NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Come-from-Beyond]

Is there a thread about Laskhmi?

No

[2Kool4Skewl]

Is there a thread about Laskhmi?

No

Ok.  Laskhmi is your PoW currency secured by the Nxt PoS chain, right?

[jettico]

But this is completely another situation. Plz read my post carefully.

Edit: Hint - 100k account has 100 times higher chance than 1k account by definition (target = baseTarget*balance*time).

I don't oppose this definition. It's quite fine. At least that's what was promised from the beginning, and (hopefully) how it works now.

But this TF algorithm that is given in the wiki doesn't comply to this definition.

I think my explanation above is sufficient to show that.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Is there a thread about Laskhmi?

No

Ok.  Laskhmi is your PoW currency secured by the Nxt PoS chain, right?

Almost. It's Lakshmi.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I think my explanation above is sufficient to show that.

P(A or B) =/= P(A) + P(B) in our case.

[verbosvn]

Sure thats true but it isn't really relevant. The question is whether nxt will cause the rich to get richer. Not whether everyone will get an equal rate of return on their investment.

lets go back... why is this an issue?  This aint unicef.  LIFE aint unicef.  OK the rich do get richer, perhaps we should instead focus just on how things are and what this REALLY means.  Like the talk about the initial stakeholders making a 4700% ROI immediately after genesis.  So what?  The period was open for OVER SIX WEEKS, that is like ages in comparison to all other altcoin ANN threads before then. (no Im not a genesis block stakeholder either)  If the 'unfairness' of the 6 week period is all you can think of then you are a fool as you are really missing the whole POINT of NXT.  Its not some stupid altcoin to get pumped and dumped like all others; its the basis for a completely new crypto currency infrastructure.  Why are they not clamoring about the unfairness of all the early bitcoin adopters getting such a headstart.

Just dont even bother with trying to reason with unreasonable people.  Problem solved, problem staying solved.

Yea I agree with a lot of that but the point wasn't to make value judgments. (i think i technically did and perhaps i shouldn't have) My intention was to examine the question of whether nxt would or would not tend to cause the rich to get richer at the expense of the poor.

also as a side note the net transfer would be very minor i think.

I think instead of focusing on the rich getting richer, we should focus on the poor not getting poorer.

In Bitcoin (and all it's clones), holders are basically paying a fee (10% of their holdings a year currently) just to hold their bitcoins. This fee is paid to miners, and the inflation it causes devalues everyone's stake. So the only people not getting poorer are ASIC manufacturers+friends mining huge amounts of bitcoin to dump, and passing that cost onto bitcoin holders. Thus, this is a very real situation of the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer.

In NXT, everyone who is a stakeholder is guaranteed to not lose a single percent of their stake, ever. Sure, the rich may forge the majority of blocks, but that in no way affects the small stakeholder's holdings. This lets the small stakeholder build his stake up over time (let's say he works hard and gets paid in NXT), his stake will continue to grow and grow as long as he makes the effort. He may eventually even become a big stakeholder himself. In Bitcoin, the small stakeholder loses 10% of his stake every year, and has to fight an overwhelming uphill battle to get to the top.

What if we politely ask those 75 biggest stakeholders not to forge for the time being? That's small change for them (isnt it?) and we have a nice answer against "rich getting richer" argument.

Also: Hi everyone, I am new here!

[2Kool4Skewl]

Is there a thread about Laskhmi?

No

Ok.  Laskhmi is your PoW currency secured by the Nxt PoS chain, right?

Almost. It's Lakshmi.

Ah ok.  Named after the Hindu Goddess.  Good name.

[jettico]

Ur resume is incorrect

What do you mean by that?

P(A or B) =/= P(A) + P(B) in our case.

P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B)          http://www.mathwords.com/a/addition_rule.htm

In our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.
(here A is the probability of wallet #1 to forge a block in this round, and B - for wallet #2)

So what? Where in my original post did I rely on P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B)?

[2Kool4Skewl]

What if we politely ask those 75 biggest stakeholders not to forge for the time being? That's small change for them (isnt it?) and we have a nice answer against "rich getting richer" argument.

Also: Hi everyone, I am new here!

Welcome verbosvn

If you look at the block explorer, a lot of the bigger accounts are not forging.

Also, depending on what BCNext means by "migrating out of PoS" could mean that larger stakeholders generate less coins.

