Bitcoin Forum
April 21, 2021, 02:59:10 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 [2113] 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 ... 2560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information  (Read 2760182 times)
chanc3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 253



View Profile
March 09, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
 #42241

I think BCNext talked about different fees for different transaction speeds (and/or security?). What are the implications of our two-blockchain-solution (I keep it simple for now, so only two)?

Maybe: We would have the slow one for the average user (minimal fee) and the high speed one for businesses (more fee).

the speed of transaction processing is based on the availability of a processor, the time to get the transaction to it, the time to process and the time for the requestor to see the result.

I don't see how parallel block chains address any of these issues other than making reconciliation of accounts harder because transactions are spread across multiple chains...

EDIT: and I agree with BCNext, see earlier post, the faster you want the tx confirmed the higher the fee %age is a possible model but who pays the higher fee... the merchant wanting an instant confirmation or the buyer....?? both models exist

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1618973950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1618973950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1618973950
Reply with quote  #2

1618973950
Report to moderator
1618973950
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1618973950

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1618973950
Reply with quote  #2

1618973950
Report to moderator
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2014, 11:48:07 AM
 #42242

But then it is possible, so my statement is false Huh

My bad - yes indeed it is possible but it would not be something you could do quickly (it would be a process with a few steps).


So choosing between these two block chains when making a transaction makes, at first sight, no sense. It will be technically possible, but that's it for now.

CIYAM, could you give a complete overview where we are right now in the thought process so other smart people can jump in and help?
ZeroTheGreat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 09, 2014, 11:51:11 AM
 #42243

I don't think many people will bother with forging if this is how it is.

Exactly

Hi, I would share my witness Wink

I bought 400.000 NXT a month ago and forging. But I got nothing from this Wink

If I bought so many it was to forge some more. But the reward looks low or inexistent. Look like only extra rich can get something.

The TX fee is okay to me, it's helping the coin to spread between forgers. If we reduce this fee, it will even harder to get something from forging.

I don't know the politic about NXT futur, 2200 pages is to high reading for me ^^ but peoples will not help to forge if they have to spend thousands dollars to receive almost nothing.
It'd be placed at first page:

Monthly ROI% of forging now about 0.1-0.25%. Dispersion of income is inverse propotional to propotion of your NXTs to all NXTs those exist. ROI%'ll change proportionally to business activity on network. So there's no reason it'll change till activity ~ current activity.

Relative amount of fees can't change ROI% drastically itself. We need to find an equilibrium. Last time community voted for decreasing fees from 1 NXT to 0.1 NXT for common txs. Devs'd respond. And then, if changes'll be implemented, we all'll find out how activity'll change.


Everyone, who's thinking about forging like a business'd consider this info. It gives straight answers: forge with this ROI%, try to speed up activity or just stay away.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2014, 12:01:06 PM
 #42244

CIYAM, could you give a complete overview where we are right now in the thought process so other smart people can jump in and help?

Okay - well technically I think parallel chains are not going to be very difficult as we *already have one* (it's called "test net") so we are not talking about a huge amount of extra coding that would be required to be performed.

The main thing is going to be to work out what "features" are going to be made available to a parallel chain and what differences in rules (such as say fees) might apply and in particular to get community support for it.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Eadeqa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:02:00 PM
 #42245

think of  1626 words as numbers (base 1626)

1. word1
2. word2
3. word3
.
.
.
1626 word1626

so number 1627 would be equal to word1626word1
You can generate a 128-bit number (totally secure using secure random) and then convert it into words
I don't see how there can be any flaw in that implementation, as the original 128-bit was generated with secure random and it is only represented as words
This would be same as representing a binary number as hex or decimal.
The password made with that implementation can't be any weaker than 128-bit just as converting decimal number to hex doesn't make it weaker

Just out of curiosity. Could you give a brief example, I don't immediately see how to implement this.

Sure, but I think it's all unnecessary.  Why not just call SecureRandom 12 times to pick 12 random numbers (range  0 to 1625 ). You can use that to choose 12 random words from array. That will be pretty simple and no security/implementation complications.  The words would be chosen randomly and entropy would be 128-bit.





NXT-GZYP-FMRT-FQ9K-3YQGS
https://nxtforum.org
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:05:43 PM
 #42246

CIYAM, could you give a complete overview where we are right now in the thought process so other smart people can jump in and help?

Okay - well technically I think parallel chains are not going to be very difficult as we *already have one* (it's called "test net") so we are not talking about a huge amount of extra coding that would be required to be performed.

