NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Bitventurer]

[salsacz]

In order to create a new internet the central infrastructure should probably be a peer to peer social network, e-mail, search engine, cloud storage, file sharing and cryptocurrency

Is it possible to transform us to the app with peer to peer social network, e-mail, search engine, cloud storage and file sharing?

Probably not us, but NXT for sure.

thank you, so we are looking for developers of "search engine, cloud storage and file sharing?"

[ChuckOne]

Epic!

[martismartis]

Just to confirm, my public node on Android TV stick running on 0.7.2

[gimre]

It's not the problem with leaving, the problem is, that some people are running old versions, and the fork probably went for few days already.

Probably? Or for sure?

I don't know, I'm not on the fork

We could ask mkmen, what does he see in recent blocks

[BloodyRookie]

Also, could you look, at this message, not sure if you've seen it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5002245#msg5002245

I don't understand this code so I cannot change it. It is up to CfB and BCNext to decide if and when this should be fixed.

Only crypto audit will tell if it's a bug or not. Right now there is another way to fix unverifable signatures in Crypto.sign(). We can't use BloodyRookie's fix without a formal proof that this won't break Curve25519 security. Actually, if the fix gets rid of unverifable signatures completely then we shouldn't use it. It's a normal situation that sometimes we have to recompute signatures generated with EC-KCDSA.

It is a bug. Did you even read my post completely? You need only basic knowledge in algebra to understand it.
The EC-KCDSA signature algorith can fail sometimes that's why sign() returns a boolean value. But that happens very rarely and simply means v=(x-h)s = 0 mod q.
Maybe you should ask Doctor Evil

[MyZhre]

Code:

[2014-02-09 21:18:55.677] Scanning blockchain...
[2014-02-09 21:19:09.888] ...Done
[2014-02-09 21:19:09.891] NRS 0.7.2 started successfully.
[2014-02-09 21:22:02.461] DEBUG: Failed to accept block 12792071761809604839 at
height 62244 received from 88.198.142.92, blacklisting
[2014-02-09 21:22:02.462] DEBUG: Blacklisting 88.198.142.92 because of: Invalid
timestamp: 6657738 current time is 6657722, previous block timestamp is 6657684

what does this mean? It does not affect the forging,right?

I'm the owner of 88.198.142.92,  I upgrade the vps to 0.7.2 several hours ago, so far works fine,
don't known why the invalid timestamp.

[Bitventurer]

In order to create a new internet the central infrastructure should probably be a peer to peer social network, e-mail, search engine, cloud storage, file sharing and cryptocurrency

Is it possible to transform us to the app with peer to peer social network, e-mail, search engine, cloud storage and file sharing?

Probably not us, but NXT for sure.

thank you, so we are looking for developers of "search engine, cloud storage and file sharing?"

Y U NO HAVE JABBER ID ?

W E NEED CONNECT !!!?

[ChuckOne]

In order to create a new internet the central infrastructure should probably be a peer to peer social network, e-mail, search engine, cloud storage, file sharing and cryptocurrency

Is it possible to transform us to the app with peer to peer social network, e-mail, search engine, cloud storage and file sharing?

Probably not us, but NXT for sure.

thank you, so we are looking for developers of "search engine, cloud storage and file sharing?"

Well, not exactly sure what you need.

Developers for evolving NXT or Developers for developing an app? The latter seems pre-mature because NXT needs another mechanism to handle multiple chains at once.

The social part is already in place. At least messaging. Not sure about other activities. But another blockchain and solved.

The file storage stuff should be the most interesting part. File sharing is 'just' a matter of access control on top of the file storage.

Search engine? Sounds more like an analysis client to me. Could only search for/mine data on the blockchains.

Email? Well, as far as the consensus goes, NXT core only reads/adds data from/to the blockchains. Sending emails could be done per pull principle. But don't see, why this needs NXT. In this case, I would rather recommend a more general service that is able to scan the chain and perform several actions if detecting certain patterns.

[ChuckOne]

Also, could you look, at this message, not sure if you've seen it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5002245#msg5002245

I don't understand this code so I cannot change it. It is up to CfB and BCNext to decide if and when this should be fixed.

