Anon136
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
 |
February 14, 2014, 04:33:47 AM |
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... Keep in mind this is the first step on the path toward fully automated DAC gateways. Also, to remove the confusion that is inherent in having many different Assets that are all representing the same thing I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. HOWEVER, I think I might have a way to allow all the gateways to trust each other without any bodily parts being involved. I do need somebody who is familiar with multisig to confirm this, or more likely correct where I am being plain silly. I do not see a problem with deposits of crypto, the end user sends in the crypto to a deposit address and the gateway sweeps it into an account. The problem is with the withdrawal, eg. since I am proposing all assets that represent BTC be fungible with each other, each gateway needs to have access to potentially all the actual BTC. So, we have a possible solution where all the gateways sweep into a common account. Wait! If all gateways are able to withdraw from it, then if ANY gateway gets hacked or hypnotized by Evil Bob, all the deposits are gone. Not good at all. This is where I think multisig comes in. What if the sweep account is a multisig acct. All the gateways can easily sweep into the multisig acct, since it is just a matter of sending coin to the right address. Now on withdraw, if we required the signatures from all gateways to do a withdrawal (or super majority?), then no gateway would be able to take off with the deposits, unless all gateways (or super majority) turn evil at the same time. No I dont know how multisig works well enough to know if this will work, but IF there is a way to do a safe remote multisig authorization and all the gateways are using the same business logic to approve withdrawals, eg. proper AM was sent with appropriate asset, then I think this could work. Not totally trustless, but as long as all (or super majority) of gateways dont spontaneously turn evil, I think the community would be able to rely on the federation of gateways. I hope somebody that knows about multisig and another somebody that knows about secure remote signing will be able to validate this, or fix it so it works James P.S. I just figured out that we can use a set of AM's for secure remote signing. Granted it is a lot of AM to send if we had to do it for each withdrawal, so maybe we only invoke this level when the amount is larger than the bond put up by the gateway. I think this is getting close to a real solution. Smart guys, please help!! IMO,it is like XRP gateway.Right? just like it only without a central point of weakness |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you don't want people to know you're a scumbag then don't be a scumbag." -- margaritahuyan
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
User705
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
|
|
February 14, 2014, 04:39:06 AM |
|
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack? in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks. What possible purpose would that serve? |
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
February 14, 2014, 04:49:05 AM |
|
Jeez we sure did cover a lot of ground didnt we. It felt like it flew by at the time. That's only half of it. I still have half more to edit and still working on it. I'm getting good feedback on it though because people like to associate a face with nxt. Tai Zen im glad to hear you are getting good feedback. i haven’t gotten much myself. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
February 14, 2014, 04:49:27 AM |
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... Keep in mind this is the first step on the path toward fully automated DAC gateways. Also, to remove the confusion that is inherent in having many different Assets that are all representing the same thing I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. HOWEVER, I think I might have a way to allow all the gateways to trust each other without any bodily parts being involved. I do need somebody who is familiar with multisig to confirm this, or more likely correct where I am being plain silly. I do not see a problem with deposits of crypto, the end user sends in the crypto to a deposit address and the gateway sweeps it into an account. The problem is with the withdrawal, eg. since I am proposing all assets that represent BTC be fungible with each other, each gateway needs to have access to potentially all the actual BTC. So, we have a possible solution where all the gateways sweep into a common account. Wait! If all gateways are able to withdraw from it, then if ANY gateway gets hacked or hypnotized by Evil Bob, all the deposits are gone. Not good at all. This is where I think multisig comes in. What if the sweep account is a multisig acct. All the gateways can easily sweep into the multisig acct, since it is just a matter of sending coin to the right address. Now on withdraw, if we required the signatures from all gateways to do a withdrawal (or super majority?), then no gateway would be able to take off with the deposits, unless all gateways (or super majority) turn evil at the same time. No I dont know how multisig works well enough to know if this will work, but IF there is a way to do a safe remote multisig authorization and all the gateways are using the same business logic to approve withdrawals, eg. proper AM was sent with appropriate asset, then I think this could work. Not totally trustless, but as long as all (or super majority) of gateways dont spontaneously turn evil, I think the community would be able to rely on the federation of gateways. I hope somebody that knows about multisig and another somebody that knows about secure remote signing will be able to validate this, or fix it so it works James P.S. I just figured out that we can