NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[BloodyRookie]

Alright so i need a little help understanding something. I have two servers running on two separate computers. Both servers have the same account unlocked. I know the answer is going to be no, but i just want to understand how and why.. Does this double my chances of forging a block?

it doesnt, and in fact I believe CfB has stated in the past that this is a very bad practice, for reasons I cant understand though.  does anyone know why this is bad?  And if its so bad, what do we need to work on to mitigate the threat?

Yeah id love to see the reasoning. Im hoping we can get some insight. Thank you for the reply, ill stick to just one server then.

It doesn't double the chance to forge a block, but when you do forge a block, you will do it twice and thus, you are creating a fork.

[1715050863]

1715050863

[1715050863]

1715050863

[1715050863]

1715050863

[CIYAM]

80 and 90% of what?

Of *stake* (% of entire balance of NXT).

[CIYAM]

wins( a ) / wins( b ) = 0,344954566

Sure?

The simulator figures are correct and unedited - I will release the source code later so you can play with it yourself.

The actual outcome of any 1 run is of course "random" (as it can be using "srand" and "rand").

[Eadeqa]

80 and 90% of what?

Of *stake* (% of entire balance of NXT).

It's pure theoretical then. There is no way in hell anyone is ever going to hold 80% of stake.

If someone starts buying Nxt to even get close to 50%, 1 Nxt would be like $10,000 or something  (costing the stakeholders millions of dollars to get there).


Why would anyone who spends that much money to acquire 50% of Nxt, then do anything that will destroy his own wealth? Isn't that the idea behind proof of stake?

[ChuckOne]

wins( a ) / wins( b ) = 0,344954566

Sure?

The simulator figures are correct and unedited - I will release the source code later so you can play with it yourself.

The actual outcome of any 1 run is of course "random" (as it can be using "srand" and "rand").

Ah, okay. I think that needs some more consideration. But your simple model might help understand.

What is the alternative approach to penalty you mentioned?

[CIYAM]

Why would anyone who spends that much money to acquire 50% of Nxt, then do anything that will destroy his own wealth?

A good point - and understand that I am not "advocating to do anything" at this stage - just presenting some statistical analysis (something that this project needs to have done before making "claims" about percentages and "safety").

[ChuckOne]

80 and 90% of what?

Of *stake* (% of entire balance of NXT).

It's pure theoretical then. There is no way in hell anyone is ever going to hold 80% of stake.

If someone starts buying Nxt to even get close to 50%, 1 Nxt would be like $10,000 or something  (costing the stakeholders millions of dollars to get there).


Why would anyone who spends that much money to acquire 50% of Nxt, then do anything that will destroy his own wealth? Isn't that the idea behind proof of stake?

Selfish mining is possible even at 25% or 33% (IIRC). That is why we need some sort of 'let's call it penalty for the moment until somebody has better idea'.

But I agree, that stakeholder must have very reasonable reasons to do so.

[Eadeqa]

Why would anyone who spends that much money to acquire 50% of Nxt, then do anything that will destroy his own wealth?

A good point - and understand that I am not "advocating to do anything" at this stage - just presenting some statistical analysis (something that this project needs to have done before making "claims" about %s and "safety").

I think we should not implement where people are able give their stakes (mining power) to pools.. That will  defeat the concept behind proof of stake.

[CIYAM]

Ah, okay. I think that needs some more consideration. But your simple model might help understand.

I'm leaving out a slight detail about the "math" which is relevant to the numbers becoming more skewed as the largest stake holder has a higher % (will get to that later).

What is the alternative approach to penalty you mentioned?

I am actually mulling over a few ideas at the moment and also which to discuss this with CfB and indirectly with BCNext so let's not rush into that for now.

[BloodyRookie]

wins( a ) / wins( b ) = 0,344954566

Sure?

The simulator figures are correct and unedited - I will release the source code later so you can play with it yourself.

The actual outcome of any 1 run is of course "random" (as it can be using "srand" and "rand").

If you have only 2 people A and B forging and A has 1 nxt and B has k nxt then P(A forges a block)=1/(2k) and thus P(B forges a block)=1-1/(2k).
Plugging in your numbers (in your example you can devide both accounts by 10 giving A 1 nxt and B 9 nxt) you get:
P(A forges a block) = 5.5%, P(B forges a block)=94.5%.

There must be something wrong in your simulation.

[CIYAM]

There must be something wrong in your simulation.

The figures skew as the larger stake holder gets bigger due to the way the math is done (you can see when I publish it) but in any case if anything it might be showing slightly "better" results that the reality (certainly not worse).

