Bitcoin Forum
July 16, 2019, 09:11:28 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 [1495] 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 ... 2567 »
  Print  
Author Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information  (Read 2753842 times)
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:26:43 PM
 #29881

So, fully deterministic.

How can be prove the correct execution by a forger?

Explain "correct execution" meaning plz.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563268288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563268288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563268288
Reply with quote  #2

1563268288
Report to moderator
1563268288
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563268288

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563268288
Reply with quote  #2

1563268288
Report to moderator
notsoshifty
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:27:22 PM
 #29882

Any reason why the two blockchain explorers should show a different balance for account 10715382765594435905 (which I think is dgex)?

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=10715382765594435905
Final balance = unconfirmed balance = 40,859,666.00

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=10715382765594435905
Balance = 40,854,603

Difference is 5063 (=40859666-40854603). Both show the same latest transaction (10232608047670253098), so are in sync. Account doesn't have aliases. Total fees is 1923.

Which one is right?
 
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:29:22 PM
 #29883

Fee: 1.0
Until we really have high price for 1 NXT.
Until we really have big number of transactions per block.
Until we really start to scream: "WTF, I buy one gram of blow cheap cheneese smartphone and need to pay 5% of it's price as fee!"

Exactly, my thoughts. Would also like a % of transaction's amount to be spent as fee with min 1NXT.

Reducing Nxt fee lowers incentive to forge with large Nxt account, while at the same time encouraging use of Nxt features. I like it.
abuelau
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 751
Merit: 500


www.coinschedule.com


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:30:24 PM
 #29884

Any reason why the two blockchain explorers should show a different balance for account 10715382765594435905 (which I think is dgex)?

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=10715382765594435905
Final balance = unconfirmed balance = 40,859,666.00

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=10715382765594435905
Balance = 40,854,603

Difference is 5063 (=40859666-40854603). Both show the same latest transaction (10232608047670253098), so are in sync. Account doesn't have aliases. Total fees is 1923.

Which one is right?
 

I don't know why the difference, what I can say is that the balance shown in mynxt.info comes from querying the Nxt API itself, not from manually calculating from all the transactions.

Know what's happening in cryptoworld: www.coinschedule.com
abuelau
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 751
Merit: 500


www.coinschedule.com


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:31:48 PM
 #29885

Any reason why the two blockchain explorers should show a different balance for account 10715382765594435905 (which I think is dgex)?

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=10715382765594435905
Final balance = unconfirmed balance = 40,859,666.00

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=10715382765594435905
Balance = 40,854,603

Difference is 5063 (=40859666-40854603). Both show the same latest transaction (10232608047670253098), so are in sync. Account doesn't have aliases. Total fees is 1923.

Which one is right?
 

I don't know why the difference, what I can say is that the balance shown in mynxt.info comes from querying the Nxt API itself, not from manually calculating from all the transactions.

Oh and by the way they are now in synch. So most likely the balance in the other blockchain is calculated from all existing transactions and so it takes some time to update.

Know what's happening in cryptoworld: www.coinschedule.com
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:33:49 PM
 #29886

So, fully deterministic.

How can be prove the correct execution by a forger?

Explain "correct execution" meaning plz.

Let's say we have malicious forger. How to prove that he executed the scripts according to the rules of the VM?

We only get the result from the forger. That's a result of having a turing-complete language. You cannot prove what the script is going to calculate.

The only way, I can think of, is to simulate the execution again on other nodes so that they can agree or disagree on the result.
ImmortAlex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:34:14 PM
 #29887

why dont adjust fees in a predictably, dynamically and automatically way?? i mean, drecrease fees in relation with number of blocks in the block chain or something that makes fees go down as people use nxt more....as people use nxt more, price should rise, so, it would also be related to prices...
We can't correlate fee with any prices. Blockchain doesn't know anything about real world.
We can correlate min fee with block numbers. But I doubt someone can give us any good formula.

So I personally prefer lowering fee from time to time on user's demand. It will be fight between users and forgers. Forgers always want higher fees, users always want lower ones. So we'll have long voting threads, blockchain forks (if someone release software with lower fees) and so on Smiley Democracy, as you like it Smiley

Another way is to set very low fee right now, but doesn't increase transactions limit in block (255 for now). So in future users will fight for place in block, setting higher fees.
But very low fee in present time can hurt forgers.
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:34:59 PM
 #29888

Fee: 1.0
Until we really have high price for 1 NXT.
Until we really have big number of transactions per block.
Until we really start to scream: "WTF, I buy one gram of blow cheap cheneese smartphone and need to pay 5% of it's price as fee!"

Exactly, my thoughts. Would also like a % of transaction's amount to be spent as fee with min 1NXT.

Reducing Nxt fee lowers incentive to forge with large Nxt account, while at the same time encouraging use of Nxt features. I like it.

Why not waiting for a month or two? Why the hurry?
ImmortAlex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:35:25 PM
 #29889

How's the weather in St. Petersburg these days?
Why do you think he is from St.Petersburg?

