NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[CoinTropolis_JustaBitTime]

Time to make news

I just spoke to John over at SongsofLove <<501(c)(3) nonprofit organization>>.  I will work with Salsacx and the rest of the marketing team to put together a charity drive that will do a number of things for us:

1. Charity, great opportunity to show our support
2. Allow us to get news coverage
3. We'll mirror it with a day of testing our new clients along with a big Trekcon announcement

We have over 200 new sources that have reported specifically on Bitcoin and/or an alt coin.  CoinTropolis plans on making this a major event... more info to come.

[Anon136]

you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.

It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.

If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion?
so buyer beware....

I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk.

A federation could be fine but homogonizing all gatewayes is a VERY bad idea imo. It allows the externalization of costs from the maleficent actor to the good actors. Insurance allows the homogonization of certain actors into federations by pricing the risk so competative federations could be good, though one homogeneous asset would be terrible.

If all the gateways are issuing a BTC asset, why is it a bad idea that all gateway BTC assets are all equal to each other, eg BTC?

Also, if we had a multisig requirement for all withdrawals, would that minimize or eliminate the harm bad actors can do?

It there is something wrong, I would like to understand it and hopefully fix it. This is why I am asking

because Anon136BtcToken is not the same value as SuperScammerSamBtcToken. They are not homogeneous assets. The different risks need to be priced. Insurance companies can help to price in this risk and homogenize it, but if they are homogenizing extremely reliable assets with extremely risky assets than they are infact externalizing the cost of the risk from the risky actors onto reliable actors. By homogenizing scammersamtokens and anon136tokens into a homogeneous asset sam would benefit by making the new asset more valuable than it would have been for just him, and i would lose by making the asset less valuable than if it had been just me. They are causing the homogeneous asset to be more expensive than the reliable assets would have been by its self. This is a transfer of cost from superscammersam to anon136 and a transfer of value from anon136 to superscammersam.

with that said there are certain advantages to federating. So even though the problem just described will always exist, if the difference in price between the more reliable asset and the less reliable asset is marginal than the advantages of homogeneity can outweigh the problem of externalized costs mentioned in the previous paragraph. Only when the discrepancy is marginal though.

thats why i some federating is good and too much is bad. as for clever scripted workarounds and stuff like that. Like smart contracted bonds or things, or DAC's that allow federation without externalizing costs, that stuff would be great if someone could figure it out. Until we get there though it would be wise to bear some of the previously mentioned things in mind.

[jl777]

you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.

It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.

If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion?
so buyer beware....

I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk.

A federation could be fine but homogonizing all gatewayes is a VERY bad idea imo. It allows the externalization of costs from the maleficent actor to the good actors. Insurance allows the homogonization of certain actors into federations by pricing the risk so competative federations could be good, though one homogeneous asset would be terrible.

If all the gateways are issuing a BTC asset, why is it a bad idea that all gateway BTC assets are all equal to each other, eg BTC?

Also, if we had a multisig requirement for all withdrawals, would that minimize or eliminate the harm bad actors can do?

It there is something wrong, I would like to understand it and hopefully fix it. This is why I am asking

because Anon136BtcToken is not the same value as SuperScammerSamBtcToken. They are not homogeneous assets. The different risks need to be priced. Insurance companies can help to price in this risk and homogenize it, but if they are homogenizing extremely reliable assets with extremely risky assets than they are infact externalizing the cost of the risk from the risky actors onto reliable actors. They are causing the homodeneous asset to be more expensive than the reliable assets would have been by its self. This is a transfer of cost from superscammersam to anon136.

with that said there are certain advantages to federating. So even though the problem just described will always exist, if the difference in price between the more reliable asset and the less reliable asset is marginal than the advantages of homogeneity can outweigh the problem of externalized costs mentioned in the previous paragraph. Only when the discrepancy is marginal though.

thats why i some federating is good and too much is bad. as for clever scripted workarounds and stuff like that. Like smart contracted bonds or things, or DAC's that allow federation without externalizing costs, that stuff would be great if someone could figure it out. Until we get there though it would be wise to bear some of the previously mentioned things in mind.

Let say there are 5 reputable gateways that are part of the federation. Anybody is free to issue their own BTC, but the federation gateways would only honor the other federation members Assets. They share a single multisig acct for sweeping the deposits and 4+ sign off on withdrawals.

Do you know if this is even possible technically? If it is, wouldnt this provide a much better security for the end users as all the members of the federation are keeping tabs on each other. Kind of the peer verification model NXT nodes do, but at the critical point of withdrawing from the sweep acct.

[gs02xzz]

Time to make news

I just spoke to John over at SongsofLove <<501(c)(3) nonprofit organization>>.  I will work with Salsacx and the rest of the marketing team to put together a charity drive that will do a number of things for us:

1. Charity, great opportunity to show our support
2. Allow us to get news coverage
3. We'll mirror it with a day of testing our new clients along with a big Trekcon announcement

We have over 200 new sources that have reported specifically on Bitcoin and/or an alt coin.  CoinTropolis plans on making this a major event... more info to come.

