NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[redsn0w]

NXTpool.net CLOSING SOON!

DOMAIN FOR SALE!

It was a test and an experience. All deposits will be paid back. Let's see, what the future brings. I will focus my work on nextcoin.org and NXTclient.net.

Thanks.

Ok 

[jl777]

James,

I like what you do with the gateway stuff!

But I would like to have something for the paranoia guys:
- implement the posibility to link any "coind" in the NXT core (client?)
- NXT client will check the blockchain against the gateways
- trade the coins directly from your own wallet like:
   - create asset for the coin
   - when trading set the traded NXT onhold, not accresable for 24 hours
   - check coind blockchain + gateways for confirmations
   - after x confirmations on coind and gateways send "onhold" NXT
   - IF confirmations arrive:
      - trade done
   - IF NO confirmations seen on the coind blockchain, free the "onhold"-NXT after 24 hours
      - no trade occoured
      
The needed confirmations should be configurable.

Is there any security problems with my thinking? The gateways will make sure there is no fake blockchain and such!?

Greets,
eb

PS: sry for my bad english ;oD

ultimately AT will allow us to think about cross chain transactions by the NXT core.

In the meantime we are stuck with gateways to validate the offchain data and to essentially certify it for inclusion in the NXT blockchain.

I will be putting in gateway transaction monitoring into nodecoin. Everybody running nodeminer will not only earn nodecoins, they will also ensure the accuracy of the gateway transactions. This makes the gateways even more decentralized, but still the money transactions are done by the 3 gateways. However, we are much much much better than any other gateway, anywhere.

For larger deposits I think I will have to issue BTC.hold assets, which are tradeable, but not redeemable into actual BTC, but only for BTC asset after all chances for blockchain reorg are gone. Since blockchain reorgs are pretty rare, I would expect the market price for BTC.hold to be very close to BTC asset. this means that people can deposit and start trading after the usual confirmation time, but the gateways (and community) is protected from large scale losses.

This would also avoid incidents similar to recent exchange heists where 100+ BTC was stolen and withdrawn from the exchange. The deposit would come in and be able to be traded, but withdraw will be on hold. A bit messy, but necessary in this environment

James

[CIYAM]

i havnt read anything about atomic cross-chain tx's? could you give a quick description please?

Assuming you have done an internet search but still not *understood* it then let me try and illustrate:

Step 1) I create a tx with a "secret" number (that you don't know) and give that tx to you (instead of the secret number there is a *hash* of it).

Step 2) You create a tx that will need the same secret number (due to needing the same hash) and give it back to me.

Step 3) In order for me to *get* your coins I have to *use* that secret number (and it is basically *impossible* to find another secret that has the same hash).

Step 4) As you can now *see* the secret you can complete your tx without fail.

This is a simplified description (use the internet to find the full description) but is perhaps an "easier read".

[CIYAM]

In short...  you will be able to trade cryptos without the need of gateways/exchanges.

*Yes* it is the "secret sauce" to making a completely decentralised crypto to crypto exchange possible.

[jl777]

i havnt read anything about atomic cross-chain tx's? could you give a quick description please?

Assuming you have done an internet search but still not *understood* it then let me try and illustrate:

Step 1) I create a tx with a "secret" number (that you don't know) and give that tx to you (instead of the secret number there is a *hash* of it).

Step 2) You create a tx that will need the same secret number (due to needing the same hash) and give it back to me.

Step 3) In order for me to *get* your coins I have to *use* that secret number (and it is basically *impossible* to find another secret that has the same hash).

Step 4) As you can now *see* the secret you can complete your tx without fail.

This is a simplified description (use the internet to find the full description) but is perhaps an "easier read".

I never did fully understand this, but maybe I finally can. Just to be clear, in Step 2, if I dont know the secret number, how can I make a tx that needs it hash? Or if I just make it use the hash, then wouldnt the first party be able to complete the tx with the hash without revealing the secret?

[bitcoinpaul]

Assuming you have done an internet search but still not *understood* it then let me try and illustrate:

Step 1)

Sounds so easy. Please reduce bounty 

Ok, serious: if nxt will be able to do this... 

[bitcoinpaul]

any forecast for when asset exchange will be live?

