NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[smartwart]

yeah, its a question how it becomes implemented.
I also think in general, every user should decide how to handle it.

getState shows "numberOfUsers":2

When user unlocks their account on the node, check against how many users are already forging on that node, check if AllowedForgingUsers is set to 'unlimited', allow to unlock, if the number is less than AllowedForgingUsers in web.xml - allow to unlock, and if it's equal to that parameter, display 'Node forging capacity is full' or something like that. Or do you see any other difficulties in implementing this? Please explain.

don't see any problem there.
Maybe it would make sense to replace unlimited by an defined number to avoid "Monopo(o)ls".
(don't know how to do in open source SW)

Big pools could become bigger and bigger due to more frequently forging.
This allure (more accounts => more frequently forging) + self gaining...

[1715355254]

1715355254

[1715355254]

1715355254

[1715355254]

1715355254

[mcjavar]

yeah, its a question how it becomes implemented.
I also think in general, every user should decide how to handle it.

getState shows "numberOfUsers":2

When user unlocks their account on the node, check against how many users are already forging on that node, check if AllowedForgingUsers is set to 'unlimited', allow to unlock, if the number is less than AllowedForgingUsers in web.xml - allow to unlock, and if it's equal to that parameter, display 'Node forging capacity is full' or something like that. Or do you see any other difficulties in implementing this? Please explain.

don't see any problem there.
Maybe it would make sense to replace unlimited by an defined number to avoid "Monopo(o)ls".
(don't know how to do in open source SW)

Big pools could become bigger and bigger due to more frequently forging.
This allure (more accounts => more frequently forging) + self gaining...

And in the end, we will have a big pool with all Nxts in it

[laowai80]

don't see any problem there.
Maybe it would make sense to replace unlimited by an defined number to avoid "Monopo(o)ls".
(don't know how to do in open source SW)

Big pools could become bigger and bigger due to more frequently forging.
This allure (more accounts => more frequently forging) + self gaining...

Node owners must be allowed to configure it to any number, 'unlimited' or '0' or '42' by default, I don't care. It'll be a nice parameter to have, that's all.

The way it's set up now is 'unlimited', because there is no configurable restriction at all.

[EmoneyRu]

don't see any problem there.
Maybe it would make sense to replace unlimited by an defined number to avoid "Monopo(o)ls".
(don't know how to do in open source SW)

Big pools could become bigger and bigger due to more frequently forging.
This allure (more accounts => more frequently forging) + self gaining...

And in the end, we will have a big pool with all Nxts in it

As I said ...

[bitcoinpaul]

Brainstorming

I'd like to introduce a concept of a new feature called Account Control. This feature will allow to do different things with ur accounts. For example, u will be able to set a lock on an account to prohibit any outgoing transactions until a special condition met (e.g. an incoming transaction from a predefined account).

Love it. Conditions could be: incoming transaction from another account, only at specific times, second password(?). Or it wouldn't be locked only for specific amounts or receiver addresses.

We should keep in mind that the functions need to be simple. Of course with genius coding behind, but the end user must understand the features in a second.

Another example is Pooled Forging, when an account leases its forging power to another account.

I have a question first: When Alice's account forges a block, is Alice able to forge the next block(s) also or is there some locking going on (i read about it somewhere)? Without locking for the next x blocks, we could get some centralization (like big forging 'banks', getting bigger and bigger).

edit: ok, slow writing. this was mentioned three posts above mine.

[bitcoinpaul]

I'd like to modify this concept a bit in a universal way.
I'd like to lock a portion of my account (up to the whole account)
I want let's say invent a turtlecoin with value xx_NXT, grant a specific account (other or mine) the right to pull this turtlecoin if he sends a password and define a timeframe during this has to be done. after the timelimit the turtlecoin becomes NXT again.
During the timeframe the turtlecoin is locked for me.

this way the NXT-client could print a QR-Code with the generated password, I go to the petshop and the owner can pull the turtlecoin with it.
-> I get the turtle and both are happy  

this is of course only one application for this feature. of course turtlecoin can be replaced by amout xx NXT.

another idea: it wouldn't be hard to implement an escrow this way.