use a set of AM's for secure remote signing. Granted it is a lot of AM to send if we had to do it for each withdrawal, so maybe we only invoke this level when the amount is larger than the bond put up by the gateway. I think this is getting close to a real solution. Smart guys, please help!! IMO,it is like XRP gateway.Right? just like it only without a central point of weakness And fully automated gateways that automatically peer review each other AND is guaranteed to be 100% backed by actual BTC and nobody has to fiddle with trustlines, etc. This is just like XRP except everything is better! Since nobody that knows exactly how multisig works, I will try to read up on it and see if this really does the trick. If it does, that means we get somewhat decentralized automatic gateways that we can can trust. All the gateway deposits and withdrawals will be publicly viewable, so there are no controversies in that area. If ever anything like lophie is going happened, it would just be a matter of looking in the NXT blockchain, reparse the AM's and find out where it went. We probably need to have some sort of manual "fix it" mechanism, but this should be a pretty rare event. All the gateways would have to work together to clear this up. Maybe all minus 1, in case one of the gateways goes MIA, wouldn't want all the funds to become inaccessible. Maybe a deadman's switch can be invoked in case one of the gateways goes away and the key delivered to an independent party. I heard about an electronic escrow service that can be setup for this. Notice that even if one of the gateways goes defunct, nobody loses anything. At that point, the missing gateways passkey would be used one last time to transfer all the funds to a new account with appropriate new multisig signers. So no gateway can withdraw any money that all the other gateways dont approve. It seems safer than any centralized exchange to me, but I hope someone more versed in this stuff will comment. The more I think about this, the more I think it could work. I just wish I knew more details about how multisig works... James |
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
February 14, 2014, 04:50:45 AM |
|
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack? in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks. What possible purpose would that serve? sure so like if some group of people formed a cartel with 90% of the stake and started forging empty blocks. we could just fork away and invalidate their stake. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
February 14, 2014, 04:56:22 AM |
|
i understand how multisig works. thats not the confusing part. its the idea of people honouring each others obligations and doing multisig. when i think of federating i think of people honouring each others agreements but then clearing their balances with each other periodically. so like if you and i federated and we issued 10 silver bars each. and then all 20 bars were redeemed through my gateway. you would owe me 10 silver bars. you would send the bars and then the balances would be cleared. we were able to federate because i trusted you.
oooh i get it now. i see why the wires were getting crossed. if you did a multisig account you wouldn’t be federating you would be incorporating!
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
lophie
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:03:32 AM |
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... Keep in mind this is the first step on the path toward fully automated DAC gateways. Also, to remove the confusion that is inherent in having many different Assets that are all representing the same thing I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. HOWEVER, I think I might have a way to allow all the gateways to trust each other without any bodily parts being involved. I do need somebody who is familiar with multisig to confirm this, or more likely correct where I am being plain silly. I do not see a problem with deposits of crypto, the end user sends in the crypto to a deposit address and the gateway sweeps it into an account. The problem is with the withdrawal, eg. since I am proposing all assets that represent BTC be fungible with each other, each gateway needs to have access to potentially all the actual BTC. So, we have a possible solution where all the gateways sweep into a common account. Wait! If all gateways are able to withdraw from it, then if ANY gateway gets hacked or hypnotized by Evil Bob, all the deposits are gone. Not good at all. This is where I think multisig comes in. What if the sweep account is a multisig acct. All the gateways can easily sweep into the multisig acct, since it is just a matter of sending coin to the right address. Now on withdraw, if we required the signatures from all gateways to do a withdrawal (or super majority?), then no gateway would be able to take off with the deposits, unless all gateways (or super majority) turn evil at the same time. No I dont know how multisig works well enough to know if this will work, but IF there is a way to do a safe remote multisig authorization and all the gateways are using the same business logic to approve withdrawals, eg. proper AM was sent with appropriate asset, then I think this could work. Not totally trustless, but as long as all (or super majority) of gateways dont spontaneously turn evil, I think the community would be able to rely on the federation of gateways. I hope somebody that knows about multisig and another somebody that knows about secure remote signing will be able to validate this, or fix it so it works James P.S. I just figured out that we can use a set of AM's for secure remote signing. Granted it is a lot of AM to send if we had to do it for each withdrawal, so maybe we only invoke this level when the amount is larger than the bond put up by the gateway. I think this is getting close to a real solution. Smart guys, please