NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[mcjavar]

CfB, do we have an expected date for releasing the asset exchange on the main network?

Not later than 3rd of April.

Thank you!

And do we have a release date for colored coins? I think I´ve read back in the end of november that is was partially implemented by BCNext, already.

[Come-from-Beyond]

CfB, do we have an expected date for releasing the asset exchange on the main network?

Not later than 3rd of April.

Thank you!

And do we have a release date for colored coins? I think I´ve read back in the end of november that is was partially implemented by BCNext, already.

Colored Coins == Asset Exchange

[rickyjames]

PM and spokesperson are clear, but I can´t really see how this academy is supposed to work?

Me either.  This is a question of succession management.  When a really big project changes hands from one group of people to another group of people, the group in control usually goes around and shows the incoming group all the ins-and-outs of what is going on.  This leads to a smooth transition.

What we have here is a group in control that deliberately is rejecting contact with the group it expects to take over the reigns, and isn't even going to leave them any documentation (whitepaper, code comments) to read on their own.  Maybe this is due to language barriers, maybe this is due to a true desire for anonymity, I don't know, but it is a huge huge huge burden to overcome.   And, it seems to me, a needless burden that shouldn't be there.

Most of all, there is a growing sense of frustration on both sides I think.  BCNext and CfB are always making statements that the community is not living up to expectations and its own potential.  The community just wants some goddamn basic clarity on a few key, fundamental points.  I shake my head in bewilderment and confusion about how such a situation can exist.

It will probably not end well.

[jl777]

@jean-luc

As you might know, I have been advocating that the NXT network have a dynamic max TPS. This would allow better utilization of server resources and in general reduce the cost of maintaining a network that can handle peak loads of 1000TPS.

I might have a relatively easy way of implementing this, but no being familiar enough with details, I am not sure.

Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better. So, what if there was a mechanism that automatically reduced the time to next block if the current block isn't full? During times of low activity, it would speed up to 10 seconds per block. Then if we get a full block, it slows down by a second for the next block.

By using how full the current block is, there wouldnt even need to be a new field added to the block. Not sure if this will cause a hard-fork, but ignoring full backwards compatibility, what are the other problems with this method? We will still have a consistent +/- 1 second estimate on time to next block

James

[CIYAM]

What for? Just to have the 1st letter "A"? What about Mixing Service then? U'll spend a lot of sleepless nights trying to find a good word that starts with "A" but is related to mixing...

Amalgamation?

or perhaps Alloy?

[xyzzyx]

i think ill probably go with courier new

Would you be willing to post some mock-ups of bars including the logo placement and your top several (3?) font choices?

[mcjavar]

PM and spokesperson are clear, but I can´t really see how this academy is supposed to work?

Me either.  This is a question of succession management.  When a really big project changes hands from one group of people to another group of people, the group in control usually goes around and shows the incoming group all the ins-and-outs of what is going on.  This leads to a smooth transition.

What we have here is a group in control that deliberately is rejecting contact with the group it expects to take over the reigns, and isn't even going to leave them any documentation (whitepaper, code comments) to read on their own.  Maybe this is due to language barriers, maybe this is due to a true desire for anonymity, I don't know, but it is a huge huge huge burden to overcome.   And, it seems to me, a needless burden that shouldn't be there.

Most of all, there is a growing sense of frustration on both sides I think.  BCNext and CfB are always making statements that the community is not living up to expectations and its own potential.  The community just wants some goddamn basic clarity on a few key, fundamental points.  I shake my head in bewilderment and confusion about how such a situation can exist.

It will probably not end well.

Ah, ok, so by the academy you mean knowledge transfer.
And here we go again: transparency and information flow is needed.

CfB asked me to post my letter to BCNext here, but I am sure that I won´t get any answer this way.

Anyway, I will be watching how things evolve. I tried to make the community and BCNext aware of the situation that things are not running into the right direction. I just can hope, that things will change.

