NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[BitcoinForumator]

whats the story with vertcoin?? 400 odd percent gain there the last day and 2xx odd percent today??? wtf?

What happens usually after a parabolic lift like that?

[Hacer88]

whats the story with vertcoin?? 400 odd percent gain there the last day and 2xx odd percent today??? wtf?

What happens usually after a parabolic lift like that?

Lands to Earth again?

[BitcoinForumator]

whats the story with vertcoin?? 400 odd percent gain there the last day and 2xx odd percent today??? wtf?

What happens usually after a parabolic lift like that?

Lands to Earth again?

i know that lol i aint buyin any but its just unusual to see those sort of gains twice in 1-3 days... :/

It happens very regularly in crypto.

[gimre]

I only have 800,000 NXT to dump and we r below 0,00005.

When I get back I will do this so i was polite warning you all.

oh and on vicrurex 90,000 NXT and we r below 0.00005 but that is to easy.

bye bye

you seem not to realize, how many people are actually waiting for some dumps

[longzai1988]

whats the story with vertcoin?? 400 odd percent gain there the last day and 2xx odd percent today??? wtf?

As what i knew it was listed in cryptsy recently

[rickyjames]

We don't need as less instructions as possible. We need a usable language.

Indeed I had thought that was what you *meant* (rather than what you actually said).

Do you agree that it should have op codes for things like SHA256 and what about the whole problem of the impact of running said scripts on the TPS rate?

In any case, since 1000TPS is bandwidth limited, we dont really have any CPU bottleneck issues, unless you actually want to calculate crypto functions in the script instead of pushing it down with the script embedded in the AM

I don't think 1000 TPS is bandwidth limited, I think it is blockchain bloat limited.  As I've said before, 1000 TPS at 128 bytes per transaction is 10 GB added to the blockchain EVERY DAY if it is storing every transaction.  Anybody claim that math is wrong?  If that's correct, who is storing a complete copy of the blockchain?  It's not "service providers", since CfB has specifically said that "service providers" are not necessary for 1000 TPS.  I don't think it's going to be a Raspberry Pi or smartphone when its turn comes to forge a node - unless NXT blocks can be added to the NXT blockchain without a node having a complete local copy in memory?  Can somebody clarify to me whether or not this is true or possible?

On page one post one of this very thread we claim "Nxt improves different features of Bitcoin, removes some disadvantages (e.g. bloated blockchain)" and "Blockchain Shrinking - In progress".  I claim that if "moving from JSON to binary to achieve 128 byte transaction size on the blockchain" is our only bullet in this area, then NXT has big problems.

I had privately assumed (which in this case has made an ass of me and me alone) that NXT was incorporating JD Bruce's brilliant idea of a finite sized block chain based only on current account balances instead of historical transaction data.   Both CfB and serveral others including one I thought was BCNext were in on this idea at its inception, which from a timing standpoint was four to six months before NXT was announced.  

I thought finite mini-blockchain (along with transparent PoS forging) was the secret sauce in NXT.  Even JD himself takes note of NXT moving in this direction: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=371601.msg3976934#msg3976934

Looks like I was wrong about that.

JD Bruce himself has a $20K bounty out to create the first finite mini-blockchain.  

March 2013 thread: Re: Blockchain-less P2P Currency (theoretical idea)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152662.40

April 2013 thread: Cryptocurrency with Finite "Mini-Blockchain"
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169311.20

May 2013 Paper: Purely P2P Crypto-Currency With Finite Mini-Blockchain
http://www.bitfreak.info/files/pp2p-ccmbc-rev1.pdf

May 2013 thread: Re: Building the Next Generation of Crypto-Currency (developers required)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=215936.0

If BCNext and JLP and CfB have not already implemented a finite mini-blockchain behind the scenes, IMHO we need to issue our own NXT bounty for it, make it the biggest bounty we offer, and bump it to the top of our NXT add-on priority wish, WAY above adding yet another of these "services" we keep talking about.  

The blockchain is the fundamental foundation of NXT.  If we have not solved the blockchain bloat problem already (as we claim), we either do solve it in the future or we die.  I hope either somebody challenges me successfully on that point, or that we get our act together and start working on what's critical to our survival.   Who stores the complete 1000 TPS block chain?  Just how big can it get?  How do we prune this blockchain?  When and how often?  Can we make it finite sized and based on account balances and not transaction history?  

