NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[redsn0w]

I've restarted the testnet. We have to wait for the next block to start sending testcoins.

Did you send me 100k TestNxt to this address : 4940924250576724047

whit this command  https://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?requestType=getBalance&account=4940924250576724047

i see 0 TestNxt ... 


i have to wait the next block ?

Yes, we all have to wait when someone forges a block.

When you send test coins, maybe it is better to send like 1million to everyone want to participate, i think this will make lots more people want to play around with it.  Just feels good to have loads of nxt, even if its just an illusion

The problem is .. i don't have 1 mln TestNxt... at the moment i have 99'959.00 TestNxt :

https://holms.cloudapp.net:6875/nxt?requestType=getBalance&account=4940924250576724047

the two last  ''00'' are the final .00

[rickyjames]

yes.. we're searching to a donations/bounties  to run a node .. or to forge ( help the Nxt server ) .

I think this is a bad idea. Either the network/nxt itself can care of or this will fail.

I think isn't a bad idea  .. more donations / bounties = more node .


Why this idea is a bad idea   

What happens when you run out of funds for donations / bounties?

The T word - taxes.  You raise them.  For NXT, these are "user fees".

[nxtsky]

AE error report：
Not enough funds error.
My balance is not 0.
I can't sell it, only if I cancel all the ask orders.  

[rickyjames]

So what is the most sensible solution?

We are discussing right now what we should discuss. Don't rush things.

This is an extremely wise statement.  Brainstorming is an art.

[rickyjames]

PROPOSAL

Please improve. Discuss.

 

nope we have to make an NIP!

We need this:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Improvement_Proposals

BUMP.

This is critical to not only get put in the NXT wiki, but for people to actually GO to it and WORK on it.

[pinarello]

As NXT is growing and getting stronger marketing should schift focus from IT nerd tech guys-------> to real investors.

We should swarm investor sites like Ihub etc... and talk about NXT and possible ROI.

or we have to attract the mining community in some kind of way.

the well you all pumping now is DRY

And most of all whale should stop selling and turn of them bots.

[LiQio]

Who robbed us for 4 pages? 

Interesting. Who deletes his posts in our thread, is it Mtgox?

Maybe Emule is cleaning up his crap/dump before hanging himself?

Seriously: could be old images/pictures where source is not available anymore, couldn't it?

[ChuckOne]

If you have your node running, but don't have any NXT, you are not securing the blockchain.

This is why the NXTcoins will payout dividends in NXT. for a signing bonus, I will probably just seed every miner with 1 NXT

James, please do not build upon false statements.

? What false statements. What do you think I am saying?

"If you have your node running, but don't have any NXT, you are not securing the blockchain." is wrong.

[apenzl]

NXT Newsletter #3 

http://nxter.org/nxt-newsletter-3/

[ChuckOne]

"Somebody buys up all the NXT."  <<< How?

Imagine simultaneous bids for NXT in the range of $100 USD, equivalent amount of EUR, JPY, etc.
with all fiats coordinating, most NXT owners would probably sell.

I would not.

[ChuckOne]

We are searching for the right incentives for:

- running a node (this secures the network)
- running a node, have an open nxt account and forging with it (this secures the security of nxt = 90% attacks ?!) DONE by TF.

FIFY.

I think we shouldn't ignore the second point in our discussion since we need forging nodes. You say it is "done by TF" but TF only is the mechanism which saves us from 51% attacks. But we still need to talk about incentives for forging.

Service providers will do it.

But we first need to have forging-only nodes until service providers take over.

[ChuckOne]

Is penalizing not a part of TF?

No, penalizing isn't part of TF.

- yes, penalizing is a key part of TF:

...Imagine someone is going to do a "51%" attack against Nxt and he owns 90% of all coins. The adversary must stop generating blocks for legit branch coz he won't be able to compete against 100% mining power with his 90%. So he decides to "skip" his turn to generate a block. The rest 10% of the network detects this and penalizes the adversary by setting his mining power to 0 and distributing it among other miners.

Thanks for digging that up.

[CIYAM]

I was out watching the new Hobbit film (which is quite spectacular) so have been catching up with the posts regarding TF and forging rewards.

First to clarify something - as proposed by BCNext full TF *would* include the "did not forge" penalty, however, it is up to the community to decide whether or not to do this.

I am hoping the math guy who was taking some interest in this might be able to work out some calculations to help us come to a decision about that (as I think it would be best to trust in math rather than in our "gut instincts").

@2Kool4Skewl your idea of rewarding Hallmark nodes is unfortunately not really possible as there is simply no way the nodes could all agree who was "online" (the network topology problem you mentioned yourself).