help!! IMO,it is like XRP gateway.Right? just like it only without a central point of weakness And fully automated gateways that automatically peer review each other AND is guaranteed to be 100% backed by actual BTC and nobody has to fiddle with trustlines, etc. This is just like XRP except everything is better! Since nobody that knows exactly how multisig works, I will try to read up on it and see if this really does the trick. If it does, that means we get somewhat decentralized automatic gateways that we can can trust. All the gateway deposits and withdrawals will be publicly viewable, so there are no controversies in that area. If ever anything like lophie is going happened, it would just be a matter of looking in the NXT blockchain, reparse the AM's and find out where it went. We probably need to have some sort of manual "fix it" mechanism, but this should be a pretty rare event. All the gateways would have to work together to clear this up. Maybe all minus 1, in case one of the gateways goes MIA, wouldn't want all the funds to become inaccessible. Maybe a deadman's switch can be invoked in case one of the gateways goes away and the key delivered to an independent party. I heard about an electronic escrow service that can be setup for this. Notice that even if one of the gateways goes defunct, nobody loses anything. At that point, the missing gateways passkey would be used one last time to transfer all the funds to a new account with appropriate new multisig signers. So no gateway can withdraw any money that all the other gateways dont approve. It seems safer than any centralized exchange to me, but I hope someone more versed in this stuff will comment. The more I think about this, the more I think it could work. I just wish I knew more details about how multisig works... James Hello guys, I woke up from my slumber  . I had the pleasure to fiddle with multisig a little. What you are suggesting (automatic gateways), are NOT applicable. The closest you can reach to automation is that every stake holder that you require his/her signature must have a signing bot or a signing mechanism that is online 24/7, But then again if it is 100% automated....... which trust 5 and not only one? it would certainly make things faster and easier! If it is about trust then yes, no one can steal and if ONE refused to sign, the coins are as good as burned. |
Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:11:18 AM |
|
i understand how multisig works. thats not the confusing part. its the idea of people honouring each others obligations and doing multisig. when i think of federating i think of people honouring each others agreements but then clearing their balances with each other periodically. so like if you and i federated and we issued 10 silver bars each. and then all 20 bars were redeemed through my gateway. you would owe me 10 silver bars. you would send the bars and then the balances would be cleared. we were able to federate because i trusted you.
oooh i get it now. i see why the wires were getting crossed. if you did a multisig account you wouldn’t be federating you would be incorporating!
I am probably using the wrong terminology, looking at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2%3a_Escrow_and_dispute_mediationmakes my head hurt. I am not sure if a transaction can be passed from one party to the next, each adding a signature, without being privy to any of the other signatures. If that is possible, then the only way a withdrawal is authorized is if enough of the group approve it. I am not caring about the specific method, the key is to require a trustless way that all (or all - 1) members of the group need to securely sign it before it gets disbursed. James P.S. Will my silver bars have a nice NXT logo on them? |
|
|
|
User705
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:17:01 AM |
|
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack? in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks. What possible purpose would that serve? sure so like if some group of people formed a cartel with 90% of the stake and started forging empty blocks. we could just fork away and invalidate their stake. Who is we? What would be the point if "we" only has 10%? Also why is it 90% and why would they forge empty blocks? Other then forging empty blocks what can 90% stake do that's not agreeable to the minority? |
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:17:45 AM |
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... Keep in mind this is the first step on the path toward fully automated DAC gateways. Also, to remove the confusion that is inherent in having many different Assets that are all representing the same thing I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. HOWEVER, I think I might have a way to allow all the gateways to trust each other without any bodily parts being involved. I do need somebody who is familiar with multisig to confirm this, or more likely correct where I am being plain silly. I do not see a problem with deposits of crypto, the end user sends in the crypto to a deposit address and the gateway sweeps it into an account. The problem is with the withdrawal, eg. since I am proposing all assets that represent BTC be fungible with each other, each gateway needs to have access to potentially all the actual BTC. So, we have a possible solution where all the gateways sweep into a common account. Wait! If all gateways are able to withdraw from it, then if ANY gateway gets hacked or hypnotized by Evil Bob, all the deposits are gone. Not good at all. This is where I think multisig comes in. What if the sweep account is a multisig acct. All the gateways can easily sweep into the multisig acct, since it is just a matter of sending coin to the right address. Now on withdraw, if we required the signatures from all gateways to do a withdrawal (or super majority?), then no gateway would be