NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[2gen]

suddenly much buying power wazup?

why is nxt going up so much on bter, is there something comming up, NEWS?

NXT will break 0.7 soon.?? Huge lift of

[Come-from-Beyond]

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

What is it?

[ChuckOne]

Can you describe the algorithm of determining the next forgers in terms of the math model? In particular, how exactly this list is updated?

If I read the source correctly, that function will return a sorted list of limit accounts that are able to forge the next block.

In math model:

it is like having not only k₀ but also k₁ and k₂ and ... and k_limit-1 representing the next in the what I would call forging queue.

k₀ is the best, followed by k₁ and so on.

But at the next moment (when the next block is forged) you decide on only one new entry to the queue? Or you wait until the queue is empty and decide on the whole queue then again?

That is yet to be decided.

EDIT:
possibilities if could come up with:

1) each block has its own forging queue
2) the network draws from the queue until it is depleted and creates a new one
3) the network considers all accounts of the queue as equally good

EDIT 2:
Why do we it at all?
Because not every account will forge, so we need a buffer I a forger is absent.

[mthcl]

But I still don't understand, what advantage the attacker obtains by creating these smaller accounts? Why not just sit on his big account and wait?

Creating blocks in a row is the major threat, if I understand it correctly.

Then there is no point in creating new accounts.

[CIYAM]

Then there is no point in creating new accounts.

Yes - that was my understanding from my own modelling.

Still the issue of "randomness" is a key point that I would like to have checked (i.e. how "random" is the block # 1440 blocks in the future).

[ChuckOne]

But I still don't understand, what advantage the attacker obtains by creating these smaller accounts? Why not just sit on his big account and wait?

Creating blocks in a row is the major threat, if I understand it correctly.

Then there is no point in creating new accounts.

Creating blocks in a row that YOU as an attacker control.

[CIYAM]

Creating blocks in a row that YOU as an attacker controls.

Yes - this is basically what I modeled in code and mthcl in math (not considering the proposed TF but just the existing approach).

Of course any *model* is just that (so it may not be "good enough" to reflect the *reality*).

[mthcl]

Can you describe the algorithm of determining the next forgers in terms of the math model? In particular, how exactly this list is updated?

If I read the source correctly, that function will return a sorted list of limit accounts that are able to forge the next block.

In math model:

it is like having not only k₀ but also k₁ and k₂ and ... and k_limit-1 representing the next in the what I would call forging queue.

k₀ is the best, followed by k₁ and so on.

But at the next moment (when the next block is forged) you decide on only one new entry to the queue? Or you wait until the queue is empty and decide on the whole queue then again?

That is yet to be decided.

EDIT:
possibilities if could come up with:

1) each block has its own forging queue
2) the network draws from the queue until it is depleted and creates a new one
3) the network considers all accounts of the queue as equally good

Then, if we decide on all queue at once, the algorithm should be changed, because this way you'll not obtain the "correct" forging probabilities (all k_i's are different, right?). Think of a situation when there is an account with 50% of all NXT, and limit=100.  Normally this account would forge every second block, but under this approach, it will only forge every 100th.

[L5Society]

suddenly much buying power wazup?

why is nxt going up so much on bter, is there something comming up, NEWS?

NXT will break 0.7 soon.?? Huge lift of

Not sure about the current market dynamics, but...

Bitcoin currently has a 11% inflation rate, in terms of supply. NXT has 0%. If the ratio of bitcoin market cap to NXT market cap were to stay the same, NXT price (denominated in BTC) would appreciate by 11.11% in 2014, 10% in 2015, 9.09% in 2016, 4.17% in in 2017, and 4.00% in 2018. Source: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply

Food for thought.

[ChuckOne]

But I still don't understand, what advantage the attacker obtains by creating these smaller accounts? Why not just sit on his big account and wait?

Creating blocks in a row is the major threat, if I understand it correctly.

Then there is no point in creating new accounts.

The point is that an attacker might find a clever combination (trying enough of them out) to control a large enough row.

[msin]

Just a few more days until I come back. Is there anyone willing to pay the money for NXT.org?