[bitcoinpaul]

We need to focus. I need to focus. Thoughts.


BCNext's idea was, speaking of forging incentives, to get rid of transaction fees. The idea is that companies, who use Nxt (as a platform, as their payment provider, as what ever), earn money with their services, and thereby have an interest in running nxt nodes to provide stability for it.

But BCNext doesn't live in fairy land (well, sometimes he does, i think) and knows that thousands of companies will not get built on top of nxt or use nxt right now but in the future. First, we need to provide a stable and secure network to (potential new) businesses before they use it. That's why the first plan is building Nxt as a currency to get a wide adoption. I don't think we are there yet. Only because we know the 2nd plan doesn't mean we have to jump on it. Or should we? And, of course, trust no one, we don't need to follow his ideas, yada yada yada. Well, he is a smart guy. Let's think about it:

We need fees right now to have an incentive for forging (and maybe a better fees structure, like the hallmark idea) and we don't know for how long. But we should also get rid of fees to make it possible for companies to use Nxt. This chicken and egg problem can only be solved with a gradually decrease of fees and give Nxt a kickstart with paid infrastructure for the next months (years, we don't know). Or is there another solution?

If this is correct, we should talk about how we will come to a consensus about decreasing fees in the future. And our infrastructure committee (not in place yet) should go to work on nerdy things for stability, 1000TPS, .. as soon as possible.

Also, how do we prevent spamming when there are no fees? Maybe we should have different fees on different parallel blockchains.


Penalties. At least it was part of BCNext's idea that we should penalize accounts who don't forge. I don't see a problem here as long as we talk about proper penalty. Not allowed to forge for the next 1440 blocks seems fair.


I want to know where I'm wrong and I want to hear CfB on both topics.

[Come-from-Beyond]

We need to focus. I need to focus. Thoughts.


BCNext's idea was, speaking of forging incentives, to get rid of transaction fees. The idea is that companies, who use Nxt (as a platform, as their payment provider, as what ever), earn money with their services, and thereby have an interest in running nxt nodes to provide stability for it.

But BCNext doesn't live in fairy land (well, sometimes he does, i think) and knows that thousands of companies will not get built on top of nxt or use nxt right now but in the future. First, we need to provide a stable and secure network to (potential new) businesses before they use it. That's why the first plan is building Nxt as a currency to get a wide adoption. I don't think we are there yet. Only because we know the 2nd plan doesn't mean we have to jump on it. Or should we? And, of course, trust no one, we don't need to follow his ideas, yada yada yada. Well, he is a smart guy. Let's think about it:

We need fees right now to have an incentive for forging (and maybe a better fees structure, like the hallmark idea) and we don't know for how long. But we should also get rid of fees to make it possible for companies to use Nxt. This chicken and egg problem can only be solved with a gradually decrease of fees and give Nxt a kickstart with paid infrastructure for the next months (years, we don't know). Or is there another solution?

If this is correct, we should talk about how we will come to a consensus about decreasing fees in the future. And our infrastructure committee (not in place yet) should go to work on nerdy things for stability, 1000TPS, .. as soon as possible.

Also, how do we prevent spamming when there are no fees? Maybe we should have different fees on different parallel blockchains.


Penalties. At least it was part of BCNext's idea that we should penalize accounts who don't forge. I don't see a problem here as long as we talk about proper penalty. Not allowed to forge for the next 1440 blocks seems fair.


I want to know where I'm wrong and I want to hear CfB on both topics.

I don't know if u wrong or not.

[ChuckOne]

Currently, you are right, donations like peerexplorer.com are highly welcome in order to support nodes' owners. But it  can not lasts long.

I don't know. I might be in the best interest of big forgers to incent nodeholders.

[bitcoinpaul]

I don't know if u wrong or not.

You talk about the fairy land thing?

[Eadeqa]

Does anyone agrees Nxt community got scammed by Mintpal exchange? They should have not added Nxt for voting if they didn't have technical skills to add it.

They need to refund the money.  

[CIYAM]

To be clearer about the 90% protection that "penalizing" is supposed to give us the problem is "how to you penalize the 90% if it has been split up into x accounts?" and the answer is "you can't".

So maybe the only result of such a penalty is that a huge stake holder won't "show the size of his stake" by keeping it all in 1 account (most likely he never would do that anyway).

Understand that if I had 1,000 accounts and say "10 of them" were being penalised then the other 990 are fine to keep on forging.

[bitcoinpaul]

Does anyone agrees Nxt community got scammed by Mintpal exchange? They should have not added Nxt for voting if they didn't have technical skills to add it.

They need to refund the money.  

Relax, they are on it, I think.