NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[CIYAM]

I would never trust it

Precisely!

[Come-from-Beyond]

So guys - I see it has being a case of wanting A or B - either you want A (1000+TPS) or you want B (arbitrary code execution a la Ethereum).

If a script can do the same things as 200 simple transactions, we could count it as a 200-fold transaction. Abstract "1000 tps" doesn't make much sense, it makes sense in a context of "useful work" done.

[xyzzyx]

I keep in mind our 1000 tps goal. If we let to execute SHA256 as a single opcode then we'll face the problem Ethereum is faced with - what a fee multiplier should be used for this opcode. 100x? 500x? 2700x? In my vision if a script requires to calculate SHA256 then it's supposed to implement it using simple opcodes.

[CIYAM]

If a script can do the same things as 200 simple transactions, we could count it as a 200-fold transaction. Abstract "1000 tps" doesn't make much sense, it makes sense in a context of "useful work" done.

Oh - that is a slippery slope then - I think Nxt will be attacked pretty easily if we use the words "1000+ TPS" and then turn around and say "well - what we actually mean is the equivalent of 1000 TPS *in useful work*".

Also if said scripts can't do either EC or SHA256 without doing it "in assembly" I think they won't be able to do much in the way of "useful work" anyway.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Guys, if u offer an instruction set, please, provide a simple program. The task of this program is to pay dividends to accounts owning a particular asset at block N.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Oh - that is a slippery slope then - I think you'll get attacked pretty easily if you use the words "1000+ TPS" and then turn around and say "well - I meant 1000 PTS *worth of useful work*".

U r right. Let's move back to dumb 1000 tps and see if we could have them even with our Scripts.

Also if said scripts can't do either EC or SHA256 without doing it "in assembly" I think they won't be able to do much in the way of "useful work" anyway.

Why do u need EC or SHA256 to pay dividends?

[xyzzyx]

Guys, if u offer an instruction set, please, provide a simple program. The task of this program is to pay dividends to accounts owning a particular asset at block N.

Whoops.  I guess I should have paid attention to the asset exchange development.  I have a lot of reading to catch up on now.

[jl777]

Hey, I'm not selling any XCP for a while, maybe a long while. I am just trying to establish what a fair market value is. .01 BTC puts XCP at approx 50% mastercoin valuation.

Maybe some XCP holders didn't know this, I didn't realize the huge disparity in valuation until I looked it up.

If all XCP holders know the actual value of what they have, then it is much less likely for a crazy speculative bubble to form. Granted this links XCP value to mastercoin, but that seemed to be the closest reference point. Gotta start somewhere.

James

P.S. I own a larger percentage of XCP than NXT, so I am fully motivated to help  XCP values increase.

I hope you put your energy still in Nxt.

Nah, I'll be slacking off like today for the most part.

More seriously, XCP is part of my overall strategic plan for NXT.
NXT is second gen crypto, so clearly all other second gens are potential rivals. Now some like XCP could be our allies. gotta choose wisely.

Read mastercoin main thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=265488.0
Compare to counterpary main thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.0

XCP already implements what mastercoin is supposed to release later this month. They have a large feature set overlap. XCP is just more reliable, but it costs less. OK so it should dominate mastercoin and I intend to help it do so. XCP will keep mastercoin busy so NXT doesnt have to worry about mastercoin.

emunie is now ripple 2.0, just without any VC and a total dev staff of 1. Long time loyalists are bailing, oh yes, closed source and unproven price fixing model with 50% postmine. I am not so worried about emunie.

Etherium has big money behind it already. It is the biggest threat to NXT by far. We need to work together to make sure that technically there isn't anything etherium can do that NXT cant. We still have a chance to beat etherium to market with actually useful stuff, like trustless decentralized exchange of all cryptos

I am more of a vision guy, I can see the high level stuff pretty good, but the details I make mistakes. Luckily there are many here who see what is wrong with what I am proposing and the end result is a technically accurate solution that makes sense from a high level. I include overall marketing and investor perception in my high level assessments.