I canceled 7 domains regarding the Nxt-Ecosystem. After I come back I will concentrate on quality work. Because this is what Nxt needs right now. So please respond to the question above.

Also I want to redirect NXTarea.com to http://mynxt.org/, Mario is that okay for you? After a few months I would also cancel this domain then, at this point the users should know that mynxt.org is the new landing page.



wesleyh, I'm not following everything right now. But you mentioned something like client-side-verification at http://nxtra.org/nxt-client-trustless/ . Is that also possible for tipNXT.com (not working right now, because I don't have a server for the client)?


So that someone can type in the wallet password to send the money, but it won't get send to the server. Sure there need to be HTTPS then. But will this makes tipNXT 100% secure?


What if someone hack the server and change the code. Is it possible to create a hash or checksum (with php and crojobs!) of the critical .php files and upload them somewhere on an external site?

Looking forward to having you back Passion_ltc definitely miss your web projects, they were all good!

[ChuckOne]

1) each block has its own forging queue
2) the network draws from the queue until it is depleted and creates a new one
3) the network considers all accounts of the queue as equally good

Then, if we decide on all queue at once, the algorithm should be changed, because this way you'll not obtain the "correct" forging probabilities (all k_i's are different, right?). Think of a situation when there is an account with 50% of all NXT, and limit=100.  Normally this account would forge every second block, but under this approach, it will only forge every 100th.
[/quote]

Do you mean 2) or 3) ?

[CIYAM]

The point is that an attacker might find a clever combination (trying enough of them out) to control a large enough row.

And this is the *concern* that I have always had about the "penalty" approach (as it might actually *help* with this - the simpler the algo the harder to game IMO).

[mthcl]

1) each block has its own forging queue
2) the network draws from the queue until it is depleted and creates a new one
3) the network considers all accounts of the queue as equally good

Then, if we decide on all queue at once, the algorithm should be changed, because this way you'll not obtain the "correct" forging probabilities (all k_i's are different, right?). Think of a situation when there is an account with 50% of all NXT, and limit=100.  Normally this account would forge every second block, but under this approach, it will only forge every 100th.

Do you mean 2) or 3) ?

2

[ChuckOne]

[...] "penalty" approach (as it might actually *help* with this - the simpler the algo the harder to game IMO).

I do not see, why penalty worsens the situation when trying out 100000000000000000000000000 combinations of raw transactions and potential blocks?

[Come-from-Beyond]

I do not see, why penalty worsens the situation when trying out 100000000000000000000000000 combinations of raw transactions and potential blocks?

Why does one need "100000000000000000000000000 combinations of raw transactions"? Block generation signature doesn't depend on content of the block.

[ChuckOne]

1) each block has its own forging queue
2) the network draws from the queue until it is depleted and creates a new one
3) the network considers all accounts of the queue as equally good

Then, if we decide on all queue at once, the algorithm should be changed, because this way you'll not obtain the "correct" forging probabilities (all k_i's are different, right?). Think of a situation when there is an account with 50% of all NXT, and limit=100.  Normally this account would forge every second block, but under this approach, it will only forge every 100th.

Do you mean 2) or 3) ?

2

Not sure. The next forging queue (that one 100 blocks in the future when each of the 100 forgers forge) might not favor our 50% account.

[mthcl]

But I still don't understand, what advantage the attacker obtains by creating these smaller accounts? Why not just sit on his big account and wait?

Creating blocks in a row is the major threat, if I understand it correctly.

Then there is no point in creating new accounts.

The point is that an attacker might find a clever combination (trying enough of them out) to control a large enough row.

This is, essentially, about breaking the cryptography, right?

Probably, this could be beaten by introducing some extra randomness (e.g., take some quantity that the attacker does not control as a seed, etc.).

[CIYAM]

Why does one need "100000000000000000000000000 combinations of raw transactions"? Block generation signature doesn't depend on content of the block.

Exactly - this seems to have been misunderstood.

[ChuckOne]

I do not see, why penalty worsens the situation when trying out 100000000000000000000000000 combinations of raw transactions and potential blocks?

Why does one need "100000000000000000000000000 combinations of raw transactions"? Block generation signature doesn't depend on content of the block.

What does it depend on then?