NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[coolmist]

Does anyone know how I can call an account balance in PHP?

I need something like...

Code:

$TokenResponse = json_decode(file_get_contents("http://localhost:7874/nxt?requestType=decodeToken&website=" . $rand . "&token=" . $token"));

$balance = json_decode(file_get_contents("http://localhost:7874/nxt?requestType=getBalance&account=". $TokenResponse[account]"));

pass account ID not token.

Code:

http://localhost:7874/nxt?requestType=getBalance&account=6669070404060812420

remember results are "multiplied by 100"

also, you'll probably be interested more in guaranted balance:

Code:

http://localhost:7874/nxt?requestType=getGuaranteedBalance&account=6669070404060812420&numberOfConfirmations=10

Right I understand the API, I was just giving an example -- what I meant was connections are refused when I send json requests, and curl is returning "NULL".

[1713584872]

1713584872

[S3MKi]

Guys look at bter sell orders
0.00008600    106,768.552    
0.00008700    100,699.300    
0.00008700    100,699.300    
0.00008900    102,158.623    
0.00009000    115,579.710    

+0.0000100       order about 100000

[Damelon]

Update 13: Bitcoin Conference Miami

This one is a big deal; we had a great meeting with Eric from ZipZap. JustaBit has talked with Zipzap quite a bit in the past for Peercoin, providing what they needed to make an informed decision about adding it to their platform. Today, Eric, myself, JustaBit and eB101 talked about how to move Nxt forward with Zipzap. Fantastic information, Eric is a straight shooter which I appreciate.  JustaBit is willing to help facilitate this the same way he did with Peercoin. Once we're added to Vircurex and/or Cryptsy, we'll provide liquidity information to help push this forward.

Update 13b

It hasn't been made public yet, but JustaBit will be leaving the Peer community at the end of the month on great terms to work on a company we've been developing called CoinTropolis. He'll have much more bandwidth available for Nxt. If you're not familiar with ZipZap, you might want to start reading up now. Zipzap will allow us to get coins into the hands of Joe User for cash. This is the big leagues in crypto.


It was great to have eB101 with us during the meetings, I know he'll do a great job helping coordinate the International Nxt community.

You guys have moved Nxt forward SO much today!
Thanks to all for your great work.

[opticalcarrier]

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process.

Well, they are the majority. So let it be.

They're not the majority. That's the point here.

They are. If you have 50$ and the other guy 1$ then you have the majority of wealth. So you are should be allowed to say more.

Fortunately, our democratic systems do not work this way (not yet, I fear).

You should be allowed to say more if you spend more of you wealth:
Say, if you spend 1/10 of your wealth it's more than if somebody spend 1/10000 of theirs. It appears it's not so important to them.

NXT is an economic ecosystem, not a state. In PoS 1 NXT is equivalent to 1 person (like SSN, birth certificate, or whatever) because this is the only way to truly account for the validity of each NXT, so 1 NXT = 1 Vote. All other methods will be gamed by the rich to make the poor poorer. For example, using 1 account = 1 Vote, a large stakeholder can create 10k accounts easily, while a small stakeholder will go broke doing it. No matter what you do, the rich can always afford more accounts than the poor can. Thus voting on an account basis is unrealistic.

I think a good analogy would be (within the NXT ecosystem), 1 NXT = 1 Person, Account Owner = Representative. So if you own 10k NXT, you are their representative and represent their "views", but you cannot speak for all the NXTs under other representatives.

A larger holders vote should have weight proportional to their stake, but they should also pay a proportional fee to their total stake. That could be a significant cost, preventing impulsive, foolish or uneducated voting. It is the stake holders responsibility to vote in a responsible and educated manner. It is those who are pushing the changes (or dissenters) to make sure they are educated on what is being changed and why it is important/needs to be done. I can't see how anything else matters or why all these complicated, gameable voting systems are even being brought up.

not saying you are wrong but i just wanted to point out that a large stake holder already has a strong incentive not to make a bad decision. if he does it will lower the value of his stake.

i have stayed out of all the VS stuff until now voting on stuff really concerns me.  unless tere is something to prevent someone from making a vote to steal money from someone, or something along those lines, it shouldnt be done at all.

IMO the best way with voting is to make the fee for the vote proportional to the stake.

[Kattywampus]

On the plane home from Miami. Thank you to everyone for the kind words, it was a great experience and I look forward to helping with the next steps.

[gs02xzz]

On the plane home from Miami. Thank you to everyone for the kind words, it was a great experience and I look forward to helping with the next steps.

Thanks you, Kattywampus!

[starik69]

Totally agree. Fees adjusted to voting power are absolutely necessary.

IMO the best way with voting is to make the fee for the vote proportional to the stake.