[jettico]

I wish you get me right. I'm not saying TF is bad. The idea is great. It's just the algorithm that is incorrect. Please correct the algorithm, or explain where I'm wrong.

btw, thanks for the explanation about base target<100%, Come-from-Beyond. Really helpful

[Come-from-Beyond]

In our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.

A and B r not mutually exclusive. U don't take into account network topology / orphaned blocks. Sometimes a block forged in 5 second after the previous one becomes orphaned by a block forged in 10 seconds. U get incorrect results coz u work with an over-simplified model.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Please correct the algorithm, or explain where I'm wrong.

See above.

[Passion_ltc]

Guys I am in deperate need for a feature and for a reason price I will generiously pay

MASTER PULIC KEY ACCOUNT NUMBER GENERATION, ELECTRUM STYLE

any one can make this happen around here? I am willing to PAY for working code and concept and release it open source.

- Lophie

More infos please.

[jettico]

[quote author

In our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.

A and B r not mutually exclusive. U don't take into account network topology / orphaned blocks. Sometimes a block forged in 5 second after the previous one becomes orphaned by a block forged in 10 seconds. U get incorrect results coz u work with an over-simplified model.

Orphaned blocks don't make A and B not mutially exclusive because only one of them will get the revenue in the bottomline.

Any more objections? How does network topology influence laws of statistics?

Please correct the algorithm, or explain where I'm wrong.

See above.

Above I saw:

Where in my original post did I rely on P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B)?

Please address my post and not your argument taken from another thread.

[lophie]

Guys I am in deperate need for a feature and for a reason price I will generiously pay

MASTER PULIC KEY ACCOUNT NUMBER GENERATION, ELECTRUM STYLE

any one can make this happen around here? I am willing to PAY for working code and concept and release it open source.

- Lophie

More infos please.

MPK is a public key generated using a wallet seed in a way so that you can generate other addresses right from the MPK without needing the priv keys. To see the utility of this check acceptbit.com, it is a POS system that do not require ANY private keys you just supply it an MPK and then it can generate addresses for your customers, imagine the implications, a cashless register, where transactions happen and only the administration can move the money.

I really need this so if you have the knowledge, I am prepared to pay.

- Lophie

[bitfromit]

***Action Item***

One of our priorities needs to be able to get Nxt into the hands of people without Bitcoin.

You can purchase NXT without Bitcoin via CryptoKopen.eu.

Wow such expensive way to buy anything. 

[Come-from-Beyond]

Orphaned blocks don't make A and B not mutially exclusive...

They do and this is by design to make it impossible to predict next forging accounts 1440 blocks in advance.

...because only one of them will get the revenue in the bottomline.

This is irrelevant to probabilities.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Where in my original post did I rely on P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B)?

Please address my post and not your argument taken from another thread.

V
V
V

In our case P(A and B) = 0 because A and B are mutually exclusive.

[Come-from-Beyond]

MPK is a public key generated using a wallet seed in a way so that you can generate other addresses right from the MPK without needing the priv keys. To see the utility of this check acceptbit.com, it is a POS system that do not require ANY private keys you just supply it an MPK and then it can generate addresses for your customers, imagine the implications, a cashless register, where transactions happen and only the administration can move the money.

Did I get u right? U state that there a function F() exists such as

F(MPK, i) = PK_i

?

[jettico]

That's called 'substitution of notions'. You suggested this topic. I didn't address summation of probabilities in my original post. And I don't see how summation of probabilities is connected to it.

This is my original post. Where do you see summation of probabilities? Why are we discussing it?

Transition to Transparent Forging (at least the way it is described in the wiki) will ruin the axiom of

"Rate of return to 1 Nxt is the same regardless how many Nxt you have."

Here's why.

Steps 3-5 in http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Transparent_Forging from the statistics point of view are equivalent to comparing random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 1/N where N is number of coins in the wallet (normalization coefficient is the same for all wallets and is omitted for clarity).

Now imagine that you throw a dice with numbers from 1 to 6 and your opponent throws a semi-dice with three possible values from 1 to 3. Who gets the lower number wins the round. In half of the cases you will throw 4-6 and win. In the other half you will have 50:50 chances to win. Thus your chances are 1/2 + 1/4 = 0.75 and his chances are 1/4 = 0.25. Which is 3 times lower.

For arbitrary ratio K between two wallets the probability ratio is 2K-1. For example, a wallet with 100k coins is 199 times more likely to forge a block than 1k wallet.

I'm talking about three times probability increase for a two times larger wallet. What orphan blocks are you talking about?