[bitcoinpaul]

2) Why not to make a very simple bitcoin gateway?
It can be set like this:
Create NXT account A and issue asset "1BTC" in 21'000'000 quantity. They are not for sale.
Create BTC address B.
Write some code.
Announce, that anyone can send 1 (2, 3, ...) any whole number of real Bitcoins to that address and set an NXT account number in message of the transaction.
The code then periodically will check incoming transactions on address B and transfer corresponding number of "1BTC" assets to provided NXT account.
Then it can be traded on AE.
If someone wants to cashout his "1BTC" he then can transfer some quantity of his "1BTC" assets to account A and make a referenced Transaction with NXT message which contains a real BTC withdrawal address.
The code then sends real BTC (may be without some withdrawal fee to support gateway like 1% or fixed 0.01BTC) to given address.

All this can work very transparently - everyone can check amount of BTC on address B and "1BTC" on address A.

I am not a good programmer, but i think even i can program this simply on Google docs spreadsheet with API of blockchain.info and some public NXT nodes.

1. If Account B is made by a human, would this lead to trust problems?
2. If Account B is a product by our artificial intelligent SkyNXT AT whatever entity, and no one has control over the beast, things could get interesting

[ChuckOne]

Just to have that clarified: what is a pool in terms of NXT vocabulary?

BCNext calls them "hubs".

Yes.

But what are hubs in terms of existing terminology? Accounts? Nodes?

[ChuckOne]

Why did he want just 21 BTC?

Maybe coz he is crazy about symbolism?

I thought that might be the reason.   

Now, what does the number 21 symbolize?

2 * 21 = 42

[CIYAM]

Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better.

I see no point in re-creating 1990's speeds for our "platform for the future" - people will be using smart cards that sign txs in an instant and it will be up to retailers to decide their own risk levels.

[lophie]

@jean-luc

As you might know, I have been advocating that the NXT network have a dynamic max TPS. This would allow better utilization of server resources and in general reduce the cost of maintaining a network that can handle peak loads of 1000TPS.

I might have a relatively easy way of implementing this, but no being familiar enough with details, I am not sure.

Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better. So, what if there was a mechanism that automatically reduced the time to next block if the current block isn't full? During times of low activity, it would speed up to 10 seconds per block. Then if we get a full block, it slows down by a second for the next block.

By using how full the current block is, there wouldnt even need to be a new field added to the block. Not sure if this will cause a hard-fork, but ignoring full backwards compatibility, what are the other problems with this method? We will still have a consistent +/- 1 second estimate on time to next block

James

Hello all, I am writing this rather quickly so I hope it makes sense. NXT changed certain variables in order to be able to reach this range of TPS correctly, for example not a scam coin like terracoin that pulled a faster generation out of their buttholes, NXT achieved that by knowing the miner and allowing mining only with stake in NXT, etc.

But when you want to suggest something like the above, It is not a problem of being done it is mostly a problem of being done "correctly"!, I personally think the only way to do that is with a parallel coin (merged mining style) with a smaller closed network of known stake holders generating the blocks.

Now I might be a total idiot most of the times but at least you can see my point, right?

[Choboy]

Reading everyone's comments I think we should...

1) Better organize our decentralized system. We need to have a repository for all the projects going on, maybe use Ian Knowle's CIYAM webpage as our project repository site? This way we can better communicate with one another and use Nxt resources more efficiently.

2) Give BCNext a few more months to do his thing. The closest thing I do related to programming is using Excel, and I'm not even good at Excel. I am sure we can all agree programming is much harder, and on top of that to come up with completely unique ideas for a Cryptocurrency 2.0? Tough stuff.

3) BCNext should show a pulse on the forums once in awhile. A cryptocurrency's success heavily depends on the community behind it... like doge.

[Uniqueorn]

PM and spokesperson are clear, but I can´t really see how this academy is supposed to work?

Me either.  This is a question of succession management.  When a really big project changes hands from one group of people to another group of people, the group in control usually goes around and shows the incoming group all the ins-and-outs of what is going on.  This leads to a smooth transition.

