NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[CIYAM]

Version 0.3.1 of my article: http://www.docdroid.net/abp9/forging0-3-1.pdf.html

Nice work!

[farl4web]

Bears holding beers saying cheers to Nxt

FIFY - great meme!

Hope the bears drinking beer helped us:

https://twitter.com/Nxtgids/status/447020783173648384

Is it wise to use a Bear in the money world?

Dunno, but they are so cuddly, sweet…. and drunk. 

[L5Society]

even if they wanted to dump it all, the pool would be able to buy most if it back.  I have been doing most of the NXT buys for the pool on BTER, that's why the volume is so up.  I am also integrating with cryptsy and Poloniex, just they sometimes have bigger delays in payouts.

Assuming that your pool can absorb all of the selling pressure on nxt, this might work. You're creating selling pressure in other altcoins while marketing nxt to new people. What's your 24h buying volume?

[CIYAM]

How to change or delete an AT?

Basically AMs could be used in order to change an ATs behaviour (but you can't *change the code itself*).

No need to "delete" as once its balance is exhausted (by running) it can just be removed from the block chain (like old AMs).

[mthcl]

Version 0.3.1 of my article: http://www.docdroid.net/abp9/forging0-3-1.pdf.html

Nice work!

Thanks! There is even one theorem about Nxt now  

[farl4web]

Bears holding beers saying cheers to Nxt

FIFY - great meme!

Hope the bears drinking beer helped us:

https://twitter.com/Nxtgids/status/447020783173648384

Is it wise to use a Bear in the money world?

Ya. Should be bulls with beers!

Yes, you're right… cheers!

[S3MKi]

Version 0.3.1 of my article: http://www.docdroid.net/abp9/forging0-3-1.pdf.html

great!

[mczarnek]

Who is working on the multi-sig transactions?  Need to talk to him.

Thanks.

I work on multisig for Nxt.

Awesome, check your messages, I sent you a proposal that solves one of the problems with a huge bounty on it but requires multi-sig with more than 3 signers to work, and please get back to me regarding how doable that is.

I'd be happy to help if needed.

It's kind of a long message, I'd be happy to summarize or make a sketch that explains the idea or whatever if needed.

Also you can ignore the step where each forger gets the help of 2 other forgers.. doesn't matter if he gives you the wrong public key because he'll probably be trying to screw you later anyway.

I'd say require a 4 out of 8 or 5 out of 10 multi-sig to make it work.  Thanks.

[CIYAM]

Thanks! There is even one theorem abou Nxt now  

So I hope your new efforts are going to be rewarded (hint to whales) and that you will also consider modelling the BCNext proposed TF approach (with "penalties" which you can ask CfB about).

This sort of scientific work is very beneficial for the Nxt project IMO.

[paradigmflux]

If you sibsidize the pool to make it the most profitable you have to consider the likely scenario in which those droves of pump and dump selfish miners come by for the free lunch then just sell all the nxt to btc on their way out the door.

Yeah, this is a good point. We don't want to create a fund of 500k nxt that is just going to end up dumped by miners with no loyalty to nxt. It seems like the mining scheme only works if miners hold the nxt. If nxt "mining' is more profitable than regular multipool mining, then we attract the vultures.

the only true vulture is the pool, and it vultures on altcoins.

the pool will always be buying more NXT than would be given out as bonus
so even if the miners all dumped their NXT for cheap, the next buy cycle from the pool would buy it all right away (unless they are listing the price as higher than the lowest price, in which case the pool is doing it's job and also increasing NXT volume which is also it's job).

No. The mining pool is subsidised with a fund to make it "more profitable". Say the total subsidy fund is 500k nxt. Thats 500k nxt over what actually gets bought on exchange for the true operation of the pool. Once that 500k nxt is sucked dry all those miners will leave/sell their nxt to btc and the bid depth will be 500k nxt shallower/lower price.

This is not a make work program for the superficial sake of "creating volume". Or is it?

sorry, I wasn't thinking the same things you are.  I was hoping a third party would monitor the payouts and send each worker that gets paid out an additional 10% of their payout, for example.  I could export the payout info and send it via email or whatever in a spreadsheet to make it not too difficult.   Mind you, the miners on my pool were making the equivilent of 0.008 btc/mh/day yesterday and the pool has nearly tripled in size since yesterday, so i don't even know if any of this promotional stuff is going to be needed.