2014 will be the year of second gen cryptos. NXT and XCP are the ones that I have put virtually all my net worth into. Crypto is my fulltime job. Eventually I will have just a bit more XCP than NXT (as far as percentage of total) In my mind we are in a battle against the others for mindshare, marketshare and investments

Just remember, I am one of the weaker tech guys on the NXT team. I am serious about that. There are many devs here much better than me. And I cant even tell how much BCNext is better than me, he is so far above my skill level.

James

[Anon136]

Oh - that is a slippery slope then - I think you'll get attacked pretty easily if you use the words "1000+ TPS" and then turn around and say "well - I meant 1000 PTS *worth of useful work*".

U r right. Let's move back to dumb 1000 tps and see if we could have them even with our Scripts.

Also if said scripts can't do either EC or SHA256 without doing it "in assembly" I think they won't be able to do much in the way of "useful work" anyway.

Why do u need EC or SHA256 to pay dividends?

what ever the max number of transactions is going to be its going to assume that transactions outbid everything else for all of the block space.

[CIYAM]

Why do u need EC or SHA256 to pay dividends?

I don't know about what would be needed to pay dividends - I was simply thinking of something like basic Bitcoin scripts (as presumably you'd want this "language" to be able to do useful little things like "cross-chain" atomic txs).

[Come-from-Beyond]

Why not work on these?

Aye, why not? I'm fixing bugs now and can't help u guys. Try to do it without me.

[jl777]

All the stuff like sending emails, sending DOGE, etc. would be done on the forging node's services modules.

How on earth would you guarantee that "stuff like sending emails, sending DOGE, etc." were indeed done by  forging node's services modules?

I have absolutely no reason to believe this would be safer than just using a third party gateway -- at least there I could complain to someone if "stuff wasn't done"

This is total fail.

I would never trust it

So you would trust centralized exchange where you have no visibility and single point of failure over open source published code (services) running on 100+ servers? XCP implemented a BTC burning mechanism that was totally automated. It monitored blockchain and automatically credited XCP to bitcoin addresses that burned to a specific address. Over 2000 BTC and when problems happened the XCP devs answered support requests via forum.

So clearly it is a matter of exactly what services are being handled and how well it has been tested. In any case, nobody is forced to use any of these services. If nobody is capable of writing proper blockchain scanning code with the proper error checks that gives a better user experience than the current centralized exchanges, then people wont use the automated exchange that much.

However, please imagine what if someone would be able to actually write automated gateway code that was reliable and didn't lose deposits? What if it just worked?

I have 100000 NXT bounty for such a solution. After it is thoroughly tested will you keep using centralized exchanges? Probably so, but I only project 10% of total crypto volume will use this, so you will be in the 90%. That's ok

James

[Come-from-Beyond]

I was simply thinking of something like basic Bitcoin scripts (as presumably you'd want this "language" to be able to do useful little things like "cross-chain" atomic txs).

I can't even imagine how it's possible to "hide" Bitcoin private key inside Nxt blockchain to be able to issue a Bitcoin transaction... Someone else could just use the key to empty the Bitcoin address.

[jl777]

I was simply thinking of something like basic Bitcoin scripts (as presumably you'd want this "language" to be able to do useful little things like "cross-chain" atomic txs).

I can't even imagine how it's possible to "hide" Bitcoin private key inside Nxt blockchain to be able to issue a Bitcoin transaction... Someone else could just use the key to empty the Bitcoin address.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading ?

[CIYAM]

I can't even imagine how it's possible to "hide" Bitcoin private key inside Nxt blockchain to be able to issue a Bitcoin transaction... Someone else could just use the key to empty the Bitcoin address.

See the stuff about "cross-chain atomic txs" - it doesn't involve giving out a private key but *does* involve a "shared secret" that makes it impossible to "steal".