What we have here is a group in control that deliberately is rejecting contact with the group it expects to take over the reigns, and isn't even going to leave them any documentation (whitepaper, code comments) to read on their own.  Maybe this is due to language barriers, maybe this is due to a true desire for anonymity, I don't know, but it is a huge huge huge burden to overcome.   And, it seems to me, a needless burden that shouldn't be there.

Most of all, there is a growing sense of frustration on both sides I think.  BCNext and CfB are always making statements that the community is not living up to expectations and its own potential.  The community just wants some goddamn basic clarity on a few key, fundamental points.  I shake my head in bewilderment and confusion about how such a situation can exist.

It will probably not end well.

I have discussed this several times here and I think all that needs to happen is BCNext announcing what he plans to do before he leaves the project. Same with CfB so that the community can stop speculating on what part these guys are going to play down the line. Then it's ALL on our shoulders.
I do think we as a community can organize ourselves and do this, I don't doubt it for one second. But we first need to get rid of the smoke and mirrors, the dust has to settle and so we can start with what we have and build on top of it.

We need a strong development team, if we have to hire more developers: then we simply do that.
We need a strong marketing team, fulltime workers that can make sure that NXT will be in the news and in different areas that it'll gain attention daily.
We need a vision...

It's not really THAT hard, it's just that the way things have been handled so far is all wrong.
I appreciate everything BCNext and CfB has brought to the table, but like they themselves say: they are leaving the project completley in our hands soon and we have to be independent. But for NXT to become independent we first have to get a comprehensive view of the current situation.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Just to have that clarified: what is a pool in terms of NXT vocabulary?

BCNext calls them "hubs".

Yes.

But what are hubs in terms of existing terminology? Accounts? Nodes?

Entities that control N accounts and M nodes.

[rickyjames]

NXT FUNDING COMMITTEE VOTE STARTS IN 36 HOURS
AT 12:01 AM MARCH 1 (UTC)

Remaining eligible nominees with as-yet undeclared intentions (PM me if you want off this list):

2Kool4Skewl, Arckam_(frmelin), bitcoinpaul,  buybitcoinscanada, Cointropolis_JustabitTime, Come-from-Beyond
Damelon, davethetrousers, drevil,   ferment, Fry, hughmanwho, Jean-Luc, jl777, Klee, landomata, laowai80,  msin, mww
nexern, opticalcarrier, PeercoinEnthusiast,  Pouncer,  Ricot, SecondLeo, smaragda,  VanBreuk,  ZeroTheGreat


Something Zahlen said:  A candidate does not need to be good at writing English. Some candidates may not have English as their mother tongue. If you're voting, don't confuse lots of writing for ability to judge the worth of a project. Remember that ultimately the committee's job is to decide which projects get funded.

If you are on this list and want to be on a NXT funding committee, go here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=479167.msg5280476#msg5280476

Background:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5280786#msg5280786

WE NOW HAVE A FULL SLATE

(Actually, antanst was a little late to the nominee party and was never on the blue list above.  But he's a coder, he runs multiple NXT nodes and he wrote the NXT Reddit tipbot.  Since I'm drunk with power and making the rules here, I say he's now a candidate for techdev.  If you disagree, don't vote for him - run against him!).

(However, I am not so drunk that I'm gonna let just anybody on this slate.  Newbie BC.NXT has posted on the candidate thread.  However, after checking his credentials and posting background, I will not be listing him on the ballot.   To quote the mythical American television commercial: Sorry, Charley, only the best tuna get to be Star-Kist.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_slate

Good luck to these nominees who have declared themselves candidates:


NXTmarketingfund: allwelder, Damelon,  Mario123, Asian Prepper, joefox, brooklynbct, CoinTropolis_NiftyNikel, Uniqueorn, salsacz
NXTtechdevfund: EmoneyRu, Anon136, l8orre, abuelau, antanst
NXTinfrastructurefund: rickyjames, chanc3r, EvilDave, pandaisftw, ChuckOne, ^[GS]^


Yeah, you may have seen this before.  I'll be putting it up every ten pages or so.  It's one of those "legitimate, transparent process" things.