What fee? 
If transaction fee then stakeholders would return them by forging own transactions in own blocks.
If fee to some voting address with somewhat redistribution after voting then it is gamed again by creating many accounts.

[joefox]

Important notice regarding Let's Talk Bitcoin 1-minute spots!

Salsacz and I have been in touch about recording 1-minute spots for the Let's Talk Bitcoin network and we'd love to hear from Nxt champions all over the world.

We're asking you to record SHORT (10-15 second) answers to this question:

What is Nxt?

Here's how to do it:

• Go to http://vocaroo.com/
• Use your PC's microphone to record a message including your name (real name or forum nickname), location, and your answer to "What is Nxt"
• When you're happy with your recording, hit the "email" button and send your recording to whatsupnxt@gmail.com

FOR EXAMPLE:  "This is Come-from-Beyonce, from Belarus.  Nxt is so energy efficient that I can forge coins on a $35 Raspberry Pi computer powered by a solar panel!"

I'll be collecting these recordings and compiling them into a series of 1-minute spots to promote Nxt.  Keep your answers short by focusing each one on a Nxt feature that that is important to YOU.

They are expecting a completed ad in a couple of days, so please make a submission before Wednesday, January 29.  Record SEVERAL short pieces, if you like -- just keep each one brief.  I'll wrap it into a nice package, and do us all proud.

[pt7]

what with special cases, like the exchanges?

can they vote with users NXT?

Perhaps a colored coin concept can preserve the identity of the beneficial owners of NXT on an exchange? Something that is attached when a user acquires or uploads NXT, and removed when it is sold?

Or a smart contract between the exchange and its users requiring the exhange to cast votes as directed by users?

This too can be gamed.  Assume a person can uniquely be identified with colored coins.  What is to stop a significant stakeholder attaching colored coins to hobos for some pocket change to gain additional votes.   The only solution that cannot be gamed is 1 NXT = 1 vote?  This is also consistent with POS.

I was suggesting a way to preserve 1 NXT - vote (and perhaps this can be extended to forging as well).

Unless I misunderstand it, right now the exchanges get the forging power of all the NXT they hold, and I assume the vote system would work the same way by default (the exchange would get one vote for each NXT it holds). What I am suggesting implements via the unique features of a decentralized ledger the way it works in the public markets today; if you own Apple stock through a brokerage account, you instruct your broker how to vote your shares, and the broker actually casts the votes.

Same for forging...why does DGEX get all the payoff for holding its users' NXT? Of course, if they lose that, expect higher fees charged to users for DGEX's services.

Sorry for missing that point.  Hopefully when NXT includes an asset exchange, this will be less of an issue.  Also it will help if/when NXT offers the ability to lease forging to a pool without transferring the coins.  However, as a fallback there will be pressure on exchanges and pools by customers to waive any voting.  Regarding forging, this is balanced by fees charged (with the current pools).

[okaynow]

IMO the best way with voting is to make the fee for the vote proportional to the stake.

+1

[bithic]

So are we forking badly or not?

noob question but what happens when it forks???

Every fork of a network is effectively a new network itself. If you get stuck on a new fork/network then the coins you have are newNXT coins, as opposed to originalNXT coins. And they are not usable on the main NXT network. So they are almost useless.

situation A)
- I have money in my account
- I will not update and start new bad fork
- nobody will send me NXT coins
- I will fix situation and update
- are my old NXT ok?

situation B)
- the same as A, however somebody sent me NXT during my bad fork
- will be useless only money received during my bad fork?
- money I had before bad fork are ok?

bad fork ... useless money??

Is that planned feature?

I'd have thought that new versions are backwards compatible (at least in the code is e.g. block.version ...)

I'm not one of the developers, but my understanding is that if you are on a fork it is true that your account balance on that fork will be useless on the main blockchain. However, your original account still exists on the main blockchain in whatever state it was in before you forked. Any coins sent to your account on the main blockchain will still be received by it. Any transaction you do while on the fork will not be recognized by the main blockchain. Once you get back to the main blockchain you will see your account in exactly the same state it was in before you forked (unless it had received incoming transactions on the main blockchain while you were away, in which case those will show up).

So not really a huge risk for the average user, more just annoying and confusing until you get it sorted out. You might need to kill your client, delete it, delete your blockchain record and download the new client + real blockchain afresh.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[xyzzyx]

I'm not one of the developers, but my understanding is that if you are on a fork it is true that your account balance on that fork will be useless on the main blockchain. However, your original account still exists on the main blockchain in whatever state it was in before you forked. Any coins sent to your account on the main blockchain will still be received by it. Any transaction you do while on the fork will not be recognized by the main blockchain. Once you get back to the main blockchain you will see your account in exactly the same state it was in before you forked (unless it had received incoming transactions on the main blockchain while you were away, in which case those will show up).