able to take off with the deposits, unless all gateways (or super majority) turn evil at the same time. No I dont know how multisig works well enough to know if this will work, but IF there is a way to do a safe remote multisig authorization and all the gateways are using the same business logic to approve withdrawals, eg. proper AM was sent with appropriate asset, then I think this could work. Not totally trustless, but as long as all (or super majority) of gateways dont spontaneously turn evil, I think the community would be able to rely on the federation of gateways. I hope somebody that knows about multisig and another somebody that knows about secure remote signing will be able to validate this, or fix it so it works James P.S. I just figured out that we can use a set of AM's for secure remote signing. Granted it is a lot of AM to send if we had to do it for each withdrawal, so maybe we only invoke this level when the amount is larger than the bond put up by the gateway. I think this is getting close to a real solution. Smart guys, please help!! IMO,it is like XRP gateway.Right? just like it only without a central point of weakness And fully automated gateways that automatically peer review each other AND is guaranteed to be 100% backed by actual BTC and nobody has to fiddle with trustlines, etc. This is just like XRP except everything is better! Since nobody that knows exactly how multisig works, I will try to read up on it and see if this really does the trick. If it does, that means we get somewhat decentralized automatic gateways that we can can trust. All the gateway deposits and withdrawals will be publicly viewable, so there are no controversies in that area. If ever anything like lophie is going happened, it would just be a matter of looking in the NXT blockchain, reparse the AM's and find out where it went. We probably need to have some sort of manual "fix it" mechanism, but this should be a pretty rare event. All the gateways would have to work together to clear this up. Maybe all minus 1, in case one of the gateways goes MIA, wouldn't want all the funds to become inaccessible. Maybe a deadman's switch can be invoked in case one of the gateways goes away and the key delivered to an independent party. I heard about an electronic escrow service that can be setup for this. Notice that even if one of the gateways goes defunct, nobody loses anything. At that point, the missing gateways passkey would be used one last time to transfer all the funds to a new account with appropriate new multisig signers. So no gateway can withdraw any money that all the other gateways dont approve. It seems safer than any centralized exchange to me, but I hope someone more versed in this stuff will comment. The more I think about this, the more I think it could work. I just wish I knew more details about how multisig works... James Hello guys, I woke up from my slumber . I had the pleasure to fiddle with multisig a little. What you are suggesting (automatic gateways), are NOT applicable. The closest you can reach to automation is that every stake holder that you require his/her signature must have a signing bot or a signing mechanism that is online 24/7, But then again if it is 100% automated....... which trust 5 and not only one? it would certainly make things faster and easier! If it is about trust then yes, no one can steal and if ONE refused to sign, the coins are as good as burned. I am assuming that regardless of how cumbersome the process is, that we can automate it by passing the required info via AM. Might take a few blocks to get through the whole process, but it is worth it for what we get. Once we can figure out a cumbersome manual process that solves the requirements, we automate it. Instead of unanimous, just do N - 1. Or 2/3'rds. also I heard there was a way to have an electronic escrow so that if a certain event happened or didnt happen, a message is delivered. We can set up a dead man's switch so that if a gateway disappears, their key is sent to an independent trusted party. Or maybe under some scenarios, the key can be recovered. Not sure about this. Getting a bit late and not the best time for complicated scenarios |
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:27:48 AM |
|
I saw that, havent fully digested it, but it sure seems to indicate that we can solve this! It does seem that even without using zeroknowledge proofs or indistinguishability obsfucators, there are some pretty useful things that can be done with bitcoin scripts as it is. Until now I didnt realize all the flexibility bitcoin has built into the payment mechanism. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2%3a_Escrow_and_dispute_mediationRather than have me bumble around trying to figure out how to set up the details, maybe I can write out the requirements and somebody experienced with this can figure out how best to implement it. I will use a specific number of 5 gateways, but of course it can be more (but probably not less). All these gateways will run the same software so they are all in agreement about what to do, the only difference is that each server will have a different private key that is only accessible to that gateway's trusted personel. For each withdrawal 4 of the 5 gateways would need to independently and securely approve the payment, which will be made by the gateway selected by the user. The issues I see are: a) how does the selected gateway securely get the approvals from the other gateways, since the different gateway servers are presumably in totally different locations. b) there must be other problems, but I am not sure what they are Since all gateways commit to running the same software, the moment any of the gateways start doing unexpected things, the other gateways can take corrective action. |
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:40:06 AM |
|
What actually makes NXT resistant against a +90% attack?