Only crypto audit will tell if it's a bug or not. Right now there is another way to fix unverifable signatures in Crypto.sign(). We can't use BloodyRookie's fix without a formal proof that this won't break Curve25519 security. Actually, if the fix gets rid of unverifable signatures completely then we shouldn't use it. It's a normal situation that sometimes we have to recompute signatures generated with EC-KCDSA.

It is a bug. Did you even read my post completely? You need only basic knowledge in algebra to understand it.
The EC-KCDSA signature algorith can fail sometimes that's why sign() returns a boolean value. But that happens very rarely and simply means v=(x-h)s = 0 mod q.
Maybe you should ask Doctor Evil

Good point.

[gimre]

Also, could you look, at this message, not sure if you've seen it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5002245#msg5002245

I don't understand this code so I cannot change it. It is up to CfB and BCNext to decide if and when this should be fixed.

Only crypto audit will tell if it's a bug or not. Right now there is another way to fix unverifable signatures in Crypto.sign(). We can't use BloodyRookie's fix without a formal proof that this won't break Curve25519 security. Actually, if the fix gets rid of unverifable signatures completely then we shouldn't use it. It's a normal situation that sometimes we have to recompute signatures generated with EC-KCDSA.

It is a bug. Did you even read my post completely? You need only basic knowledge in algebra to understand it.
The EC-KCDSA signature algorith can fail sometimes that's why sign() returns a boolean value. But that happens very rarely and simply means v=(x-h)s = 0 mod q.
Maybe you should ask Doctor Evil

I've made repo with test:
https://github.com/gimer/curve25519-sign-test

Code:

nxtcurve\bin> java nxtcurve.TestCurve
      original failed: 132 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 121 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 137 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 133 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
...

I've also added class files to the repo, so it's enough to replace "nxt-0.7.2\webapps\root\WEB-INF\classes\nxt\crypto\Curve25519.class" with file from the repo and it should work.

[gs02xzz]

another forum have added Nxt
http://btc38bbs.gotoip55.com/forum.php?mod=forumdisplay&fid=76
And I am the moderator of Nxt

Hi allwelder, can you not use the Future Coin as the Chinese translation for Nxtcoin since as many people mentioned before that Nxt is a reality already and it will confuse people with another coin which English name is really futurecoin and Chinese name is the future coin in Chinese as well? It is just IMHO.

yes ,I also think so and agree with you.
But the owner of the above website said they must set an Chinese name for every coin,so they set Nxt as 未来币;
I can contact them to modify the name if Nxt can have another Chinese name.

奈克斯特，奈克斯特币 or 耐克斯特，耐克斯特币 or 纳克斯特，纳克斯特币

[ChuckOne]

Also, could you look, at this message, not sure if you've seen it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5002245#msg5002245

I don't understand this code so I cannot change it. It is up to CfB and BCNext to decide if and when this should be fixed.

Only crypto audit will tell if it's a bug or not. Right now there is another way to fix unverifable signatures in Crypto.sign(). We can't use BloodyRookie's fix without a formal proof that this won't break Curve25519 security. Actually, if the fix gets rid of unverifable signatures completely then we shouldn't use it. It's a normal situation that sometimes we have to recompute signatures generated with EC-KCDSA.

It is a bug. Did you even read my post completely? You need only basic knowledge in algebra to understand it.
The EC-KCDSA signature algorith can fail sometimes that's why sign() returns a boolean value. But that happens very rarely and simply means v=(x-h)s = 0 mod q.
Maybe you should ask Doctor Evil

I've made repo with test:
https://github.com/gimer/curve25519-sign-test

Code:

nxtcurve\bin> java nxtcurve.TestCurve
      original failed: 132 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 121 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 137 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 133 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
...

I've also added class files to the repo, so it's enough to replace "nxt-0.7.2\webapps\root\WEB-INF\classes\nxt\crypto\Curve25519.class" with file from the repo and it should work.

Ah, now, we need a code audit on your code.

[drsnuggles]

Upgraded to 0.7.2 as well and no real problems so far.

What I did notice while upgrading from 5.9->5.10->5.11->5.12->6.1->7.12 is that if I delete all blacklisted peers, I never get on a fork. If I leave peers blacklisted, there is quite a change of getting on a fork, even twice in a row.

What is a good source to know the latest block number? I always use Nxt block explorer (http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=100), but it's always a few blocks ahead of my own hallmarked NRS.