So not really a huge risk for the average user, more just annoying and confusing until you get it sorted out. You might need to kill your client, delete it, delete your blockchain record and download the new client + real blockchain afresh.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

You're correct.

A while back I managed to get on a fork and it behaved exactly as you described above.

[bithic]

Really good advice from Let's Talk Bitcoin about content for the 1 minute spots:

With a minute spot, I would suggest getting a couple of different people to read different spots.  You could have somebody doing mythbusting spots but I think it would be better to instead focus on the really cool features built into next and helping people imagine the reasons why they would actually want to use it.  People are very creative once you point them in the right direction, but the metacoin layer thing is a tough sell at first.     If you focus on the negative stuff people think about NXT, you come off as defensive but if you just talk about why your project is neat and why you're excited about it, that will attract more attention because people think its a good thing not a bad thing.

The perspective YOU bring, going into talk to people about NXT will be reflected in how they react.  If you think they'll hate it, they're probably going to hate it because you'll couch your words in such a way to make them prepare to hate it.  

You guys don't need to be defensive, you have a major advantage - a product that's out, and that seems to work with a development team that doens't have the legal liability of your competitors or some of the jurisdictional risk.   Your disadvantage is NXT appears to be a bit headless, with a few self-appointed organizers but no real structure besides stakeholders acting in what they feel is their own best interest.   It might be interesting talking about that, how NXT is a *real* decentralized org in that there is no formal company at all doing the development or paying for anything.

[bithic]

FOR EXAMPLE:  "This is Come-from-Beyonce, from Belarus.  Nxt is so energy efficient that I can forge coins on a $35 Raspberry Pi computer powered by a solar panel!"

I'll be collecting these recordings and compiling them into a series of 1-minute spots to promote Nxt.  Keep your answers short by focusing each one on a Nxt feature that that is important to YOU.

A compilation like this will definitely come across as an advertisement, which might be ok for the first couple spots, but it will get old quickly. I think it would be good to transition to more of a "news update" feel once Nxt has been sufficiently introduced, so listeners feel like they're being included in the community by being given valuable information on what is happening and what to expect. If we assume the listeners already love Nxt, and treat them as if they do, then they're more likely to love Nxt!

[pandaisftw]

The more NXT someone has, the more right he has to decide. It's natural. Someone with 50% ownership on a company has a 50% right to decide something..

It's so easy. So why do you fighting over this so much?

I agree too, but this is only under the assumption that large stakeholders will always do things in the best interest of the currency's growth and health. However, I am sure at some point there could be large NXT stakeholders that would vote for something just not acceptable by a majority of the community and it would be interesting to see how that would play out in the actual decision making process.

Well, they are the majority. So let it be.

They're not the majority. That's the point here.

They are. If you have 50$ and the other guy 1$ then you have the majority of wealth. So you are should be allowed to say more.

Fortunately, our democratic systems do not work this way (not yet, I fear).

You should be allowed to say more if you spend more of you wealth:
Say, if you spend 1/10 of your wealth it's more than if somebody spend 1/10000 of theirs. It appears it's not so important to them.

NXT is an economic ecosystem, not a state. In PoS 1 NXT is equivalent to 1 person (like SSN, birth certificate, or whatever) because this is the only way to truly account for the validity of each NXT, so 1 NXT = 1 Vote. All other methods will be gamed by the rich to make the poor poorer. For example, using 1 account = 1 Vote, a large stakeholder can create 10k accounts easily, while a small stakeholder will go broke doing it. No matter what you do, the rich can always afford more accounts than the poor can. Thus voting on an account basis is unrealistic.

I think a good analogy would be (within the NXT ecosystem), 1 NXT = 1 Person, Account Owner = Representative. So if you own 10k NXT, you are their representative and represent their "views", but you cannot speak for all the NXTs under other representatives.

I can understand your point of view. But do not make the Nxt ecosystem for Nxt. We do it for the people. And when people don't like it because it does not seem fair they won't support it.

There are more different methods as only these two (1 Vote = 1 Nxt and 1 vote = 1 account) and variants of them.

The problem with these two is, there is nothing at stake. You can vote whatever and whenever you want.

If you have to pay for each vote and the amount of what you pay directly influences the voting power, you really think of voting when and what and how much is it worth to me.

So, something is at stake now. I cannot simply pay 10.000.000 to simply outvote everyone else. Because, in the next voting session would won't have any coins left.

Can you produce any valid argument against fee-based voting? I would really like to hear them as I want Nxt to thrive because people love it.

Technically, everyone who votes, as a stakeholder, has something at stake. Large stakeholders won't vote for things that would destroy the value of their NXT, correct? They will not also vote to harm small stakeholders, because that would hurt or prevent new users from coming into the system, thus hurting their own stake.

Perhaps, like others have mentioned before, we should have different voting methods for different things.

