NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[^[GS]^]

Updates - 07/02/2014
- Shows multiple balances.
- Shows node status (Green = ON, Blue = OFF)

Now effective balance 136'722.00 NXT!!!

NXTCoin first automated forging platform!
Website: http://www.nxtio.org/

Is that really what we want? Centralization?

Not think it is as big concentration. My goal is to create different accounts as you get to an acceptable amount.

I thank the pool operators for trying to provide a service for the community, but I think forging should remain individual.  Granted, Nxt is resistant to up to 90% concentration attacks, but I don't think this is a path we want to follow for multiple reasons.  Sooner or later, someone will open a pool and run off with everyone's Nxt.  I'm not saying the current ops will do this, but it's bound to happen.

You don't get any more using a pool, you just get more consistent payouts.

Those with very few nxt could forge something through my system. Also, consider that you can be forged without being individually 24hr online.

I think it has advantages and disadvantages.

Yet to be seen, if it is efficient. Is a long-term experiment.
And think that in less than a week running, seem going to to work very well.


If you do not use all your NXTcoin's and you never open your client, what purpose are your NXTcoin's? I think NXTio is the answer to this problem, so I decided to give a solution.

Sorry the bad English, I really speak Spanish.

[1714320015]

1714320015

[1714320015]

1714320015

[1714320015]

1714320015

[bitcoinpaul]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/27/bitcloud
http://maidsafe.net/

Any new ideas here? Decentralized internet and cloud services based on the (Nxt) platform, coupled  with a currency and a Proof of Work (or Service) system, that gives the users an initiative to provide space and resources?

Looks similar to Nxt Service Providers.

For the people with less knowledge: Clarify exactly with more than 3 words what's your definition of "service providers" is.

[jl777]

What I am looking for in the blockchain is that code was executed without error. For example, if the code that was executed is code that verified the existence of a transaction in the bitcoin blockchain, this mechanism can be used to step through the cross chain algos.

Okay - well in that case why not make your "prototype" plugin check for the existence of a Bitcoin transaction instead (that has at least x confirmations)?

The "script" will have "state" so any "plugin calls" it makes would presumably have some sort of "return value" that could be checked and/or kept in the script's state.

I didnt think there was a chance to find bitcoind in Java form that jean-luc would consider adding to NXT core.

It is MUCH simpler to solve the issues with a hardcoded NXTplugin since we dont have to deal with Evil Bob changing the executable. Not having to worry about Evil Bob seemed prudent for the first attempt at adding parsing of AM data to see what plugins to call, etc.

If we cant solve the issue with simple hardcoded plugin, no chance for complex external plugin. That is why I chose email as the proof of concept.

Also, for testing, it will be much more nervous if it was bitcoin transactions for the first attempt at plugin. Doing this step was a couple miniprojects down the road. Believe it or not, I am pacing myself!

James

[lucky88888]

node17.nxtbase.com      node17.nxtbase.com      7'000      96 B      453 B      NRS (0.4.9e) @ 22k

Did this person leave nxt in the closet and only coming back in one years time to see the price change?  

[bitcoinpaul]

Here is my idea for avoiding blockchain bloat while doing 1000TPS. I am surprised nobody mentioned this, so it is either because it is a really bad idea for some reason, or too obvious nobody bothered??

From my understanding, it will be possible to have regular snapshots of the entire state of the NXT blockchain so that you wont need to parse all the blocks from genesis.

Secondly, very little of this "entire state of NXT" data has a life beyond 1440 blocks.

So, my proposal is to generate a daily snapshot, peer reviewed by nodes, checksummed, fingerprinted, signatured, whatever we need to make sure it is a valid unmolested snapshot. We actually dont even need these snapshots, but while we are doing this, might as well avoid having to download the entire blockchain. Bandwidth savings alone makes it worthwhile.

OK, so one way or another, let us assume the node is current. Now the problem is keeping up with 1000TPS (lets make the overall network adaptive so we can handle bursts of 1000TPS, sustained 250 TPS) and that requires bandwidth, though with binary data, 250 TPS should be around what 100TPS will be now. So 100kbps would be enough to handle bursts of 1000TPS and sustained 250TPS

But where does all that data go?

Actually, I say just throw it away! Why can't we use a FIFO that stores the most recent 1441 blocks for all the blockchains (when we go parallel). Since we synced the the full blockchain with the last days checkpoint, then as long as we are properly updating the "entire state of NXT network" at any given block, we are able to forge a valid block.