[VanBreuk]

0.7.2 running like a champ

What are the best blogs for Nxt news?

I know of http://nxtcoins.nl and the official http://info.nxtcrypto.org, any others?

If you are open to non-english languages, nxtspain.org is updated daily.

[wesleyh]

Asset API needs to add volume to getAsset - (24 hour volume). Perhaps also the 24 hour high, 24 hour low, and last trade info.

[ChuckOne]

Also, could you look, at this message, not sure if you've seen it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5002245#msg5002245

I don't understand this code so I cannot change it. It is up to CfB and BCNext to decide if and when this should be fixed.

Only crypto audit will tell if it's a bug or not. Right now there is another way to fix unverifable signatures in Crypto.sign(). We can't use BloodyRookie's fix without a formal proof that this won't break Curve25519 security. Actually, if the fix gets rid of unverifable signatures completely then we shouldn't use it. It's a normal situation that sometimes we have to recompute signatures generated with EC-KCDSA.

It is a bug. Did you even read my post completely? You need only basic knowledge in algebra to understand it.
The EC-KCDSA signature algorith can fail sometimes that's why sign() returns a boolean value. But that happens very rarely and simply means v=(x-h)s = 0 mod q.
Maybe you should ask Doctor Evil

I've made repo with test:
https://github.com/gimer/curve25519-sign-test

Code:

nxtcurve\bin> java nxtcurve.TestCurve
      original failed: 132 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 121 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 137 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 133 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
...

I've also added class files to the repo, so it's enough to replace "nxt-0.7.2\webapps\root\WEB-INF\classes\nxt\crypto\Curve25519.class" with file from the repo and it should work.

Ah, now, we need a code audit on your code.

Waoh, made the mistake and had a look at:
https://github.com/gimer/curve25519-sign-test/blob/master/src/nxt/crypto/Curve25519.java
My eyes are bleeding as does my computer science heart.

Mathematicians, physicists and cryptographists should NOT write code. Please! Pleeeease!  

You want us to audit but reading this is like reading a best-seller that has been injected grammar errors and typos each in every sentence. So, how to find the errors in content if you can barely tell them apart from the former ones.

I really get the impression that programmed cryptography is not so difficult in the end; except when people having no idea how to write it down write it down.  

Sorry for being emotional.

[Come-from-Beyond]

It is a bug. Did you even read my post completely? You need only basic knowledge in algebra to understand it.
The EC-KCDSA signature algorith can fail sometimes that's why sign() returns a boolean value. But that happens very rarely and simply means v=(x-h)s = 0 mod q.
Maybe you should ask Doctor Evil

I did read it and think that it's better to do a work-around. It looks safer to me.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Also, could you look, at this message, not sure if you've seen it:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5002245#msg5002245

I don't understand this code so I cannot change it. It is up to CfB and BCNext to decide if and when this should be fixed.

Only crypto audit will tell if it's a bug or not. Right now there is another way to fix unverifable signatures in Crypto.sign(). We can't use BloodyRookie's fix without a formal proof that this won't break Curve25519 security. Actually, if the fix gets rid of unverifable signatures completely then we shouldn't use it. It's a normal situation that sometimes we have to recompute signatures generated with EC-KCDSA.

It is a bug. Did you even read my post completely? You need only basic knowledge in algebra to understand it.
The EC-KCDSA signature algorith can fail sometimes that's why sign() returns a boolean value. But that happens very rarely and simply means v=(x-h)s = 0 mod q.
Maybe you should ask Doctor Evil

I've made repo with test:
https://github.com/gimer/curve25519-sign-test

Code:

nxtcurve\bin> java nxtcurve.TestCurve
      original failed: 132 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 121 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 137 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
      original failed: 133 / 1000
BloodyRookie's failed: 0 / 1000
...

I've also added class files to the repo, so it's enough to replace "nxt-0.7.2\webapps\root\WEB-INF\classes\nxt\crypto\Curve25519.class" with file from the repo and it should work.

I hope that u won't create a "solution" that leaks private key bits. I'm against the changes until I see a formal proof, so u better talk to Jean-Luc.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Asset API needs to add volume to getAsset - (24 hour volume). Perhaps also the 24 hour high, 24 hour low, and last trade info.

U have trade history API, why is it not enough?