+1.

[Fern]

BTC $350 at Gox. Wow.

[Asian Prepper]

Here are the next videos in the interview I did with Anon136:

What is the nxt arbitrary message system?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-the-nextcoin-nxt-arbitrary-message-system/

What Is A Nextcoin (NXT) Advance Hallmark?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-a-nextcoin-nxt-advance-hallmark/

What Is The Timeline For Nextcoin (NXT)'s Infrastructure & Feature Development?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-the-timeline-for-nextcoin-nxts-infrastructure-feature-development/

I still have more video footage to come so stay tuned...

Tai Zen

[brooklynbtc]

So if we ever make coins or something we will need a slogan. USD has in god we trust. Bitcoin has "vires in numeris" which means strength in numbers. I thought for nxt we might use "In emergentia speramus" which translates to "in emergence we trust"

I wanted to write something else underneath the nxt logo that i put on my silver bars so "In emergentia speramus" is what i came up with. All constructive comments welcome.

"The future is NXT."

I think it's quite catchy. 

servus servorum Dei - servant of the servants of God

sic itur ad astra   - thus you shall go to the stars

This one is really nice:

terra nullius    "land of none" - That is, no man's land. A neutral or uninhabited area, or a land not under the sovereignty of any recognized political entity.

We gather to create a cryptocurrency... but not just any cryptocurrency.... but a "2nd generation" cryptocurrency in order to crush the current, antiquated fiat banking system (that most people don't understand) but then we turn around and inscribe it with words from a dead, antiquated and ancient language that no one uses and nobody understands... lol

How ironic...

I propose we use more modern terms and stick to our "2nd generation" heritage and use terms that everyone can understand such as:

Rated R Version = "Down With The Fed BITCHES!"
PG-13 Version = "The People's Money"

Tai Zen

How about something the younger generation will understand?

Hoc facite in ratchets (Do it for the ratchets)

that just confuses all us olds

[allwelder]

nxt.org news:
the domain name nxt.org have been auctioned with 1,3537 USD recently on Sedo platform .
http://news.domain.cn/html/yumingzixun/2014/0207/31292.html

bougt by Nxt community?

They declined my $1,000 offer three weeks ago. Maybe this was their trigger to auction it...

"Thank you for contacting Pool.com customer service.

I did submit your offer to our client but they've declined. They confirmed they do have plans to develop a site using this name and for that reason they have it valued at a higher amount. They did not provide any counter offer. "

Liars

The good news is Nxt community has owned the domain.

[delulo]

What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?

[User705]

What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?

What's a 90% attack?

[Asian Prepper]

What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?

We discuss that here:

http://prisonorfreedom.com/how-does-nextcoin-nxt-defend-against-a-51-attack/

Tai Zen

[brooklynbtc]

What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?

i think a big part is that no one can own 90%+ NXT without the others knowing.. the rest is transparent forging

A government, US, China, Russia, could make a huge investment in ASICS (USAF, Red Army OBVIOUSLY) and let them lurk until they felt the need to pump past 51% on a PoW coin. Bad day, E_War, etc.. then they just FUKCED UP the ecomony

But NXT, needs PoS so you have to OWN the coins, so unless all these people are selling to Galacto-Whales, we are safe, and even then, with TF, the nodes will be agreeing to multiple blocks orders in advance, so the 90%+ would have to commandeer those blocks in a row..

[Anon136]

you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.

It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.

If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion?
so buyer beware....

I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk.

A federation could be fine but homogonizing all gatewayes is a VERY bad idea imo. It allows the externalization of costs from the maleficent actor to the good actors. Insurance allows the homogonization of certain actors into federations by pricing the risk so competative federations could be good, though one homogeneous asset would be terrible.

If all the gateways are issuing a BTC asset, why is it a bad idea that all gateway BTC assets are all equal to each other, eg BTC?

Also, if we had a multisig requirement for all withdrawals, would that minimize or eliminate the harm bad actors can do?

It there is something wrong, I would like to understand it and hopefully fix it. This is why I am asking

because Anon136BtcToken is not the same value as SuperScammerSamBtcToken. They are not homogeneous assets. The different risks need to be priced. Insurance companies can help to price in this risk and homogenize it, but if they are homogenizing extremely reliable assets with extremely risky assets than they are infact externalizing the cost of the risk from the risky actors onto reliable actors. They are causing the homodeneous asset to be more expensive than the reliable assets would have been by its self. This is a transfer of cost from superscammersam to anon136.

with that said there are certain advantages to federating. So even though the problem just described will always exist, if the difference in price between the more reliable asset and the less reliable asset is marginal than the advantages of homogeneity can outweigh the problem of externalized costs mentioned in the previous paragraph. Only when the discrepancy is marginal though.

thats why i some federating is good and too much is bad. as for clever scripted workarounds and stuff like that. Like smart contracted bonds or things, or DAC's that allow federation without externalizing costs, that stuff would be great if someone could figure it out. Until we get there though it would be wise to bear some of the previously mentioned things in mind.