I wanna sell a turtle. buyer sends me pass for turtlecoin, which I only can pull after turtle reached buyer succesfully.
if he doesn't confirm turtle reached him alive, the turtlecoin becomes invalid for me and him also and goes as NXT to a predefined social fund.
the buyer can trick me, pretending the turtle was dead, but he won't do this very often, because the network stores unsuccesful trades.

Poor turtle. Nice idea. Like a voucher (or paper money! mindblowing). It could also work as a guarantee. The coins are blocked for you, reachable for the other party which could grab them if a special condition is met maybe, but you can still forge with them.

edit: And they are called nxt coins (finally ). Backed by NXTs.

[notsoshifty]

And in the end, we will have a big pool with all Nxts in it

On the subject of large pools forging...

Assuming all one billion nxt contributes to forging, an account (or pool) that has 17million balance will forge a block on average once per hour, i.e fairly regularly. Any business that needs to execute lots of transactions each day (e.g. an online wallet service / exchange / alias registrar service / poker game) could lump all its transactions from the last ~1hour into that one block and get them executed without fee. Or rather, it gets its own fee; but same result.

So, big players with big wallets and big transaction volumes will end up not paying any fees, whereas the small fish will have to pay fees. Is this a likely scenario, and if so is it a problem?

[davethetrousers]

Released 0.5.3:

http://download.nxtcrypto.org/nxt-client-0.5.3.zip

sha256: 23fc36fba166e00299003407169a26515e6d67c8094b5a06f9c795cc62ca83a7

Well, this finally seems like a fine candidate for a new RaspNXT.

My RPi is down right now for some overclocking tests. Will update, test and upload later.

[Come-from-Beyond]

And in the end, we will have a big pool with all Nxts in it

On the subject of large pools forging...

Assuming all one billion nxt contributes to forging, an account (or pool) that has 17million balance will forge a block on average once per hour, i.e fairly regularly. Any business that needs to execute lots of transactions each day (e.g. an online wallet service / exchange / alias registrar service / poker game) could lump all its transactions from the last ~1hour into that one block and get them executed without fee. Or rather, it gets its own fee; but same result.

So, big players with big wallets and big transaction volumes will end up not paying any fees, whereas the small fish will have to pay fees. Is this a likely scenario, and if so is it a problem?

The outcome is the same as if they paid fees and included not their transactions into forged blocks.

[smartwart]

don't see any problem there.
Maybe it would make sense to replace unlimited by an defined number to avoid "Monopo(o)ls".
(don't know how to do in open source SW)

Big pools could become bigger and bigger due to more frequently forging.
This allure (more accounts => more frequently forging) + self gaining...

And in the end, we will have a big pool with all Nxts in it

As I said ...

It was a big pool, now its a big pool, always be a big pool with all NxT in it ;-)
If you zoom out far enough   , every decentral system becomes centralized by it self ;-)

[EmoneyRu]

It was a big pool, now its a big pool, always be a big pool with all NxT in it ;-)
If you zoom out far enough   , every decentral system becomes centralized by it self ;-)

I think making available unrestricted forging without password phrase sharing will make NXT ProofOfBuy-RegisterKeyOnceAtMegaServer-DoNothingToTheNetwork-GetProfit

[smartwart]

And in the end, we will have a big pool with all Nxts in it

On the subject of large pools forging...

Assuming all one billion nxt contributes to forging, an account (or pool) that has 17million balance will forge a block on average once per hour, i.e fairly regularly. Any business that needs to execute lots of transactions each day (e.g. an online wallet service / exchange / alias registrar service / poker game) could lump all its transactions from the last ~1hour into that one block and get them executed without fee. Or rather, it gets its own fee; but same result.