Unless I totally missed some reason why we need to locally store more than the last 1441 blocks, this should work. We can then specify that any NXT VM (Turing scripts) will need to be designed to use only data from prior 1440 blocks. This I do not see as a big limitation as if it is really important the client issuing script can just get data it needs and put it into AM. So, the NXTcore would need to implement the FIFO, preferably based on a web.xml parameter. That would allow people who run NXT VM generating clients to have access to exactly the window of time they need.

I hope this puts useful forging back on the table for raspis. 100kbps to fully support 1000TPS (peak output) NXT network

James

I think, snapshots were mentioned or spoken about a couple of times.

[bitcoinpaul]

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/27/bitcloud
http://maidsafe.net/

Any new ideas here? Decentralized internet and cloud services based on the (Nxt) platform, coupled  with a currency and a Proof of Work (or Service) system, that gives the users an initiative to provide space and resources?

I live up the road from Kim Dot Com and he's very approachable. Perhaps he could play a role.

Kim is a lone wolf, but we could try?!

[bitcoinpaul]

James, has anyone been successful in contacting anyone from the zerocoin/cash team?

rickyjames has had no luck. I think we need to show them a working NXTcash testnet. talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words

I've reached out to several Zerocoin members; Matthew Green, Ian Miers and Christina Garman.  All of which were personally referred to me by other Professors.  I did receive a response from Matthew about our initial algo review, but nothing more.  I'm not holding high hopes for getting help with Zerocoin from any of their core group.  We need to explore other options.  

The option I chose was to push forward on our own as fast as we can!

I can't recall keywords now, but AFAIK there is a way to validate encrypted transactions. U don't see who paid whom but u r able to check that coins r not created out of thin air. Such encrypted transactions require that at some step u reveal data of a particular transaction. Also u can't use multiplication of numbers (only 1 time is possible IIRC). Maybe it could be used for anonymization too? No need to "mix" coins, the goal is just to break the links between accounts.

Interesting. So we have NXTcash and your idea right now for the project "anonymous transactions", right?

[jl777]

I don't see why you would want a Nxt VM script to "output an email" (or do anything else outside of the blockchain for that matter) - you do understand that whether such email was actually even really sent simply *cannot be proven* (as you are dealing with SMTP rather than a blockchain)?

Also SMTP is going to require accounts that need to be signed into and you don't want to end up with people effectively running "relay servers" or they'll end up on email blacklists.

Wouldn't it make more sense for such things to be services instead?

About walking vs. running - you are getting far too excited jl777 - can you just take something to slow down to a pace that we can keep up with (by the time we've tried to discuss one of your ideas you typically have posted 3 others).

NXTsmtp is just for proof of concept that incorporates something everybody is familiar with. I want to verify the peer verifiability of hardcoded NXTplugin followed by external NXTplugin. I am not worried about NXTsmtp for anything other than proving that NXTplugins work and are peer verified. At first I couldnt understand how on earth a DAC could be implemented. When I started thinking about email plugin, it became not as hard.

If the source to SMTP server is reviewed that it does send the email (backed up with test results) and as part of the sending process it adds a hash value of email to the blockchain. I think that allows peer verification, please explain where I am wrong. I am certain I have made mistakes somewhere and I am still coming up to speed with this whole decentralized blockchain approach.

The problem is that I see all of the things I am posting about as connected. Like the elephant described by different people. All sounds very different, but it is all the same elephant. If I described the elephant in its entirety, it wouldnt fit in posts. I feel a great sense of urgency due to competitive pressures.

James

P.S. I usually dont post when I am sleeping or flying

I could think of useful ideas for onchain plugins. But offchain?

It's the same as with other offchain activities like crosschain exchange, fiat exchange. Nxt has no control of process outside of it.

Anyway, what I wanted to add is: we should reserve a branch for each plugin on the blockchain. That is nodes that do not want to contribute to that chain does not need to download the data.

What if NXT was extended to deal with additional features and then added that to the blockchain. If we extend the meaning of NXT blockchain, then what used to be offchain becomes onchain.

THAT is what I am trying to do. Open the possibility of making anything we can fit into an AM into something that we can see was called, onchain. Now the issue of is running the code enough is answered by as long as all the error cases are reported and handled properly, I think it very well could be.

[bitcoinpaul]

ind ourself that the POSSIBILITY of 1000TPS brings us to 1000TPS in a few years. If we now state "not possible", we lose one feature.

1000TPS will not even touch the sides in a few years, if NXT manages to get it right.