The main thing is going to be to work out what "features" are going to be made available to a parallel chain and what differences in rules (such as say fees) might apply and in particular to get community support for it.


Ok, we keep the atomic cross chain transaction possibility in our mind but first talk about all technical possibilities which lead to real world implications of parallel chains.

For example: Your idea is a mix of technical possibilities (raspPis can forge, different fees) and real world implications (we can market a green nxt and forgers could be happy).

What else?
landomata
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2014, 12:07:50 PM
 #42247

CIYAM, could you give a complete overview where we are right now in the thought process so other smart people can jump in and help?

Okay - well technically I think parallel chains are not going to be very difficult as we *already have one* (it's called "test net") so we are not talking about a huge amount of extra coding that would be required to be performed.

The main thing is going to be to work out what "features" are going to be made available to a parallel chain and what differences in rules (such as say fees) might apply and in particular to get community support for it.


Can't we have specific clients for each chain like we have now with Wesley's webclient for testnet.

Basically you could have NxtINDIA client linked to only NxtINDIA chain.....& NxtCHINA client to NxtCHINA chain. etc.

Maybe NxtINDIA client is for HIGH END SUPERFAST chain & NxtCHINA is for SLOW low end chain.

The CLIENT would be the gateway to specific features.



verymuchso
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250


HEAT Ledger


View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:08:39 PM
 #42248

Sure, but I think it's all unnecessary.  Why not just call SecureRandom 12 times to pick 12 random numbers (range  0 to 1625 ). You can use that to choose 12 random words from array. That will be pretty simple and no security/implementation complications.  The words would be chosen randomly and entropy would be 128-bit.

Thats how I did it already. Your approach intrigues me because I don't know how to do that, I dont like that  Angry

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2014, 12:10:02 PM
 #42249

What else?

It would allow for TF in a country that is blocking or slowing down access to the main chain (also allowing for "local/community currencies" that might appeal to some).

Also it would mean that there is less incentive to clone Nxt (particularly if the motivation for doing that is because of the "initial distribution").

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2014, 12:12:05 PM
 #42250

Can't we have specific clients for each chain like we have now with Wesley's webclient for testnet.

That could be a good idea - perhaps if we added a few extra APIs that control things like fees then it would make it very simple to "add a blockchain" to a client.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:13:59 PM
 #42251

Can't we have specific clients for each chain like we have now with Wesley's webclient for testnet.

That could be a good idea - perhaps if we added a few extra APIs that control things like fees then it would make it very simple to "add a blockchain" to a client.


This is a software problem and what's best for the user. Let's skip that for a moment.
chanc3r
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 253



View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:15:39 PM
 #42252


Did mintpal refund people the money?

Demand your money back if you paid them for listing Nxt

Just for the record. I seem to have got mine back.

bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:20:50 PM
 #42253

If we go this route, we can have our global nxt chain with TF. What would be the current implementation of it?
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2014, 12:24:20 PM
 #42254

If we go this route, we can have our global nxt chain with TF. What would be the current implementation of it?

Indeed I would be strongly advocating that the main chain does TF *with the didn't forge penalty* as planned by BCNext. The goal of the main chain would be to offer a serious competitor to Ripple (and maybe even VISA).

For the case of NXG (assuming that is its name and assuming there is enough support to do this) I would guess there would be no TF at all.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
wesleyh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:25:08 PM
 #42255

What else?

It would allow for TF in a country that is blocking or slowing down access to the main chain (also allowing for "local/community currencies" that might appeal to some).

Also it would mean that there is less incentive to clone Nxt (particularly if the motivation for doing that is because of the "initial distribution").


What is the benefit for the clones to be built on top of Nxt? Instead of standalone?
Eadeqa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:26:08 PM
 #42256

Sure, but I think it's all unnecessary.  Why not just call SecureRandom 12 times to pick 12 random numbers (range  0 to 1625 ). You can use that to choose 12 random words from array. That will be pretty simple and no security/implementation complications.  The words would be chosen randomly and entropy would be 128-bit.