"When we are happy with it"

[xyzzyx]

What about new nodes in CfB's solution? Which branch of the DAG should they choose?

New nodes will get their information from their peers (so whichever peer they got a branch from first is the one they will stick to in case of another equal weight branch appearing).

Is there a post somewhere detailing this solution?  When I run it in my head all I see are many unresolved forks -- the opposite of what a blockchain is supposed to solve: consensus.  I think I don't understand the solution.

[CIYAM]

I never did fully understand this, but maybe I finally can. Just to be clear, in Step 2, if I dont know the secret number, how can I make a tx that needs it hash? Or if I just make it use the hash, then wouldnt the first party be able to complete the tx with the hash without revealing the secret?

The tx uses Bitcoin "script" to check the hash of a value (so you *leave out the value*).

In reality it's a little more complicated because you need refund txs (with timeouts) but basically the whole point is that the 1st tx can't happen *without disclosing the number that was hashed* (which is all that the 2nd tx needs to become valid).

[bitcoinpaul]

Should/could we prepare/change/add some bits and bytes in/to the nxt core/AE now for atomic cross chain transactions in the future? Just to make it right from the beginning and pave the way...

[jl777]

I never did fully understand this, but maybe I finally can. Just to be clear, in Step 2, if I dont know the secret number, how can I make a tx that needs it hash? Or if I just make it use the hash, then wouldnt the first party be able to complete the tx with the hash without revealing the secret?

The tx uses Bitcoin "script" to check the hash of a value (so you *leave out the value*).

In reality it's a little more complicated because you need refund txs (with timeouts) but basically the whole point is that the 1st tx can't happen *without disclosing the number that was hashed* (which is all that the 2nd tx needs to become valid).

Ah, so it relies on bitcoin script capabilities. AT would need to support the equivalent functionality too

[CIYAM]

Is there a post somewhere detailing this solution?  When I run it in my head all I see are many unresolved forks -- the opposite of what a blockchain is supposed to solve: consensus.  I think I don't understand the solution.

You always have the potential for forks (Bitcoin regularly has 2 different blocks with the same height although has rarely gone much further than that apart from when we had the DB change issue).

The resolution of a fork is when others "build new blocks upon what they see as the best chain".

The problem with a nefarious player is that they might be trying to "build a secret chain" in the background.

If it were possible for them to do so then it could easily be accepted as the "new chain" by all nodes *but* with the rule that an equal weight chain will be ignored unless it was the *first* one that the node sees will just make that attack *harder* (as other nodes will prefer to build upon the non-secret chain assuming weights are equal).

[CIYAM]

Ah, so it relies on bitcoin script capabilities. AT would need to support the equivalent functionality too

Yes - you are correct (it has been something I've been thinking about).

[salsacz]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

[Damelon]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

Not at all, as long as the length is needed.

[bitcoinpaul]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

Depends. Target audience?

[salsacz]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

Depends. Target audience?

- Developers
- Snowden, Assange, Dotcom... and their fans

[Jerical13]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

whatever it takes. if an idea is seen as a photon it can be anywhere, and travels all possible paths, and can be in more than one place at once. You must collapse the wave function to find its true position. That can only be done with observation and information. if it takes 14 minutes, so be it.

[lophie]

is this really something that can be done??

any forecast for when asset exchange will be live?

I just have my fingers crossed someone will figure atomic cross-chain txs out...  as far as the asset exchange goes I haven't seen too many bugs being reported...  so I would say VERY SOON!    

it is already there, but none knew how to implement it correctly neither to gain mass adoption of such a change to the protocols.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains.

[CIYAM]

it is already there, but none knew how to implement it correctly neither to gain mass adoption of such a change to the protocols.

I don't think that it requires any *changes* to the Bitcoin protocol to achieve (although you can't broadcast the refund txs *in advance* as I am pretty sure they won't get included in each node's "memory pool" but that is no big deal).

Basically *no-one has tried it* (or if they have they haven't published this to my knowledge).

My guess is that from the Bitcoin perspective it would "help" alts (so no incentive for the core devs to even bother to try it) and from the alt coin side they simply don't have any devs *capable* of doing this (as generally they are just "copy-pasta devs").