In the adoption of e-currency in emerging markets are light years ahead of western markets. I know its not crypto but the average citizen in the emerging market cares about the outcome not the technology and in this model crucially the bank or telco offering the service helps the person get the money back if it goes astray - when your income is $10 / day then you are very careful where you put your money.

There have until recently been just 2 african countries where this has taken off but from 2012 this phenomenon has been spreading to other countries where telco's or banks basically take away the FIAT and provide electronic tokens that can be used by dumb text phones, to move money electronically and instantly via and e-wallet and yes these phones will be around a long time. no PCs no smart phones - these countries are still toxic to these technologies.

The recent GSMA report I've seen shows at least 10 countries where adoption of this way of paying is following a hyperbolic or hockey stick trajectory. In one of these countries the transaction platform can perform around between 300-400tps and resides in Europe not Africa.

Over a day in one of the major African markets demand can go from 0tps to 500tps, this is with only around 15m active customers and the market is less than 30% penetrated in terms of retail transactions and this is only one country. Average transaction time is <10s with full confirmation (yes this includes shipping everything from Africa to Germany and back) and for small transactions the cost is ZERO.

This kind of stuff is now being trialled in India, and there the transaction volumes will be way higher than 1000tps if you break into the for retail space, but for retail unlike general P2P you need instant transactions - VISA fakes it (authorise and then clear later), the e-money platforms do it all realtime and currently the crypto currencies do not address the problem of the retailer. Although some posts from I think cfb about how to implement instant transactions is the first I've seen of a crypto solution to this problem and i would hang onto it even if its implemented later.

So I would plan for far higher than 1000tps, solve the accompanying block chain problem and make sure you can do instant transactions, unless you just want to nibble around the crumbs that VISA / Mastercard will drop - both of whom have bough e-money platform companies...

With parallel chains, we could tackle the >1000TPS and other things like touring stuff... who is in charge of parallel chains? BCNext? JL? Community?

[bitcoinpaul]

What about securing the network by giving the nodes running with the full blockchain a higher forging chance motivating the owners to go on with the full blockchain?
Others, like the guys on a rasp or on a smartphone would use a "light" version of the blockchain (something like James proposed)

If we start pruning someone needs to keep a full copy I guess so some kind of motivation would be needed to maintain this as a service to the network with associated bandwidth etc.

Phone clients should not need a block chain at all (unless someone really wants to burn battery and data bundles forging) when we have proper clients and should just access a public node with a full copy for any block chain needs.

Lightweight phone clients will not forge but verify transactions itself and send it to nodes. I hope someone is developing this "client side verification process" right now.

[CIYAM]

I didnt think there was a chance to find bitcoind in Java form that jean-luc would consider adding to NXT core.

Why would you need/want that rather than just doing RPC commands to a "real bitcoind"?

It is MUCH simpler to solve the issues with a hardcoded NXTplugin since we dont have to deal with Evil Bob changing the executable. Not having to worry about Evil Bob seemed prudent for the first attempt at adding parsing of AM data to see what plugins to call, etc.

You are *always* going to have Evil Bob using the "wrong plugin" and *you will not be able to tell* especially if your plugin has no way to be verified (which was the point about an SMTP plugin).

If we cant solve the issue with simple hardcoded plugin, no chance for complex external plugin. That is why I chose email as the proof of concept.

Exactly my concern - a plugin that issues a "bitcoind" RPC command (hell - why not just use "blockchain.info" for that matter) is at least *verifiable* in that given x servers running the "supposedly same" plugin you would get the exact same result from all of them (if they are able to give a result at all that is).

If you want a "dead simple" plugin then how about one that just does this:

return "hello";

[2Kool4Skewl]

Updates - 07/02/2014
- Shows multiple balances.
- Shows node status (Green = ON, Blue = OFF)

Now effective balance 136'722.00 NXT!!!

NXTCoin first automated forging platform!
Website: http://www.nxtio.org/

Is that really what we want? Centralization?

Not think it is as big concentration. My goal is to create different accounts as you get to an acceptable amount.

I thank the pool operators for trying to provide a service for the community, but I think forging should remain individual.  Granted, Nxt is resistant to up to 90% concentration attacks, but I don't think this is a path we want to follow for multiple reasons.  Sooner or later, someone will open a pool and run off with everyone's Nxt.  I'm not saying the current ops will do this, but it's bound to happen.

You don't get any more using a pool, you just get more consistent payouts.

Those with very few nxt could forge something through my system. Also, consider that you can be forged without being individually 24hr online.