[bitcoinpaul]

So let's now extend our sample from 1 year to 10 years and see what we get:

blocks = 5256000
a: 10
b: 10
c: 10
d: 10
e: 10
f: 50
wins( a ) = 519010
wins( b ) = 517408
wins( c ) = 518301
wins( d ) = 517377
wins( e ) = 517117
wins( f ) = 2666787
best_streak( a ) = 6
best_streak( b ) = 5
best_streak( c ) = 6
best_streak( d ) = 7
best_streak( e ) = 8
best_streak( f ) = 22

Again "f" has around 50% of the blocks and he has improved on his longest "winning streak" but only by 2 more.

So it's starting to look as though without any sort of change (be it penalty or other) we would really want to have a few more than 22 confirmations to be comfortably "safe" from such an attack.

Interesting, Ian.

Quick thought: A forging account forges block(n=1). Now he will automatically won't be able forging block(n=2...60). This wouldn't help with the problem because he could game the system by splitting his account to a much higher number of accounts so he has the same P to work secretly on a new chain with his 'pool'. Right?

[CIYAM]

Idea: A forging account forges block(n=1). Now he will automatically won't be able forging block(n=2...60). This wouldn't help with the problem because he would then just split his amount to a much higher number of accounts so he can still work secretly on a new chain with his 'pool'. Right?

We need to also model the possibility of getting an effective "winning streak" by having multiple smaller accounts to know whether or not the situation changes (I am not sure yet so once again will need to "see it through simulation").

[bitcoinpaul]

Final Draft Of Texas Bitcoin Conference Brochure

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209289198/NXT-Brochure-Draft

But what I don't like is the design: too many colors, too many different fonts in too many sizes.
I'm not a graphic artist/designer or the like, but the overall layout looks a little tacky, at least to me.

There are several designers in the NXT community, maybe someone can give you better input, maybe even do some quick magic on the layout.

Cheers, LiQio

+1

Please get in a touch with a designer, QBTC or another one!

[bitcoinpaul]

Penalties. At least it was part of BCNext's idea that we should penalize accounts who don't forge. I don't see a problem here as long as we talk about proper penalty. Not allowed to forge for the next 1440 blocks seems fair.

Fair... Fair. FAIR. Arghh, everytime somebody says "fair" on purpose a kitten dies in healthy capitalistic world. We'd care less about "fariness". Goal of penaltizng? To prevent malicious block creation (when big stake's taking time to secretly forge bad chain) and to stmulate to forge (both potentially penalized and potential winners of penalties for others).

Fair was not a good expression, I admit. Let's just discuss this stuff with security of the network in mind.

[bitcoinpaul]

Everyone do it: https://bittrex.com/Account/Register

Invite code: "SUPPORT_NXT"

done

Thanks guys, did hear from the Bittrex team, I sent them some Nxt to test on their system and they are working hard to implement with their automated system.  They were impressed with the dev help (Opticalc) and the community support.  Thanks for all who signed up.  We should be all set with them soon as well as Atomic Trade, I believe Byron left an update post here today.

+1

[CIYAM]

Fair was not a good expression, I admit. Let's just discuss this stuff with security of the network in mind.

Good - as security of the network and blockchain are the "most important things" (I think we can all agree that if either the network or blockchain are damaged badly it would not bode well for Nxt).

[NxtAppStore]

We need a campaign to get NXT to the right value. With some sponsorship I think I can manage just that.

I will start up a project to attract NEW investors (read NEW money).

more comming up...

for sponsering: 12088507821025750338

Good idea.

And I have start a new thread to list and talk about the Nxt Apps,such as Nxtty,iNxt,and so on.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=488417.new#new

[antanst]

But how do you calculate SHA256 with this? It only gives me SHA1 and MD options.
Thanks

Download this: http://blog.nfllab.com/archives/152-Win32-native-md5sum,-sha1sum,-sha256sum-etc..html

[w4llace]

Final Draft Of Texas Bitcoin Conference Brochure

http://www.scribd.com/doc/209289198/NXT-Brochure-Draft

This goes to the printer in Austin in 36 hours.  Anybody have any comments to tell me I've said something stupid, please tell me now.

The website new2nxt.com is live and it's mine.  I will clean it up during the rest of the week and over the weekend.  I intend for it to be (yet another) newbie site to find info and links on how to get started with NXT.

Thank you, donor who shall remain forever nameless, for funding the printing of these brochures.  

The NXT community is full of REALLY GREAT people.

Hei Rick,

I can do some quick changes, so the flyer will look a little bit more....modern and clean (speaking of using only one font, not so many colours, etc.).
Did you use Indesign, QuarkX or something else?

Feel free to send me a downloadlink of the raw data via PM.

w4llace