1) For bigger things like deciding decimal points, which feature should be prioritized, etc. then we can use 1 NXT = 1 Vote. On these issues, everyone should care, but the larger stakeholders technically have more at risk, so they should have more say in what direction NXT should follow. This will also encourage everyone in the NXT ecosystem to vote because there is no fee, plus they wouldn't want to hand all the power to large stakeholders. Additionally, with the wealth dispersion that is on-going, not all the large holders will vote for the same thing all the time, so I think it'll work out.

2) For more trivial things like banners, logos, etc. we can use 1 Cost = 1 Vote. The idea is that since these things are not as important, people only will pay as much as they care, which makes sense. Plus, if someone really wants a particular banner and pays 10000's of NXT... let them and redistribute NXT to everyone else.

My only concern with 2) is that it may be abused, or that many stakeholders will end up not voting because they will think, "oh, I'll let other stakeholders fight it out with their NXT, not mine." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect) So I still feel 1) is the best course of action because everyone is voting with their stake, at stake.

[bithic]

Quotable?:

It's really interesting watching this community - you guys are the only "headless" metalayer, lacking a founder or team and yet delivering with real working software.   

Keep up the good work

[coolmist]

I have multiple voting methods coded for community testing (per utopianfuture's proposal) I just need a way to send and receive API calls in PHP. The below example returns NULL... Suggestions?

Code:

<?php
   function get_web_page( $url )
    {
        $user_agent='Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0';

        $options = array(

            CURLOPT_CUSTOMREQUEST  =>"GET",        //set request type post or get
            CURLOPT_POST           =>false,        //set to GET
            CURLOPT_USERAGENT      => $user_agent, //set user agent
            CURLOPT_COOKIEFILE     =>"cookie.txt", //set cookie file
            CURLOPT_COOKIEJAR      =>"cookie.txt", //set cookie jar
            CURLOPT_RETURNTRANSFER => true,     // return web page
            CURLOPT_HEADER         => false,    // don't return headers
            CURLOPT_FOLLOWLOCATION => true,     // follow redirects
            CURLOPT_ENCODING       => "",       // handle all encodings
            CURLOPT_AUTOREFERER    => true,     // set referer on redirect
            CURLOPT_CONNECTTIMEOUT => 120,      // timeout on connect
            CURLOPT_TIMEOUT        => 120,      // timeout on response
            CURLOPT_MAXREDIRS      => 10,       // stop after 10 redirects
        );

        $ch      = curl_init( $url );
        curl_setopt_array( $ch, $options );
        $content = curl_exec( $ch );
        $err     = curl_errno( $ch );
        $errmsg  = curl_error( $ch );
        $header  = curl_getinfo( $ch );
        curl_close( $ch );

        $header['errno']   = $err;
        $header['errmsg']  = $errmsg;
        $header['content'] = $content;
        return $header;
    }

$result = get_web_page('http://node6.mynxt.info:7874/nxt?requestType=getBalance&account=10006970057300228034');

var_dump($result);

?>

[Framewood]

On the plane home from Miami. Thank you to everyone for the kind words, it was a great experience and I look forward to helping with the next steps.

Thanks for being there and keeping us informed.

[joefox]

FOR EXAMPLE:  "This is Come-from-Beyonce, from Belarus.  Nxt is so energy efficient that I can forge coins on a $35 Raspberry Pi computer powered by a solar panel!"

I'll be collecting these recordings and compiling them into a series of 1-minute spots to promote Nxt.  Keep your answers short by focusing each one on a Nxt feature that that is important to YOU.

A compilation like this will definitely come across as an advertisement, which might be ok for the first couple spots, but it will get old quickly. I think it would be good to transition to more of a "news update" feel once Nxt has been sufficiently introduced, so listeners feel like they're being included in the community by being given valuable information on what is happening and what to expect. If we assume the listeners already love Nxt, and treat them as if they do, then they're more likely to love Nxt!

I totally agree.  I'm casting the net wide to see what comes back, and will go from there.  We can probably use this format for the first few segments, but will then have to transition to something else.

These segments ARE, in essence, ads.  We are paying to sponsor Let's Talk Bitcoin for three months.  

We are simultaneously building a podcast for all things Nxt, and there is a possibility that full segments from that cast could be featured on the "Beyond Bitcoin" podcast that the LTB team is hoping to launch.

[okaynow]

Technically, everyone who votes, as a stakeholder, has something at stake.

Technically yes, but history has proven otherwise. You are takinginto account an oversimplified view that assumes and implies that everyone wants what is best for the network. This is false, and it is safe to assume that there are no angels walking on this earth.
 
But if a vote coming out of a 10milnxt account has 10mil times  more fees than a vote coming from a 1nxtacc then there is actually something at stake
How can we believe that Nxt can bring on something different to the table, if we stick to old tricks?

What would Satoshi do?