NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Come-from-Beyond]

he makes some good points. i really do believe that bcnext is a really brilliant computer scientist but that code is a clusterfuck. it would be nice if someday we could get some serious software engineers to implement these really good ideas elegantly. in time perhaps.

I'm sure that Jean-Luc and the team will rewrite every line of the code. In the end we'll see that there is nothing created by BCNext left, only the idea. What if that was his initial plan?

[1714134411]

1714134411

[1714134411]

1714134411

[1714134411]

1714134411

[1714134411]

1714134411

[rickyjames]

Where is rickyjames?

Pin

rickyjames should open his detective agency and accept payments in NXT.

Lol.  You know, the most interesting people I ever searched for were my line of paternal grandfathers.  All the way back to 1523 in Scotland - I'm a member of Clan Gunn.  One of them was a 23 year old who crossed the Atlantic in 1673.

yea i stopped trying to trace back my lineage after learning that 2 of my grandfathers were nazis and one was a southern plantation owner that was enough knowledge for me on that subject.

DNA - the ultimate blockchain.

[swartzfeger]

I have to limit my reading on this forum, my paranoia is just under "don't trust the doctors."

If you are ready to take the red pill ( http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill ), read theeconomiccollapseblog.com daily for two weeks.  At the end of that time, add zerohedge.com to your daily reading for the next two weeks.  At the end of the month, go pour yourself a glass of whiskey and sit on your back porch staring at the woods for an hour and ask yourself just what in the hell is going on.

Ricky, cool to see another zerohedge reader here. I thought I had an idea of what was going on before I found ZH.

For anyone checking out ZH for the first time -- read all the user comments. That's where the gems are. Idiocy, too (like anywhere else) but real insight you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere else.

[Anon136]

he makes some good points. i really do believe that bcnext is a really brilliant computer scientist but that code is a clusterfuck. it would be nice if someday we could get some serious software engineers to implement these really good ideas elegantly. in time perhaps.

I'm sure that Jean-Luc and the team will rewrite every line of the code. In the end we'll see that there is nothing created by BCNext left, only the idea. What if that was his initial plan?

That would be awesome because I have done everything in my power to poke holes in the ideas. They really are very solid. If this dev team really does a top notch job than this thing is going to the moon.

[vanea84]

I have an idea to include the possibility to transfer nxt less than 1,
0.1, 0.999, 0.005

[brooklynbtc]

First post on nxtnews.co up tonight. A little piece on talking about email notifications at MyNxt.info

http://nxtnews.co/?p=4

Really is a great service. Getting emails when you forge a block is so smart.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I have an idea to include the possibility to transfer nxt less than 1,
0.1, 0.999, 0.005

U'll still pay 1 NXT fee.

[Anon136]

How do I look up a NxT address to see how much NxT that person has?

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=1

[EmoneyRu]

How about peer cleaning? Now I have 800 active peers. It is too much for my little node

1380 active peers.

[Anon136]

hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

[Come-from-Beyond]

hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

This is an interesting idea, let's discuss it and implement if it's really good, the whole community should take part in the discussion. No need to ask BCNext, Jean-Luc or me.

[pandaisftw]

Total badass, low-cost, always on, client / hallmark node for the home:



Dual-Core ARM, 2Gig RAM, 8Gig fast Flash onboard, GigEthernet, sub-100$
http://docs.cubieboard.org/products/start#cubietruck_cubieboard3

Curious, where can you get one for under $100? And how hard would it be to set up a node on it?

[Anon136]

hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

This is an interesting idea, let's discuss it and implement if it's really good, the whole community should take part in the discussion. No need to ask BCNext, Jean-Luc or me.

The big drawback is that would reduce the total number of transactions that could fit in a block. I wonder how significant the impact would be.

[Noitev]

hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

I completely agree with this. I have 8,000,000 NXT i'm too scared to leave up on a computer....

[User705]

hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

This is an interesting idea, let's discuss it and implement if it's really good, the whole community should take part in the discussion. No need to ask BCNext, Jean-Luc or me.

It always felt sort of right that some were willing to risk forging and therefore got that reward for doing it and some could chose not to risk it and keep coins cold so to speak.

[Anon136]

hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

I completely agree with this. I have 8,000,000 NXT i'm too scared to leave up on a computer....

i found it! 13695941894527713484   very impressive horde.

[Anon136]

hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

+1... but the security threat will still be there because of the infamous Java memory issues in regard to transaction signing.  

But hey... I wouldn't mind being able to use my block signing key independently AT ALL!  

As i understand it the signing is handled by a c++ library.

(one that i cant get to work for the life of me and its making me want to pull my hair out)

[abctc]

... no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app

- what is your Nxt account # ?

[mnightwaffle]

... no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app

- what is your Nxt account # ?

I'll donate a little
Think you should release it and afterwards profit some,,, maybe..?

[Anon136]

As i understand it the signing is handled by a c++ library.

(one that i cant get to work for the life of me and its making me want to pull my hair out)

I was referring to how our passphrase gets stored in Java memory in certain situations, but I probably didn't get it out right.

From the way I have understood it... even if we were able to unlock so that we forge with this second block signing key, the existing security threat with Java memory and our current passphrases will remain the same.

No biggie if I am missing something... my NXT friends will clear the fog quick!!!  

Ok so if there is a leak, that would only effect transactions. Using your account to forge would pose no risk. The block signing key would probably be stored in plaintext honestly because no one would have any incentive to want to steal it so long as there was rule saying that tx fees must be payed to the address holding the stake.