Thats how I did it already. Your approach intrigues me because I don't know how to do that, I dont like that  Angry

Microsoft patent actually describes  how to represent any number as words (1626)

https://www.google.com/patents/US5892470

Quote
In this example, the number is 3,481,269,321. The table of words contains 1626 words, which are indexed from 0 to 1625. To encode this number, the ME system divides the number by the radix, 1626, which yields an integer quotient of 2,141,002 and a remainder of 69 (line 102). The ME system then uses the remainder as an index into the table and retrieves the indexed word, which is "BUS." The system sets the mnemonic encoding to that indexed word. The ME system then divides the integer quotient by the radix, 1626, which yields a new integer quotient of 1316 and a remainder of 1186 (line 103). The ME system then uses the remainder 1186 as an index into the table and retrieves the indexed word, which is "ART." The ME system then adds the word as the left-most word of the mnemonic encoding, which is now "ART BUS." The ME system then divides the integer quotient by the radix 1626, which yields a new integer quotient of 0 and a remainder of 1316 (line 104). The ME system uses the remainder 1316 as an index into the table and retrieves the indexed word, which is "DRUM." The ME system then adds the word "DRUM" as the left-most word of the mnemonic encoding, which is now "DRUM ART BUS." Since the integer quotient is zero, the encoding is complete. To decode the mnemonic encoding of "DRUM ART BUS," the ME system initializes the number that is represented by the mnemonic encoding to zero (line 105). The ME system then removes the left-most word from the encoding, which is "DRUM." The ME system then determines the index for that word in the table. Since the index of that word is 1316, the ME system sets the resultant number to the value 1316 (line 106). The ME system then again removes the left-most word of the current encoding, which is "ART." The ME system then determines the index for that word in the table, which is 1186. The ME system then sets the value of the resultant number to 2,141,002, which is the sum of the index (1186) and of the resultant number (1316) times the radix (1626) (line 107). The ME system then removes the left-most word from the encoding, which is "BUS." The ME system then determines the index of that word in the table, which is 69 (line 108). The ME system then sets the resultant number to 3,481,269,321, which is the sum of the index (69) and of the resultant number (2,141,002) times the radix (1626). Since the encoding is now empty, the current value of the resultant number represents the number for the mnemonic encoding. Each word in the mnemonic encoding corresponds to a radix position in the numbering system. For example, the mnemonic encoding "DRUM ART BUS," which has indices 1316, 1186, and 69, respectively, represents the number that is the result of 1316 * 1626.sup.2 +1186 * 1626.sup.1 +69 * 1626.sup.0.

NXT-GZYP-FMRT-FQ9K-3YQGS
https://nxtforum.org
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2014, 12:29:06 PM
 #42257

What is the benefit for the clones to be built on top of Nxt? Instead of standalone?

The benefit for "clones" is not needing to hire devs and that we could also make the creation of a "new coin" a very simple procedure.

The benefit for Nxt is to not have a divided community - each group could have their own NXG and the Nxt community as a whole will be stronger.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
ZeroTheGreat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:30:52 PM
 #42258

The entire point of the crypto movement is to code it so you don't come to the crossroads where you need to rely on a person or group of people making a good or bad decision. Figure out the best method to prevent these situations and put it in the core of the protocol. The math and code rules all.
Code don't just appear. So u're constantly relaying on code writers. Plus: on code reviewers and on code installers (1st and 2nd jobs can be done by yourslef, but it's not an option for vas majority of people; 3rd job - system can be crashed without your participation or even with your active counterreacting).

I don't see anything bad in relying on hubs or on gateways. Bad hub? Cancel leasing. Bad gateway? Don't use it, pick another.
bitcoinpaul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 09, 2014, 12:33:27 PM
 #42259

If we go this route, we can have our global nxt chain with TF. What would be the current implementation of it?

Indeed I would be strongly advocating that the main chain does TF *with the didn't forge penalty* as planned by BCNext. The goal of the main chain would be to offer a serious competitor to Ripple (and maybe even VISA).

For the case of NXG (assuming that is its name and assuming there is enough support to do this) I would guess there would be no TF at all.


1. What about the idea that the main chain only stores snapshots of every parallel chain?
2. The parallel chains can choose to have TF or not?
3. What are the characteristics of those parallel chains that they don't need / want TF? Or other way around: What are the characteristics of TF so that some parallel chains don't want to use it?
landomata
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2014, 12:33:39 PM
 #42260

Can't we have specific clients for each chain like we have now with Wesley's webclient for testnet.

That could be a good idea - perhaps if we added a few extra APIs that control things like fees then it would make it very simple to "add a blockchain" to a client.


It would be a lot easier to market specific "clients" for specific "functions"....the inner working of the chains themselves don't have to be communicated to the average joe.





 

Pages: « 1 ... 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 2072 2073 2074 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 2096 2097 2098 2099 2100 2101 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 2110 2111 2112 [2113] 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 2131 2132 2133 2134 2135 2136 2137 2138 2139 2140 2141 2142 2143 2144 2145 2146 2147 2148 2149 2150 2151 2152 2153 2154 2155 2156 2157 2158 2159 2160 2161 2162 2163 ... 2560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!