What's a 90% attack? in essence the idea is that we could fork away and invalidate the stake of the attacker. where as with bitcoin you can not invalidate someones asics. technically though the abandoned fork would be nxt and the new fork would be nxt2. so if you want to be super literal than nxt isnt technically 90% resistant. Also this would only work if the attackers were being obvious. If they were clever about it than it would be very difficult to say conclusively enough that they were malicious. So nxt is kind of resistant to certain kinds of 90% attacks. What possible purpose would that serve? sure so like if some group of people formed a cartel with 90% of the stake and started forging empty blocks. we could just fork away and invalidate their stake. Who is we? What would be the point if "we" only has 10%? Also why is it 90% and why would they forge empty blocks? Other then forging empty blocks what can 90% stake do that's not agreeable to the minority? we is you and I? Because some powerful bank or government (but i repeat myself) wanted to kill nxt. Doublespend. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:42:51 AM |
|
Aha!
"When signing an input, the contents are set to the connected output. Thus, to redeem this transaction, the client creates a scriptSig containing zeros where the other signature should be, signs it, and then sets one of the slots to his new signature. The partially-complete transaction can then be sent to the merchant or mediator for the second signature."
It sure sounds like each gateway can each independently sign the withdrawal transaction and then pass it on to the next gateway. So with 5 gateways, it would take 5 blocks to get all the signatures required. ~5 minutes, but I think well worth the wait as this means fully automated trustless gateways can most likely be done!
Its a good thing transaction costs will be going to 0.1 as it adds up to at least 0.5 NXT just to get all the signatures.
Does anybody see a fatal flaw with this approach? I know we still have to deal with gateways disappearing, but it seems like we dont have to worry about gateways turning evil.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
February 14, 2014, 05:50:18 AM |
|
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_2%3a_Escrow_and_dispute_mediation"Trust minimization: trusted hardware Using commodity hardware, you can use trusted computing in the form of Intel TXT or the AMD equivalent (SKINIT) to set up a sealed hardware environment and then use the TPM chip to attest that fact to a third party. That third party can verify the hardware was in the required state. Defeating this requires someone to be able to interfere with the execution of a program that may run entirely on the CPU, even in extreme cases without any data traversing the memory bus (you can run entirely using on-die cache if the program is small enough). Trust minimization: Amazon AWS oracles Finally, perhaps the most practical approach currently is to use Amazon Web Services. As of November 2013, the closest we have to a working oracle is this recipe for creating a trusted computing environment using AWS, built in support of this project for doing selective SSL logging and decryption. The idea is that an oracle, which can be proven trustworthy using the Amazon APIs with Amazon as the root of trust, records encrypted SSL sessions to an online banking interface in such a way that later if there is a dispute about a person-to-person exchange, the logs can be decrypted and the dispute settled."
|
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
February 14, 2014, 06:04:32 AM |
|
On a completely separate topic, I have a supermicro 1U server with dual Xeon, dual Nvidia Tesla GPU, SSD's and 192GB of RAM. Its perfectly fine, but I dont seem to have any time to actually use it anymore. I used it to calculate SVM's on large datasets for predicting near future forex prices.
I know it isnt worth anywhere close to what I paid for, but I want to find a good home for it. If anybody is interested in such a rig, I am open to offers, PM me.
James
|
|
|
|
|
Mario123
|
|
February 14, 2014, 06:25:38 AM |
|
Thank you for this. Really necessary right now, I hope you don't mind if I link it as default client-selection option in the spanish site main menu. Of course, spread the link. I updated it with a Nxt video (not mine). edit: I think we need a new, updated video in this style! Salsacz! |
|
|
|
pinarello
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 266
Merit: 100
NXT is the future
|
|
February 14, 2014, 06:30:25 AM |
|
Thank you for this. Really necessary right now, I hope you don't mind if I link it as default client-selection option in the spanish site main menu. Of course, spread the link. I updated it with a Nxt video (not mine). We need an new better video for NXT ASAP, they are using old logo's, etc... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Passion_ltc
|
|
February 14, 2014, 06:39:38 AM |
|
Thank you for this. Really necessary right now, I hope you don't mind if I link it as default client-selection option in the spanish site main menu. Of course, spread the link. I updated it with a Nxt video (not mine). edit: I think we need a new, updated video in this style! Salsacz! Set it up at /r/Nxt for the newbies.  |
|
|
|
|