So, big players with big wallets and big transaction volumes will end up not paying any fees, whereas the small fish will have to pay fees. Is this a likely scenario, and if so is it a problem?

The outcome is the same as if they paid fees and included not their transactions into forged blocks.

its a scary feature of NxT  

[xyzzyx]

http://www.cloudcrypter.net/build.php

Haha, nice. Let 'em (alt coins) all die.

best ever  

just created pincoin

Pin

I'm kinda sad I didn't see an option for maximum number of coins.  I wanted to make OneCoin: The Rarest of CryptoCoins(TM).   

[Come-from-Beyond]

I'm kinda sad I didn't see an option for maximum number of coins.  I wanted to make OneCoin: The Rarest of CryptoCoins(TM).   

Disagree, the rarest one would be ZeroCoin.

[smartwart]

It was a big pool, now its a big pool, always be a big pool with all NxT in it ;-)
If you zoom out far enough   , every decentral system becomes centralized by it self ;-)

I think making available unrestricted forging without password phrase sharing will make NXT ProofOfBuy-RegisterKeyOnceAtMegaServer-DoNothingToTheNetwork-GetProfit

yhea, this is possible indeed.
That's the reason I was mentioning to set maxNumberOfAllowedForgingClients != infinite.
This would lead to an minimum dispersion, affected by the value of maxNumberOfAllowedForgingClients.

[smartwart]

http://www.cloudcrypter.net/build.php

Haha, nice. Let 'em (alt coins) all die.

best ever  

just created pincoin

Pin

I'm kinda sad I didn't see an option for maximum number of coins.  I wanted to make OneCoin: The Rarest of CryptoCoins(TM).   

how much is the transaction fee?

[EmoneyRu]

Anything interesting?
Twister Whitepaper

[marcus03]

Account number 12956190138975700589 was incorrectly typed with an extra 1 at the end: 129561901389757005891. This is not a valid account number (it exceeds 2^64) and so resulted in overflow and was interpreted as 434692873790144579. I have added code that checks and prevents such overflows, so from now on this would return an "invalid recipient" error message. It is important to note that typo's that result in a different but valid account number will still not be caught, but in those cases it would be more obvious to the user that he has made a typo. So if the user enters the account as 12956190138975700588 for example, it will be accepted because this is a valid account number.

Most importantly, there is no evidence in the above case of a random, memory corruption type of bug, as some have feared. Adding checksums as a way to prevent user errors is a different issue, but there has been no memory corruption at play here.

Wow, I am ashamed. It indeed looks like my stupid mistake.

Still there is a small possibility that that last 1 was a result of a memory corruption, because I do not type anything, I use the mouse to copy/paste.

What happened in the old version when the account number was pasted twice, so it read 1295619013897570058912956190138975700589 ?

[S3MKi]

Hi dudes. I created few days ago fan-page vk.com/nxtvsbtc on russian social network to promote NXT for russians, belarusians and ukrainians.
Now we have over 2500 followers. We start competition today. People must join to fan page and share this post( video about nxt) http://vk.com/wall-64086699_17 The competition will finish 20January. The winner must has more re-post of this video from his profile then others. Bounty is 1000NXT! After finish we will start next competition. Many people will know about NXT.
I'm waiting my withdraw from dgex and I will thank you if you will donate this project. Best regards
NXT 5552153634766291106

[NxtChg]

What happened in the old version when the account number was pasted twice, so it read 1295619013897570058912956190138975700589 ?

I thought about it too. Would be strange not to notice such a long number, though.

I also thought maybe the field had a limited length and on double-paste it became 129561901389757005891, but it doesn't seem to have a limit.

It's also possible that it appended to itself internally as a result of corrupted memory.

Anyway, the important thing is how to protect against it in the future. I hope the developers are brainstorming how to do checksums in the best way and how to migrate to the new address scheme and will come back to us with a solution later.