NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[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

[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