I think it has advantages and disadvantages.

Yet to be seen, if it is efficient. Is a long-term experiment.
And think that in less than a week running, seem going to to work very well.


If you do not use all your NXTcoin's and you never open your client, what purpose are your NXTcoin's? I think NXTio is the answer to this problem, so I decided to give a solution.

Sorry the bad English, I really speak Spanish.

You make some valid points.  People who can't run their client 24/7 benefit and the network benefits.  Nxt is certainly in a better position to deal with security concentration than it's PoW counterparts.

Thanks again for providing a service to the community.

[bitcoinpaul]

The problem is that I see all of the things I am posting about as connected. Like the elephant described by different people. All sounds very different, but it is all the same elephant. If I described the elephant in its entirety, it wouldnt fit in posts. I feel a great sense of urgency due to competitive pressures.

Could you say some words about the "same elephant" and give some context within this post please (especially target audience and feature list)?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg4959522#msg4959522

[Come-from-Beyond]

For the people with less knowledge: Clarify exactly with more than 3 words what's your definition of "service providers" is.

Off-chain service using Nxt to accept subscription payments.

[bitcoinpaul]

James,

First of all thank you for all your great ideas, but ...

My background is IT project manager and I am going crazy by you.

You throw 10 projects on the table but have not one worked out.

Please for starters pick on project, work it out from start to finish, than pick another.

As of now your way of working getting us nowhere.

You are ddossing us.

I'm no IT project manager but right now, brainstorming some ideas and projects could actually be quite healthy. The problem is maybe that notevery idea (and the interaction/interference) gets discusses here. We have no overview right now of projects, ideas, developments, developers right now.

I had thought there was a cry to make sure NXT handles 1000TPS, that we add new tech features, etc. After CfB's set of posts the other day, I have worked very hard to come up with a technical roadmap for after April. If

Did I miss your roadmap?

[jl777]

Here is my idea for avoiding blockchain bloat while doing 1000TPS. I am surprised nobody mentioned this, so it is either because it is a really bad idea for some reason, or too obvious nobody bothered??

From my understanding, it will be possible to have regular snapshots of the entire state of the NXT blockchain so that you wont need to parse all the blocks from genesis.

Secondly, very little of this "entire state of NXT" data has a life beyond 1440 blocks.

So, my proposal is to generate a daily snapshot, peer reviewed by nodes, checksummed, fingerprinted, signatured, whatever we need to make sure it is a valid unmolested snapshot. We actually dont even need these snapshots, but while we are doing this, might as well avoid having to download the entire blockchain. Bandwidth savings alone makes it worthwhile.

OK, so one way or another, let us assume the node is current. Now the problem is keeping up with 1000TPS (lets make the overall network adaptive so we can handle bursts of 1000TPS, sustained 250 TPS) and that requires bandwidth, though with binary data, 250 TPS should be around what 100TPS will be now. So 100kbps would be enough to handle bursts of 1000TPS and sustained 250TPS

But where does all that data go?

Actually, I say just throw it away! Why can't we use a FIFO that stores the most recent 1441 blocks for all the blockchains (when we go parallel). Since we synced the the full blockchain with the last days checkpoint, then as long as we are properly updating the "entire state of NXT network" at any given block, we are able to forge a valid block.

Unless I totally missed some reason why we need to locally store more than the last 1441 blocks, this should work. We can then specify that any NXT VM (Turing scripts) will need to be designed to use only data from prior 1440 blocks. This I do not see as a big limitation as if it is really important the client issuing script can just get data it needs and put it into AM. So, the NXTcore would need to implement the FIFO, preferably based on a web.xml parameter. That would allow people who run NXT VM generating clients to have access to exactly the window of time they need.

I hope this puts useful forging back on the table for raspis. 100kbps to fully support 1000TPS (peak output) NXT network

James

I think, snapshots were mentioned or spoken about a couple of times.

Yes, snapshots were, but not using a blockchain FIFO (other than xyzz's post that was ignored). That is what allows the raspi to keep up. Even without snapshots, a raspi would be able to keep up, as long as it ever could catch up. That is why I combined it with snapshots to make sure all raspis could catch up to the current block.

Using snapshots alone would require much more frequent snapshots to be made and created all sorts of issues with delays, etc. If the blockchain FIFO is implemented, we can get by with weekly snapshots. This is because the blockchain is not stored locally other than the most recent day.

Also, we dont need parallel blockchains because of HDD usage if we had blockchain FIFO. There could be other reasons like partitioning workload, etc., but it is a quick way to get to 1000TPS and beyond without any software magic.

