for opening accounts for forging in clients? API call in API v2?

I could do it if u guys cooperate and give me something like a specification for API v2. Brainstorming is over as I see.

My day only has 24 hours and a lot of it currently goes into NXT. I made comments in that thread, but never saw the need to create an API v2 in the first place. Extend the current API with what is being asked for instead.

Plan for v2 in a year. Get us going now in v1.

So what is the plan to open an account for forging in clients with the nrs client going away?

[Come-from-Beyond]

API 2 won't care about addresses. Transactions will be signed on client side.

But when you return addresses for transactions?

Like current getTransaction.

Old 64-bit unsigned number.

[xyzzyx]

Also, I've had a hard time getting crypto people to review the code, they would rather review a protocol design document instead of code.

Oops, I forgot about that 10 BTC. Could anyone remind me address where they r stored on?

When you remember the address, could you send them to Anon for safe keeping?   

[Come-from-Beyond]

So what is the plan to open an account for forging in clients with the nrs client going away?

Ah, ok. Let's do it after we launch open beta test of Asset Exchange.

[ChuckOne]

U have X incoming transactions and Y outgoing ones. If X_i + X_j + X_k == Y_m + Y_n then Big Brother can solve a Knapsack problem and keep tracking links between INs and OUTs using fuzzy logic. At some point in the future he may get more info and increase weights* of some links.

------
* - weights r like probabilities, they range from 0 to 1

Which means distributing a larger transaction over time doesn't help much in case the weights are inevitably 1 or 0.

But in any other case, how could Big Brother possibly add your "more info" if all transaction in the past are fulfilled?

And the other thing: what's the issue with the 'joincoin approach'? I.e. if n senders send 5Nxts then n receiver receive 5Nxts. So, nobody could differentiate who exactly transferred whom 5Nxt. They send collectively n*5 Nxts and they receive collectively n*5 Nxts.

[Come-from-Beyond]

When you remember the address, could you send them to Anon for safe keeping?  

The file with the link to online wallet (blockchain.info guid) is encrypted with the BTC address...

I think guys who sold me the bitcoins should have it in their wallet history.

Edit: I'll find it in browser history, don't worry.