[CIYAM]

Awesome, check your messages, I sent you a proposal that solves one of the problems with a huge bounty on it but requires multi-sig with more than 3 signers to work, and please get back to me regarding how doable that is.

Understand also that AT will be able to effectively do "multi-sig" in the following way:

1. Create an AT and send it funds which it will return after x blocks if required conditions are not met or send funds to another account if conditions are met.

2. The AT is given x account ids that it knows about - to "sign" each account just sends an AM to the AT. Once the AT has *enough* of these AMs (from the required accounts) then it can *release* the funds to the "destination account".

The beauty of the AT approach is the rules don't have to be as simple as 3 of 5 (you could do all sorts of things such as say "weighting" the accounts).

[farl4web]

A part of NXT Block Explorer is not working correctly. I keep getting NXT, but I can't see the transactions. Compare these:

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=7582598942095085392 (good)

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=7582598942095085392 (not so good)

More people with this problem?

[ChuckOne]

Version 0.3.1 of my article: http://www.docdroid.net/abp9/forging0-3-1.pdf.html

Added a new section about splitting of accounts. Conclusions:

- Under Exp-algorithm, the probability that an account with relative active balance b generates the next block is exactly b; if all relative balances are small,
then the U-algorithm essentially works the same way as the Exp-algorithm.

- In general, splitting has no effect on the (total) probability of block generation under Exp-algorithm, and this probability always decreases under U-algorithm. However, the difference is usually not very significant (even if the account is split into many small parts).

- Thus, neither algorithm encourages splitting (anyhow, there is some cost in maintaining many forging accounts, so, in principle, there is no reason to increase too much the number of them in the case of Exp-algorithm as well). The reader should be warned, however, that all the conclusions in this article are valid for mathematical models, and the real world can introduce some corrections.

- In particular, it should be observed that, if the attacker could harm the network by splitting his account into many small ones, then a very small gain that he achieves by not splitting would not prevent him from attacking the network. If this attacker's strategy presents any real danger, we may consider introducing
a lower limit for forging (e.g., only accounts with more than, say, 100 NXT are allowed to forge).

Review will follow as usual.

EDIT: maybe, you could elaborate more on the last point you made

[bitcoinpaul]

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=7582598942095085392 (not so good)

Yeah, this explorer doesn't work right.

[bitcoinpaul]

Please discuss what happens when an AT is coded wrong and execution problems arise.

thnx  

Good questions. Another question: What is the procedure to make an AT?

[mthcl]

Thanks! There is even one theorem about Nxt now  

So I hope your new efforts are going to be rewarded (hint to whales) and that you will also consider modelling the BCNext proposed TF approach (with "penalties" which you can ask CfB about).

This sort of scientific work is very beneficial for the Nxt project IMO.

Yeah, I would be very interested in analyzing the TF, but for this I need a mathematical model...

I remember I discussed this with CfB some weeks ago, but at the end we didn't come to any conclusion about the precise details of the TF implementation. But maybe since then it became more clear?..

[CIYAM]

Please discuss what happens when an AT is coded wrong some and execution problems arise.

Very good point - in particular this is why my design is to imitate a very simple "instruction set" (rather than aim at "higher level language" although I foresee this will be added down the track).

Bugs can (and will) occur. In particular there will be the question of what to do upon a "fatal error" (say an attempt to access memory that is *out of range* or to jump to an address that is *invalid*).

I have suggested in my spec that we might want to have some "flags" to cover these scenarios in the creation of the AT itself (such as "restart on malfunction").

[CIYAM]

Good questions. Another question: What is the procedure to make an AT?

It will just be a special kind of transaction - but basically you'll need to use some sort of "form" to plug in some values (such as how much memory it needs) then the "machine code" and "initial data" bytes would need to be pasted in (yes - it will be a bit like "voodoo" at first - much like Bitcoin "raw transactions" are).

[Come-from-Beyond]

But maybe since then it became more clear?..

Do u have any ideas how it's better to implement Transparent Forging? The goal is to find an optimum where we can predict few blocks in advance but noone could game the system by preparing such accounts that he would be able to forge a lot of blocks in the row.

[bitcoinpaul]

Thanks! There is even one theorem abou Nxt now  

So I hope your new efforts are going to be rewarded (hint to whales) and that you will also consider modelling the BCNext proposed TF approach (with "penalties" which you can ask CfB about).

This sort of scientific work is very beneficial for the Nxt project IMO.

+1