Please don't let me have brought this topic up yet again only to be ignored while the discussion veers off into something esoteric like which Turing complete instruction set to bolt onto NXT.

I want to have a nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes discussion about what infrastructure it's gonna take to support 1000 TPS.  I say we currently can't get there from here.  Somebody prove I'm full of crap.  Please.

[rickyjames]

whats the story with vertcoin?? 400 odd percent gain there the last day and 2xx odd percent today??? wtf?

As what i knew it was listed in cryptsy recently

And our second biggest bounty (after creating a finite mini-blockchain) should be to the team that is working hand in hand with the Cryptsy folks to create the software / data bridge necessary to get NXT on Cryptsy ASAP.  Who is this team?  Why have we not organized it?  Why are we not talking in this forum about their progress?

[Come-from-Beyond]

I only have 800,000 NXT to dump and we r below 0,00005.

When I get back I will do this so i was polite warning you all.


oh and on vicrurex 90,000 NXT and we r below 0.00005 but that is to easy.

bye bye

Too late. Good bye.

[Passion_ltc]

whats the story with vertcoin?? 400 odd percent gain there the last day and 2xx odd percent today??? wtf?

As what i knew it was listed in cryptsy recently

And our second biggest bounty (after creating a finite mini-blockchain) should be to the team that is working hand in hand with the Cryptsy folks to create the software / data bridge necessary to get NXT on Cryptsy ASAP.  Who is this team?  Why have we not organized it?  Why are we not talking in this forum about their progress?

+1 , very important!!

[Come-from-Beyond]

CfB, I got question regarding assets.

I assume, network itself will do bid-ask matching.

I'm issuing an asset, user B is placing bid order.
Can "transferAsset" be used to "accept" the bid, without making an ask order?

If so, does it mean it should always include referencedTransaction?

No, transferAsset just transfers an asset. For free.

[Come-from-Beyond]

@ CfB

How much nxt would it cost to implement service provider feature before April 3rd?

No idea.

[landomata]

@ CfB

How much nxt would it cost to implement service provider feature before April 3rd?

No idea.

We need some idea as we plan to implement this feature.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I want to have a nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes discussion about what infrastructure it's gonna take to support 1000 TPS.  I say we currently can't get there from here.  Somebody prove I'm full of crap.  Please.

I think that Shrinking is enough to solve bloated blockchain issue. If u do it every month then u'll need only 300 GiB storage.

[Come-from-Beyond]

We need some idea as we plan to implement this feature.

Ok, let's brainstorm.

[CIYAM]

@rickyjames - I must agree that I am also having troubles "swallowing" the 1000+ TPS "hype" when we are being shown no practical method and are now apparently considering adding more memory, CPU and bandwidth consuming ideas such as "Turing complete scripts".

Maybe Nxt should aim for a more conservative 100 TPS to avoid ending up looking very silly in a few months time.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Maybe Nxt should aim for a more conservative 100 TPS to avoid ending up looking very silly in a few months time.

100 TPS is a good number too. After we test this rate we will see if it's feasable to add one zero more.

[landomata]

We need some idea as we plan to implement this feature.

Ok, let's brainstorm.

1) Who would be able to code this feature?

[landomata]

Maybe Nxt should aim for a more conservative 100 TPS to avoid ending up looking very silly in a few months time.

100 TPS is a good number too. After we test this rate we will see if it's feasable to add one zero more.

100 TPS is still a lot of transactions...8.64 million in 24 hours.

[bitcoinpaul]

I want to have a nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes discussion about what infrastructure it's gonna take to support 1000 TPS.  I say we currently can't get there from here.  Somebody prove I'm full of crap.  Please.

I think that Shrinking is enough to solve bloated blockchain issue. If u do it every month then u'll need only 300 GiB storage.

Tell me again how I can forge with my smartphone? What are the details of a hypothetical "lightweight client"?

[rickyjames]

I want to have a nuts and bolts, meat and potatoes discussion about what infrastructure it's gonna take to support 1000 TPS.  I say we currently can't get there from here.  Somebody prove I'm full of crap.  Please.

I think that Shrinking is enough to solve bloated blockchain issue. If u do it every month then u'll need only 300 GiB storage.

And the team and the bounty that is working on a pruning algorithm RIGHT NOW to support a 300 GB Blockchain every month (holy crap!) is??  Is this more important or less important that selecting a Turing complete language for NXT???

My vote is obvious.