NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[BrianNowhere]

with AT you can safely trade 1 Asset for another, with AT you can safely lock your savings away while earning interest and with AT you can buy a ticket every week in what will be arguably the world's most efficient lottery!

Are saying you have basically achieved a way to do trustless, peer to peer cross asset trading? If so, Ripple is a dead man walking and
there's only Etherium left on the road to Nxt's complete dominance.

NXT- Why go to the moon when you've conquered Earth?

[CIYAM]

Smart...  can't really do a "return funds on malfunction" because then people could intentionally insert bugs.

Indeed - and this is why any such "behavior" for a "severe fault" needs to be clearly "documented" (so the "buyer" can "beware").

No doubt there is going to be a business for creating/validating ATs and even "insuring" them.

[CIYAM]

Are saying you have basically achieved a way to do trustless, peer to peer cross asset trading?

Yes - I am.

[achimsmile]

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  

Wow, very interesting!
(Although I can't follow all of the math  )

So for the non-geeks under us, you have shown that Nxt is immune to sybil attack!

"in order to maximize the probability of generating the next block, all NXT that one controls should be concentrated in only one account."

[bitcoinpaul]

Are saying you have basically achieved a way to do trustless, peer to peer cross asset trading?

Yes - I am.

Mars.

[mthcl]

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

Thanks in advance!

About the last point: in the mathematical model we are considering, splitting is completely harmless. But, maybe, there are other attacking possibilities that the splitting gives in the real world: spam the network, affect its topology, ..., ... I don't know, I'm not a specialist here.  In the case there are such possibilities, we may consider introducing this lower limit, so that the number of accounts that participate in forging cannot become too big.

[BrianNowhere]

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).

This is the kind of stuff that Nxt needs.  50 Nxt coming your way.

[gs02xzz]

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

Nice work!

+1. This should be in the white paper along with the economic paper. Thanks.

[bitcoinpaul]

What are the planned operations in AT?

[Daedelus]

Are saying you have basically achieved a way to do trustless, peer to peer cross asset trading?

Yes - I am.

One for the history books, remember where you were  

[mrv777]

with AT you can safely trade 1 Asset for another, with AT you can safely lock your savings away while earning interest and with AT you can buy a ticket every week in what will be arguably the world's most efficient lottery!

Are saying you have basically achieved a way to do trustless, peer to peer cross asset trading? If so, Ripple is a dead man walking and
there's only Etherium left on the road to Nxt's complete dominance.

NXT- Why go to the moon when you've conquered Earth?

Are there any thoughts on [SKY] Skycoin and emunie?  I've heard some good talk about both of them, but am unsure how they compare.  Not trying to start a crazy conversation or anything, just curious.  I'm excited for NXT!  

[CIYAM]

What are the planned operations in AT?

You can basically think of an AT as a program that owns an account (the AT account which only it controls).

As much as possible the AT account should have all the rights that a "normal" account does (although whether we will let it "create other ATs" initially is something we'd have to consider).

To "sandbox" an AT it will have to use a Nxt AT API (so it doesn't have access to the "full Nxt API").

[ChuckOne]

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.

So, that attack would go this way:

1) attacker creates N accounts

2) attacker receives M raw transactions

3) attacker tries to find a row of blocks by:

 3.0) do until no raw transactions are available
 3.1) choose X raw transactions
 3.2) is the account forging this block one of the N accounts?
 3.3) if yes, go to 3.1) and remove X transactions
 3.4) if no, go to 3.1) and choose another selection of raw transactions

4) if no combination will lead to the desired output => attacker creates his own raw transactions, go back to 3)

5) choose longest row and submit it to the network

Is that the attack vector you have in mind?

[bitcoinpaul]

What are the planned operations in AT?

You can basically think of an AT as a program that owns an account (the AT account which only it controls).

As much as possible the AT account should have all the rights that a "normal" account does (although whether we will let it "create other ATs" initially is something we'd have to consider).

To "sandbox" an AT it will have to use a Nxt AT API (so it doesn't have access to the "full Nxt API").

Any sneak peek on how this API will look like? (I meant what are the functions, the syntax, the operators with the question above). You can get as geeky as you want and I will try to understand it.

[Anon136]

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.

there is 1 really solid solution that you arnt going to want to hear

[ChuckOne]

Thanks in advance!

About the last point: in the mathematical model we are considering, splitting is completely harmless. But, maybe, there are other attacking possibilities that the splitting gives in the real world: spam the network, affect its topology, ..., ... I don't know, I'm not a specialist here.  In the case there are such possibilities, we may consider introducing this lower limit, so that the number of accounts that participate in forging cannot become too big.

You are welcome.

Okay, got it.

But still, an attacker could create raw transactions at will to create new accounts that might lead to a block that he has the highest cummulativeDifficulty of. He could include these txs into blocks that favor him most. So, it will be self-inducing.

[antanst]

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.

Klee, if you see this, I believe mthcl should definitely be awarded a nice sum of NXT from the allocated funds in the pool.

[CIYAM]

Any sneak peek on how this API will look like? (I meant what are the functions, the syntax, the operators with the question above). You can get as geeky as you want and I will try to understand it.

Okay (and you did *ask for it*) - take a look at http://ciyam.org/nxt/nxt_crowdfund.html and in particular the "functions" section (those are some proposed Nxt AT API functions).

[mthcl]

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.

I think the algorithm can be easily adjusted in such a way that the next N forgers are known at each moment. But I don't dare to propose any solutions about penalizing accounts and things of this sort...

[igmaca]

For the people that don't know how mining work.

Just to let you know, that you can easily mine scrypt coin with cpu, it is not the most efficient way, but it would be a good idea at the moment to beta test the Nxt mining pool. You are welcome to test them. More feedback is always welcome. Still you should be able to get some nxt if you have a fast cpu.

The cpu miner can be get at:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/cpuminer/

You need to create a .bat file in the directory of the miner as follow:
add in a start.bat file :

START /LOW minerd -o stratum+tcp://hashrate.org:3008 -u 13777396447329170446 -p xxx -t4

For the hashrate.org pool (http://hashrate.org/). OR

START /LOW minerd -o stratum+tcp://p00l.org:3003 -u 13777396447329170446 -p xxx -t4

For the p00l.org pool (http://www.p00l.org/).

Replace the Nxt address with your (-u Nxtadress). Don't change the password (-p xxx). Note also that the argument -t4 will specify the number of cpu thread the miner will use (for example -t4 = 4 threads). Don't put there a number greater than the number of thread of your CPU.

You can follow the nxt mining thread at https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,4399.135.html

Enjoy.

it seems that my laptop mining

I changed my account number instead of 13777396447329170446
I have not changed p xxx-t4. I have 4 cpu thread

i run start.bat

is it correct?