It is only possible because Bitcoin "script" has an op code for checking an SHA256 hash.

[swartzfeger]

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains

Relevant?

The chain release script contains hashes, not the actual secrets themselves.

[Eadeqa]

All the stuff like sending emails, sending DOGE, etc. would be done on the forging node's services modules.

How on earth would you guarantee that "stuff like sending emails, sending DOGE, etc." were indeed done by  forging node's services modules?

I have absolutely no reason to believe this would be safer than just using a third party gateway -- at least there I could complain to someone if "stuff wasn't done"

This is total fail.

I would never trust it

So you would trust centralized exchange where you have no visibility and single point of failure over open source published code (services) running on 100+ servers? XCP implemented a BTC burning mechanism that was totally automated. It monitored blockchain and automatically credited XCP to bitcoin addresses that burned to a specific address. Over 2000 BTC and when problems happened the XCP devs answered support requests via forum.

Yes, absolutely I would trust a trusted gateway (with good reputation) over an anonymous Nxt node performing  things like "sending DOGE and  sending Bitcoin" using it's services modules. There is no reason to believe the node's "services modules" performed these things.

With a trusted gateway I can complain and maybe they can resolve the problem (they need a good reputation to stay in  the business) -- an option not available with trusting a Nxt node's "service module"

This is really stupid idea.

[Come-from-Beyond]

See the stuff about "cross-chain atomic txs" - it doesn't involve giving out a private key but *does* involve a "shared secret" that makes it impossible to "steal".

It is only possible because Bitcoin "script" has an op code for checking an SHA256 hash.

I've read it but didn't find what prevents a hacker from using the same shared secret from sending Bitcoins to himself. Nxt Scripts don't know in advance whom to send bitcoins. Will dig deeper later.

[jl777]

All the stuff like sending emails, sending DOGE, etc. would be done on the forging node's services modules.

How on earth would you guarantee that "stuff like sending emails, sending DOGE, etc." were indeed done by  forging node's services modules?

I have absolutely no reason to believe this would be safer than just using a third party gateway -- at least there I could complain to someone if "stuff wasn't done"

This is total fail.

I would never trust it

So you would trust centralized exchange where you have no visibility and single point of failure over open source published code (services) running on 100+ servers? XCP implemented a BTC burning mechanism that was totally automated. It monitored blockchain and automatically credited XCP to bitcoin addresses that burned to a specific address. Over 2000 BTC and when problems happened the XCP devs answered support requests via forum.

Yes, absolutely I would trust a trusted gateway (with good reputation) over an anonymous Nxt node performing  things like "sending DOGE and  sending Bitcoin" using it's services modules. There is no reason to believe the node's "services modules" performed these things.

With a trusted gateway I can complain and maybe they can resolve the problem (they need a good reputation to stay in  the business) -- an option not available with trusting a Nxt node's "service module"

This is really stupid idea.

I am glad you call my idea stupid, it means most people wont even bother doing it.

These would be NXT hubs running open source service modules. It wont be for everyone, but I would trust NXT hubs to work properly (after they have been tested) with minimal issues as compared to some places. What good is complaining to bter?

to each their own. I am paying 100000 NXT for this stupid idea. So maybe I am stupid too? anyway people smarter than me will figure a way to verify to skeptics that the correct code is running on the servers. The code is open source so anybody can see what it is doing. this is essentially what DACs are. You are right, most people wont use it, at least at first.

This is called innovation. Its like baseball, if you get one third of them right, you are allstar. I am just not smart enough to know which ideas are going to be the hit, so it is safer to do them all

In any case the layered design I proposed allows for a great flexibility and again we wouldn't want anybody who is stupid and incompetent like me actually defining these layers. That is why I offered 50000 NXT bounty to the smart guys who will make sure all of my stupidness and incompetence is removed.

James

[swartzfeger]

Zero knowledge proof to binding?

I'm outta my depth here...