NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[ChuckOne]

I would also be worried more about potential forks if the state could not be predicted in advance.

Final state can't be predicted. But u can't get different results if u have no truly random events. Transaction processing is completely deterministic, we just have to make sure we don't include RANDOMIZE opcode.

So, no timestamps and the like?

Why? U'll be able to get timestamp of any block/transaction.

I mean the real time. Like in datetime.datetime.now().

The clock for these scripts will be the blocks, right?

[1715195506]

1715195506

[1715195506]

1715195506

[1715195506]

1715195506

[ImmortAlex]

Btw. something that came to my mind. How's gonna get the fees for executing the scripts?

The executors? Evenly split? The first executor? If later, then this boy could easily bloat the chain because paying 0 NXT per op.

Script will be executed only by forger. So forger will get fee.

[ChuckOne]

Fee: 1.0
Until we really have high price for 1 NXT.
Until we really have big number of transactions per block.
Until we really start to scream: "WTF, I buy one gram of blow cheap cheneese smartphone and need to pay 5% of it's price as fee!"

Exactly, my thoughts. Would also like a % of transaction's amount to be spent as fee with min 1NXT.

[Come-from-Beyond]

I would also be worried more about potential forks if the state could not be predicted in advance.

Final state can't be predicted. But u can't get different results if u have no truly random events. Transaction processing is completely deterministic, we just have to make sure we don't include RANDOMIZE opcode.

No RANDOM opcode is unfortunate.  I actually had an idea to do anonymous mixing that would rely on a RANDOM implementation and AM...

RANDOM is fine, I'm talking about RANDOMIZE.

[cromaclear]

why dont adjust fees in a predictably, dynamically and automatically way?? i mean, drecrease fees in relation with number of blocks in the block chain or something that makes fees go down as people use nxt more....as people use nxt more, price should rise, so, it would also be related to prices...

[ChuckOne]

Btw. something that came to my mind. How's gonna get the fees for executing the scripts?

The executors? Evenly split? The first executor? If later, then this boy could easily bloat the chain because paying 0 NXT per op.

Script will be executed only by forger. So forger will get fee.

The same TF for the same blockchain? Aren't we going to have a different chain for each domain [transaction, script state, files] ?

[Come-from-Beyond]

The executors? Evenly split? The first executor? If later, then this boy could easily bloat the chain because paying 0 NXT per op.

Forger gets all the fees.

[ChuckOne]

I would also be worried more about potential forks if the state could not be predicted in advance.

Final state can't be predicted. But u can't get different results if u have no truly random events. Transaction processing is completely deterministic, we just have to make sure we don't include RANDOMIZE opcode.

No RANDOM opcode is unfortunate.  I actually had an idea to do anonymous mixing that would rely on a RANDOM implementation and AM...

RANDOM is fine, I'm talking about RANDOMIZE.

Sorry? What's the difference?

[Come-from-Beyond]

I mean the real time. Like in datetime.datetime.now().

The clock for these scripts will be the blocks, right?

Right.

[opticalcarrier]

""Transparent Forging" allow each user's client to automatically determine who will generate the next block, so that they can then send their transactions to that node. This will also allow additional fees to be realized for immediate/priority transactions.

An equally important feature of Transparent Forging is an outstanding security feature of the protocol to temporarily reduce to zero the forging power of nodes who should generate the next block but don't. This transparent forging feature will prevent against even a 90% majority owner of all NXT branching out and forcing a fork. So if a node that has 90% of all Nxt, and doesn't generate a block when scheduled, the system will reduce its mining power to zero temporarily to prevent a bad fork from being forced. "

this is what I read in Nxt wiki... but can anyone elaborate why this really enhances the network security? I mean it´s kind of random who are my nodes at the moment so if I get unlucky
and have more then a bunch of nodes with bad intentions (double-spending or w/e) they could deliberately miss out on generating a scheduled block
and getting away with it.

Or is this not a problem in reality? Sorry if this is a really stupid question, but I´m really unexperencied with this  proof-of-stake / forging as underlying security for a coin.

the best I can tell you is in TF, if you do not generate an invalid block when you are expected to, then it is assumed that you are working on a fork implementation.  so then the network temporarily removes your forging power.

all I got

[Come-from-Beyond]

Sorry? What's the difference?