Let say there are 5 reputable gateways that are part of the federation. Anybody is free to issue their own BTC, but the federation gateways would only honor the other federation members Assets. They share a single multisig acct for sweeping the deposits and 4+ sign off on withdrawals.

Do you know if this is even possible technically? If it is, wouldnt this provide a much better security for the end users as all the members of the federation are keeping tabs on each other. Kind of the peer verification model NXT nodes do, but at the critical point of withdrawing from the sweep acct.

its overloading my brain trying to figure it out. >.<

[Anon136]

Here are the next videos in the interview I did with Anon136:

What is the nxt arbitrary message system?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-the-nextcoin-nxt-arbitrary-message-system/

What Is A Nextcoin (NXT) Advance Hallmark?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-a-nextcoin-nxt-advance-hallmark/

What Is The Timeline For Nextcoin (NXT)'s Infrastructure & Feature Development?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-the-timeline-for-nextcoin-nxts-infrastructure-feature-development/

I still have more video footage to come so stay tuned...

Tai Zen

Jeez we sure did cover a lot of ground didnt we. It felt like it flew by at the time.

[delulo]

What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?

Don't know if this answers your question in full, but some relevant discussion here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=364218.0

Is there any page / post in there that addresses this question in particular?

[User705]

BTC $350 at Gox. Wow.

Good time to buy some cheap NXT.  

[Anon136]

What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?

What's a 90% attack?

in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks.

[Asian Prepper]

Here are the next videos in the interview I did with Anon136:

What is the nxt arbitrary message system?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-the-nextcoin-nxt-arbitrary-message-system/

What Is A Nextcoin (NXT) Advance Hallmark?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-a-nextcoin-nxt-advance-hallmark/

What Is The Timeline For Nextcoin (NXT)'s Infrastructure & Feature Development?
http://prisonorfreedom.com/what-is-the-timeline-for-nextcoin-nxts-infrastructure-feature-development/

I still have more video footage to come so stay tuned...

Tai Zen

Jeez we sure did cover a lot of ground didnt we. It felt like it flew by at the time.

That's only half of it.  I still have half more to edit and still working on it.

I'm getting good feedback on it though because people like to associate a face with nxt.

Tai Zen

[allwelder]

5 thousand NXT to the person who would talk to BTER owner in Chinese and solve my problem, I need my 100k NXT.

I can help you freely if you need.

[allwelder]

you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.

It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.

If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion?
so buyer beware....

Keep in mind this is the first step on the path toward fully automated DAC gateways. Also, to remove the confusion that is inherent in having many different Assets that are all representing the same thing I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk.

HOWEVER, I think I might have a way to allow all the gateways to trust each other without any bodily parts being involved. I do need somebody who is familiar with multisig to confirm this, or more likely correct where I am being plain silly.

I do not see a problem with deposits of crypto, the end user sends in the crypto to a deposit address and the gateway sweeps it into an account. The problem is with the withdrawal, eg. since I am proposing all assets that represent BTC be fungible with each other, each gateway needs to have access to potentially all the actual BTC.

So, we have a possible solution where all the gateways sweep into a common account. Wait! If all gateways are able to withdraw from it, then if ANY gateway gets hacked or hypnotized by Evil Bob, all the deposits are gone. Not good at all.

This is where I think multisig comes in. What if the sweep account is a multisig acct. All the gateways can easily sweep into the multisig acct, since it is just a matter of sending coin to the right address. Now on withdraw, if we required the signatures from all gateways to do a withdrawal (or super majority?), then no gateway would be able to take off with the deposits, unless all gateways (or super majority) turn evil at the same time.

No I dont know how multisig works well enough to know if this will work, but IF there is a way to do a safe remote multisig authorization and all the gateways are using the same business logic to approve withdrawals, eg. proper AM was sent with appropriate asset, then I think this could work.

Not totally trustless, but as long as all (or super majority) of gateways dont spontaneously turn evil, I think the community would be able to rely on the federation of gateways.

I hope somebody that knows about multisig and another somebody that knows about secure remote signing will be able to validate this, or fix it so it works

James

P.S. I just figured out that we can use a set of AM's for secure remote signing. Granted it is a lot of AM to send if we had to do it for each withdrawal, so maybe we only invoke this level when the amount is larger than the bond put up by the gateway. I think this is getting close to a real solution. Smart guys, please help!!

IMO,it is like XRP gateway.Right?