[jl777]

@jean-luc

As you might know, I have been advocating that the NXT network have a dynamic max TPS. This would allow better utilization of server resources and in general reduce the cost of maintaining a network that can handle peak loads of 1000TPS.

I might have a relatively easy way of implementing this, but no being familiar enough with details, I am not sure.

Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better. So, what if there was a mechanism that automatically reduced the time to next block if the current block isn't full? During times of low activity, it would speed up to 10 seconds per block. Then if we get a full block, it slows down by a second for the next block.

By using how full the current block is, there wouldnt even need to be a new field added to the block. Not sure if this will cause a hard-fork, but ignoring full backwards compatibility, what are the other problems with this method? We will still have a consistent +/- 1 second estimate on time to next block

James

Hello all, I am writing this rather quickly so I hope it makes sense. NXT changed certain variables in order to be able to reach this range of TPS correctly, for example not a scam coin like terracoin that pulled a faster generation out of their buttholes, NXT achieved that by knowing the miner and allowing mining only with stake in NXT, etc.

But when you want to suggest something like the above, It is not a problem of being done it is mostly a problem of being done "correctly"!, I personally think the only way to do that is with a parallel coin (merged mining style) with a smaller closed network of known stake holders generating the blocks.

Now I might be a total idiot most of the times but at least you can see my point, right?

As long as there is a deterministic algorithm to decide the time to next block, I am not sure why all nodes cant implement the dynamic time to next block. However, I am not sure, that is why I ask jean-luc

For full 1000TPS, I to do think a subset of nodes with adequate performance (hallmarked?) are needed, but that is actually independent from my dynamic time to next block idea.

James

[abctc]

.. What about Mixing Service then? U'll spend a lot of sleepless nights trying to find a good word that starts with "A" but is related to mixing...

- Eh!  So somebody working on Mixing Service .. interesting!

[jl777]

Currently we are generating blocks about every 60 seconds. However that is too slow for point of sale use, 10 seconds is much better.

I see no point in re-creating 1990's speeds for our "platform for the future" - people will be using smart cards that sign txs in an instant and it will be up to retailers to decide their own risk levels.

Well, usually eliminating risk is a good thing, so faster block times should be a good thing. Doing this also boosts our TPS capability by a factor of 6x without a large scale change.

Also, at 10 seconds blocktime, actual trading of cryptos on AE becomes MUCH safer. Just imagine you put an order in and the market changes radically. That is a LONG 60 seconds to the next block as you see your order go against you...

You still see no point?

James

[xyzzyx]

Has anyone seen this yet? If any of you are like me, the rest of bitcointalk pretty much gets ignored simply because this thread is a time drain.

I don't like seeing much about other cryptos here unless it's relevant to Nxt. XCP has been mentioned here more than a few times. It appears they had a major attack involving 150 BTC:

As many of you know, about a week ago, a hacker found a major security hole in the Counterparty protocol that enabled him to send XCP from anyone's address. He used this to send 35,000 XCP from the Poloniex wallet to himself, which he then deposited into his own Poloniex account. He then sold the XCP for 150 BTC and withdrew 115 BTC. Following that, he explained the security hole and offered to return the BTC. He has still not returned the BTC, but my correspondence with him is ongoing.

Users have asked to see the correspondence and the Counterparty developers have all given the OK on publishing it, so here it is: https://poloniex.com/correspondence.pdf

There was more to his message from today, which I have not included because it arrived after the developers gave the OK.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=490025.0

Yeah, I saw that 'cause I did a couple burns for XCP myself and had a tiny amount of XCP on Poloniex when the attack happened.  It's a shame, but really not unexpected for a new crypto.  There will be bugs in software.  There will be people anxious to exploit those bugs for personal gain.  We're all in new territory here in crypto-land, Bitcoin included.  Everything here is a gamble.

There's a reason one shouldn't invest more in crypto than he is prepared to lose.