I saw the post about this, but nobody else seemed to recognize the significance. I just felt that it solved the 1000TPS on raspis issue and so wanted feedback on it to make sure it would work. It just seems so simple an idea, I wonder why it wasnt already done

James

[jl777]

I didnt think there was a chance to find bitcoind in Java form that jean-luc would consider adding to NXT core.

Why would you need/want that rather than just doing RPC commands to a "real bitcoind"?

It is MUCH simpler to solve the issues with a hardcoded NXTplugin since we dont have to deal with Evil Bob changing the executable. Not having to worry about Evil Bob seemed prudent for the first attempt at adding parsing of AM data to see what plugins to call, etc.

You are *always* going to have Evil Bob using the "wrong plugin" and *you will not be able to tell* especially if your plugin has no way to be verified (which was the point about an SMTP plugin).

If we cant solve the issue with simple hardcoded plugin, no chance for complex external plugin. That is why I chose email as the proof of concept.

Exactly my concern - a plugin that issues a "bitcoind" RPC command (hell - why not just use "blockchain.info" for that matter) is at least *verifiable* in that given x servers running the "supposedly same" plugin you would get the exact same result from all of them (if they are able to give a result at all that is).

If you want a "dead simple" plugin then how about one that just does this:

return "hello";

I think we can verify the checksum of the running code for plugin matches the source code. Similar to signing of .jar files

The problem of using blockchain.info is that it is a website and that opens it up to all the problems of websites being hacked. It seemed a lot more secure to be able to verify that bitcoind running matches the bitcoind source code.

I couldn't justify paying a bounty for a program that returned "hello"

We need more people familiar with the NXT core. I wanted simple enough project that had some utility that would get people to see how easy it is to add functionality to NXT

[jl777]

James,

First of all thank you for all your great ideas, but ...

My background is IT project manager and I am going crazy by you.

You throw 10 projects on the table but have not one worked out.

Please for starters pick on project, work it out from start to finish, than pick another.

As of now your way of working getting us nowhere.

You are ddossing us.

I'm no IT project manager but right now, brainstorming some ideas and projects could actually be quite healthy. The problem is maybe that notevery idea (and the interaction/interference) gets discusses here. We have no overview right now of projects, ideas, developments, developers right now.

I had thought there was a cry to make sure NXT handles 1000TPS, that we add new tech features, etc. After CfB's set of posts the other day, I have worked very hard to come up with a technical roadmap for after April. If

Did I miss your roadmap?

NXTcash
NXTlayers
NXTplugins
cross chain
automated DAC gateway
probably more, getting tired I think it is already tomorrow

James

Edit: Where else are dev ideas being actively discussed. Only very small activity on nxtcrypto.

[CIYAM]

I think we can verify the checksum of the running code for plugin matches the source code. Similar to signing of .jar files

I don't see how running the "right plugin" is going to help if the plugin deals with any 3rd party software or protocol at all as Evil Bob doesn't need to *change the plugin* he will make his changes to the 3rd party software or intercept and modify the protocol commands.

The problem of using blockchain.info is that it is a website and that opens it up to all the problems of websites being hacked. It seemed a lot more secure to be able to verify that bitcoind running matches the bitcoind source code.

Of course using "blockchain.info" would be a hack but it isn't that relevant if you are going to have other servers "check the script execution" which you will *have* to do in order for it to be correctly verified (which is why sending an email would be silly).

[fmiboy]

I am a bit concerned that there has been very little feedback on my recent proposals, blockchain FIFO and NXT plugin architecture.

I've been reading your posts with interest and trying to digest them.  Much of it sounds good, but is mostly over my head so it's hard to give good feedback.  My biggest concern is security right now especially after the recent scare.  New features often bring new security holes, so I'd rather not be in too much of a rush to beat the competition for every little thing.  Nxt already has a strong niche (zero inflation, proof-of-stake) and just needs steady, but not rushed, development to bring in the new features which may or may not be embraced by the market.

Has Dr. Evil been hired to continue to looking for exploits and weaknesses and consult?  I saw a couple posts requesting this, but it should be a priority.  He's proven himself by brute forcing something like 3% of Nxt accounts (including genesis) and discovering an x-spend attack.  If we have community funds available then I think we should try to keep him on board as long as we can.

+1
edit: new features often bring security holes, but this brainstorming is just project ideas, doesn't mean all will be implemented, but it will be discussed and possibly will be considered.