RANDOM returns a pseudo-random sequence based on a seed.
RANDOMIZE sets the seed according to truly random events like noise from a physical device.

[ChuckOne]

I mean the real time. Like in datetime.datetime.now().

The clock for these scripts will be the blocks, right?

Right.

So, fully deterministic.

How can be prove the correct execution by a forger?

[FrictionlessCoin]

How's the weather in St. Petersburg these days?

Why do you think he is from St.Petersburg?

Why do you think he's not?

[EmoneyRu]

I actually agree with you when you think about messaging as a stand alone feature.  I look at it this way.  Secure messaging is just one tool I use when completing a fully independent Nxt transaction.  Meaning, at one point you will be able to browse products, communicate with seller, initiate purchase, put Nxt in escrow (receive item), send funds, leave feedback, all within Nxt client.  That is just one example of hundreds that could be used with Nxt secure messaging.

Messages should be used for technical staff and should be well-paid. 1.0

We are not talking about longterm. Right now no reason to lower fees because of messaging, because there is no use for messaging (chat).

Fee: 1.0
Until we really have high price for 1 NXT.
Until we really have big number of transactions per block.
Until we really start to scream: "WTF, I buy one gram of blow cheap cheneese smartphone and need to pay 5% of it's price as fee!"

Exactly.

[Come-from-Beyond]

So, fully deterministic.

How can be prove the correct execution by a forger?

Explain "correct execution" meaning plz.

[notsoshifty]

Any reason why the two blockchain explorers should show a different balance for account 10715382765594435905 (which I think is dgex)?

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=10715382765594435905
Final balance = unconfirmed balance = 40,859,666.00

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=10715382765594435905
Balance = 40,854,603

Difference is 5063 (=40859666-40854603). Both show the same latest transaction (10232608047670253098), so are in sync. Account doesn't have aliases. Total fees is 1923.

Which one is right?
 

[msin]

Fee: 1.0
Until we really have high price for 1 NXT.
Until we really have big number of transactions per block.
Until we really start to scream: "WTF, I buy one gram of blow cheap cheneese smartphone and need to pay 5% of it's price as fee!"

Exactly, my thoughts. Would also like a % of transaction's amount to be spent as fee with min 1NXT.

Reducing Nxt fee lowers incentive to forge with large Nxt account, while at the same time encouraging use of Nxt features. I like it.

[abuelau]

Any reason why the two blockchain explorers should show a different balance for account 10715382765594435905 (which I think is dgex)?

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=10715382765594435905
Final balance = unconfirmed balance = 40,859,666.00

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=10715382765594435905
Balance = 40,854,603

Difference is 5063 (=40859666-40854603). Both show the same latest transaction (10232608047670253098), so are in sync. Account doesn't have aliases. Total fees is 1923.

Which one is right?
 

I don't know why the difference, what I can say is that the balance shown in mynxt.info comes from querying the Nxt API itself, not from manually calculating from all the transactions.

[abuelau]

Any reason why the two blockchain explorers should show a different balance for account 10715382765594435905 (which I think is dgex)?

http://www.mynxt.info/blockexplorer/details.php?action=ac&ac=10715382765594435905
Final balance = unconfirmed balance = 40,859,666.00

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=10715382765594435905
Balance = 40,854,603

Difference is 5063 (=40859666-40854603). Both show the same latest transaction (10232608047670253098), so are in sync. Account doesn't have aliases. Total fees is 1923.

Which one is right?
 

I don't know why the difference, what I can say is that the balance shown in mynxt.info comes from querying the Nxt API itself, not from manually calculating from all the transactions.

Oh and by the way they are now in synch. So most likely the balance in the other blockchain is calculated from all existing transactions and so it takes some time to update.

[ChuckOne]

So, fully deterministic.

How can be prove the correct execution by a forger?

Explain "correct execution" meaning plz.

Let's say we have malicious forger. How to prove that he executed the scripts according to the rules of the VM?

We only get the result from the forger. That's a result of having a turing-complete language. You cannot prove what the script is going to calculate.

The only way, I can think of, is to simulate the execution again on other nodes so that they can agree or disagree on the result.