NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[ZeroTheGreat]

Unlimited possibilities is a double-edged blade, we can hurt ourselves.

Cryptos appeared ang continue to grow to make double-edged blade of authority go away. Why we need another blade to be built-in?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Why we need another blade to be built-in?

I think we don't. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[ZeroTheGreat]

Why we need another blade to be built-in?

I think we don't. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

And why VS still exist and get mentioned? Who insist is stays? And why?!

[BloodyRookie]

So when it claims I can generate the next block in 55 days, does that imply that's how long my coins need to sit to be Stake? What's my benefit to forge in the meantime? None?

Now ROI% of forging lies near 0. If activity'll grow, situation can change. At any moment u've chance to hit the target. "55 days" — estimated time. May be u'll never generate a block, may be u'll generate next 10k blocks in a row.

In the moment that a new block is forged, the timer for all clients (who have received the new block) is updated with a new value. From that moment on it is determined who will forge the next block (the client with the lowest value displayed, unless he/she locks his/her account). It's deterministic, no chance involved from that moment on. Transparent forging will use that information i guess.

[Come-from-Beyond]

And why VS still exist and get mentioned? Who insist is stays? And why?!

Ah, we need VS to vote on how to spend funds collected during IPO on Asset Exchange. Global voting is just a side-effect.

[ZeroTheGreat]

Ah, we need VS to vote on how to spend funds collected during IPO on Asset Exchange. Global voting is just a side-effect.

?! How to spend: you're welcome. Why add "which one of you we'll freeze next"? More info requested.

I have no problem at all with temporary penalty for forging set by algo, and with fees to system to live. But there math ends. Really, anyone here wanna see potential of built-in penalties of any kind created by mind/center?

[gbeirn]

now how many of that top are initial donators?

and add country to

Pin

I am! From US. Took a couple of days off and have tons of reading to catch up on

[ZeroTheGreat]

If there's only one question we really don't need big dangerous feature for this, I suppose. Just some scheme to vote one time proportional to coins. Txs to one address + script to calculate result or something else. Do I miss something?

Anyway only part of coins'll vote in reasonable time.

[ZeroTheGreat]

It's deterministic, no chance involved from that moment on. Transparent forging will use that information i guess.

If it'd work that way, low stakes'd never get possibilty to generate a block if there's big stake online; and inside-attack'd become cheaper too — all you've to do is run biggest amount of NXT in moment of attack.

So there's hashing to hit your own Base Target with low freq. — game of chances, I suppose. And if I understand TF correct, your "set to be fast" tx'll go exactly to this node that'll have closest to 100% chance of forging in nearest future calculated by analysing all forgers at moment of sending tx. Ofc, there'll be some risk node'll ruin (or whole system will) in nearest future, or another forger win a block earlier, but average time of that kind of txs will be almost "0 + nearest future".

[BitCoiner2012]

When I am trying to send my NXT, after I click "send" it simply hangs there and does nothing. Anyone experience this? Nevermind, can't relog in either, something must be frozen.

[Ola]

I have been incognito for a few hours and I am already backlogged on more than 30 pages of posts..I will spend tonight catching up...I just want to say 2 things that may be of importance

1) People for the love of God...please in your proposals, DO NOT , I repeat DO NOT design schemes which would require intervention by a single entity at some critical point of the system...especially if that entity acts a validator into decentralized commerce. This is too much power for one person or group to control..This is akin to the concept of "coinvalidation" deciding of who and who not to approve to trade...All human trust has to be removed...no matter how altruistic seeming..Even Bcnext cannot be put in charge to approve and control...he will represent a single point of failure susceptible to a number of environmental, human or political pressures. Of course I am referencing the decentralized asset exchange but this can be applied to all other sub systems within...The solution is in the power of VOTING..you can approve or deny anything using the power of the unanimous stakeholders



2)Something just clicked...hindsight is 2020... on the subject of voting which is a very powerful feature, I recall CFB talking about using the ability to vote to destroy an individuals coins...Maybe this is BCnext fix to some of the huge (not all) stakeholders that refuse to get active and redistribute..For instance the community could propose a fair way and certain amount for these stakeholders to distribute (at a profit or not)  or risk their coins being destroyed..aside from the motivating effect this will also increase the value of all nxt. could this be a thought that crossed bcnxt's mind? CFB please comment

[gbeirn]

But still: why idea appeared? How many benefits it have to cloud THREAT TO DECENTRALIZATION?

Nxt gives unlimited possibilities. I mentioned destruction of coins to catch attention of the community*. Unlimited possibilities is a double-edged blade, we can hurt ourselves.

------
* - actually this is the 2nd time, the 1st time was ignored.

I read it the first time and my thoughts were "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" from Spider Man. It would be so cool to have infinite block chains (or universes) to see how they can all play out.

[ZeroTheGreat]

stakeholders that refuse to get active

So what? They'll be penaltied at forging. Forging = keeping network up, so it's completey reasonable. Why any other penalties'd be implemented?

IMO anyone can do anything he wants. PoS+TF defend system even against 90%+ inside-attack, there's no more defence required of any kind, I suppose (VS can nothing to do here to improve situation, 51% < 90%).

[xyzzyx]

nxt:blockchain

Alias already claimed?

nxt:explorer

[ZeroTheGreat]

"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility"

Exactly. And we can create that kind of power or can do not create it at all. Why should we? VS cann't overcome PoS+TF, but can hurt some stakeholders in future under diff. circ. No benefits I see so far.

[S3MKi]

[pinarello]

very nice thank you !

Pin

[gbeirn]

"With Great Power comes Great Responsibility"

Exactly. And we can create that kind of power or can do not create it at all. Why should we? VS cann't overcome PoS+TF, but can hurt some stakeholders in future under diff. circ. No benefits I see so far.

Oh I agree, if a voting system would allow for those features, I would vote to not allow the voting system. Who am I to say what other should do with their coins.

Now if the voting system would just allow us to vote on which tea is better: "Green or Earl Grey?" that I would vote for. Perhaps we can use the voting system to limit the voting system?

[gbeirn]

All of my VPSs have been up and running for 24 Hr+ so far. No weird sync issues or stuck blocks. No crashed Java processes either.

[smartwart]

And why VS still exist and get mentioned? Who insist is stays? And why?!

Ah, we need VS to vote on how to spend funds collected during IPO on Asset Exchange. Global voting is just a side-effect.

could there be different paradigm for wealth / currency related voting and "Global Voting" ?
+for the one 51% stake majority makes absolutely sense.
+for the other it should be discussed if 51% stake holder is an option.