Why do you think he's not?
He is from Minsk, Belarus.
abctc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1003



View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:36:15 PM
 #29890

why dont adjust fees in a predictably, dynamically and automatically way?? i mean, drecrease fees in relation with number of blocks in the block chain or something that makes fees go down as people use nxt more....as people use nxt more, price should rise, so, it would also be related to prices...
- no need, because in the future the senders will compete for a place in the next block for the place for theirs transactions (like in the bitcoin even today).

█████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
   
, the Next platform.  Magis quam Moneta (More than a Coin)
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:36:30 PM
 #29891

I would be ok with moving to 0.1, but only full nxt numbers should be able to be sent.

So you cannot send for example 0.5 nxt to someone. The minimum you can send is 1nxt. will this be the case?

If you have 105.45 nxt, you can send 105nxt, the 0.45 can only be spent on fees.

im curious, what is your rationale behind this structure?
and I am perfectly fine with 0.1, but if CfB *really* believes the price will jump we may as well move to .01.  That would be what I call 'conviction'.  But .001 would be asking for trouble at this point, IMO

given that it looks like the system as designed supports only 2 decimal places.  A decompile shows getBalance methods using some integer casting operations being divided by 100L.  So how much extra work would it be to implement .001 versus .01?
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:36:58 PM
 #29892

why dont adjust fees in a predictably, dynamically and automatically way?? i mean, drecrease fees in relation with number of blocks in the block chain or something that makes fees go down as people use nxt more....as people use nxt more, price should rise, so, it would also be related to prices...
We can't correlate fee with any prices. Blockchain doesn't know anything about real world.
We can correlate min fee with block numbers. But I doubt someone can give us any good formula.

So I personally prefer lowering fee from time to time on user's demand. It will be fight between users and forgers. Forgers always want higher fees, users always want lower ones. So we'll have long voting threads, blockchain forks (if someone release software with lower fees) and so on Smiley Democracy, as you like it Smiley

If forgers don't agree, they don't let their software sign those transactions. It is as simple as that. It is irrelevant if a client allows lower fees if the majority of the forgers don't.
Quote
Another way is to set very low fee right now, but doesn't increase transactions limit in block (255 for now). So in future users will fight for place in block, setting higher fees.
But very low fee in present time can hurt forgers.

I agree. Let's do it slowly.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:39:50 PM
 #29893

We only get the result from the forger. That's a result of having a turing-complete language. You cannot prove what the script is going to calculate.

This statement is wrong.
MarvellousMutant
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39
Merit: 0


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:40:46 PM
 #29894

I altered my mind. I think 0.1 NxT fee is good for now. Everything else can be decided by voting.

ImmortAlex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:41:31 PM
 #29895

Fixed a critical bug. Everybody should upgrade immediately.
So my paranoia wake up.

What is the bug?! Do I need to decompile pair of sources and do diff and than do analyse just before upgrade?
Do you try to hide something from evil hackers? I think they are first who do analysis on decompiled sources...
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:42:51 PM
 #29896

Fee: 1.0
Until we really have high price for 1 NXT.
Until we really have big number of transactions per block.
Until we really start to scream: "WTF, I buy one gram of blow cheap cheneese smartphone and need to pay 5% of it's price as fee!"

Exactly, my thoughts. Would also like a % of transaction's amount to be spent as fee with min 1NXT.

Reducing Nxt fee lowers incentive to forge with large Nxt account, while at the same time encouraging use of Nxt features. I like it.

Why not waiting for a month or two? Why the hurry?

Cause we need more people using Nxt, not forging for profit.
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:43:01 PM
 #29897

We only get the result from the forger. That's a result of having a turing-complete language. You cannot prove what the script is going to calculate.

This statement is wrong.

Ah, really? What do we have instead?
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:44:12 PM
 #29898

Fixed a critical bug. Everybody should upgrade immediately.
So my paranoia wake up.

What is the bug?! Do I need to decompile pair of sources and do diff and than do analyse just before upgrade?
Do you try to hide something from evil hackers? I think they are first who do analysis on decompiled sources...

Don't waste ur time, it will be fully disclosed anyway.
Come-from-Beyond
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1009

Newbie


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:44:40 PM
 #29899

We only get the result from the forger. That's a result of having a turing-complete language. You cannot prove what the script is going to calculate.

This statement is wrong.

Ah, really? What do we have instead?

Every node will run the script by itself.
ImmortAlex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 501


View Profile
February 05, 2014, 05:44:50 PM
 #29900

given that it looks like the system as designed supports only 2 decimal places.  A decompile shows getBalance methods using some integer casting operations being divided by 100L.
Yes. And AFAIR situation was even worse at least in 0.4.7: transactions and fees was integer numbers, and account balance too, but 100 times higher.
Pages: « 1 ... 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 [1495] 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 ... 2567 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!