NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[msin]

What is the feeling of everyone about integrating zerocoin into the NXT mainnet after testing?

Since we cant integrate C++ code into the NXT core, it would have to be put into the gateways and clients for peer validation. If we put NXTcash validation into NODEcoin also, we would get a large scale peer reviewed NXTcash. Essentially it would be a NXTcash blockchain on top of NXT that is enforced by NODEcoin. We might not have to store the large 30K proofs in the blockchain, not sure on this yet but there is a promising approach using gateway that could encapsulate the large proofs. I am hopeful that we will be able to submit to jean-luc and all Java set of mods to the NXT core that will support NXTcash. In March.

This technique could be expanded to add other blockchains that could be totally independent unto themselves, or be interwoven with NXT blockchain via gateway.

I used to think gateways were just boring deposit/withdrawal functionality. Now I am realizing that a gateway can be used to bridge the gap between a lot of things that are not NXT with NXT. By doing so, NXT gets effectively extended.

James

I think that's a great plan.  Also, thought you should check out http://opentransactions.org pertaining to DAC, pretty interesting stuff.

[1714793825]

1714793825

[1714793825]

1714793825

[1714793825]

1714793825

[1714793825]

1714793825

[1714793825]

1714793825

[CIYAM]

Good point.  By limiting forging power to 1% per account, I think we are opening ourselves up to a greater threat.  Any thoughts?

I don't think that we are at all. Firstly already only 1/4 of the "potential forging power" is being used (this will very likely change when people can grant forging rights to pools and we do not want to make it easy for 1 pool to have a huge amount of control which they *will* if there is no max. limit imposed).

Those that are "solo" forging are going to "split up" their NXT to ensure they get their maximum forging benefit (if they are bothered enough to forge then I think they would be bothered enough to do it in the most effective manner).

[jl777]

Ripple has some pretty good looking charts on http://www.ripplecharts.com/#/
Could somebody with javascript expertise look at the source code at https://github.com/ripple/ripplecharts-frontend and estimate how much work it would be to get something like this for displaying NXT AE assets?

I will offer bounty to get this done, just not sure how big the bounty should be.

[CIYAM]

I personally agree with the idea of locking this topic as it gives us good training for not relying on a "central point of failure".

If the Nxt project is going to be derailed as easily as just by locking a few topics on forums then we are in serious trouble (and personally I find this topic to be more effort than I think it's really worth).

I envision that down the track all communication between the Nxt community should be *via* that Nxt platform itself.

[jl777]

Good point.  By limiting forging power to 1% per account, I think we are opening ourselves up to a greater threat.  Any thoughts?

I don't think that we are at all. Firstly already only 1/4 of the "potential forging power" is being used (this will very likely change when people can grant forging rights to pools and we do not want to make it easy for 1 pool to have a huge amount of control which they *will* if there is no max. limit imposed).

Those that are "solo" forging are going to "split up" their NXT to ensure they get their maximum forging benefit (if they are bothered enough to forge then I think they would be bothered enough to do it in the most effective manner).

I think once NODEcoin is working, we can always incentivize people to forge just by making bids for NODEcoin in AE. If all people had to do was run a program in the background to "mine" NODEcoin and they are assured of getting some everyday, I would think that we would raise the percentage of people forging to a much higher rate.

Do you know how to calculate what percentage is forging? If I can make each nodeminer do that calculation and also a check to make sure the acct is forging, we can create whatever reward we want. It could be per acct, per acct * sqrt(stake), per acct with max of X, per IP, etc.

The goal is to get people forging. If we make it in their financial interest to forge with a consistent generation of NODEcoin, then I think a lot of people will forge rather than not forge. Especially if the NODEcoins end up being worth more than the expected forging income, then the whole "pool" issue is moot.

James

[wakasaki808]

Good point.  By limiting forging power to 1% per account, I think we are opening ourselves up to a greater threat.  Any thoughts?

I don't think that we are at all. Firstly already only 1/4 of the "potential forging power" is being used (this will very likely change when people can grant forging rights to pools and we do not want to make it easy for 1 pool to have a huge amount of control which they *will* if there is no max. limit imposed).

Those that are "solo" forging are going to "split up" their NXT to ensure they get their maximum forging benefit (if they are bothered enough to forge then I think they would be bothered enough to do it in the most effective manner).

I think once NODEcoin is working, we can always incentivize people to forge just by making bids for NODEcoin in AE. If all people had to do was run a program in the background to "mine" NODEcoin and they are assured of getting some everyday, I would think that we would raise the percentage of people forging to a much higher rate.

Do you know how to calculate what percentage is forging? If I can make each nodeminer do that calculation and also a check to make sure the acct is forging, we can create whatever reward we want. It could be per acct, per acct * sqrt(stake), per acct with max of X, per IP, etc.

The goal is to get people forging. If we make it in their financial interest to forge with a consistent generation of NODEcoin, then I think a lot of people will forge rather than not forge. Especially if the NODEcoins end up being worth more than the expected forging income, then the whole "pool" issue is moot.

James

yup. I think many would be interested in trying out NODEcoin once its all setup, I certainly would. You could set up something on BTT thread about it too as everyone around these parts are interested in the next alt-coin to "mine"

[superresistant]

BTER finaly gave me back my 100K Nxt. It took more than one month...

[stoneone]

@james
(and others)

Speaking of Iceland...

I’m considering the marketing effect if we tested a NxtCoin as national currency in Christiania, Copenhagen. It’s a self-proclaimed autonomous neighbourhood of about 850 residents. But Christiania is visited by 500.000 tourists every year.

The media attention that Christiania gets, will benefit us. And vice versa. And in quite a few ways we share common grounds. It's like the old meets the new.

Christiania is a social experiment in it's origin. Talking decision making, it's a live version of our Nxt community. Chrisitanists make consensus-based decisions in matters that concern their whole community. OMG, it's long haired, and I admire it, the strength of discussing until consensus is reached. In difficult matters, this could be the next morning, or half a year. But they always get there.

Customers in Christiania choose whether they want their change in Danish Kroner or LØN (the Christianian currency since 1997). Christiania has it's own coin! - but they might be interested in going digital. Christiania has strong feelings about the environment, and with Nxt “making Greenpeace happy” and all, it would be a perfect fit.

Christiania "consensus"-meetings are closed for outsiders, but I am pretty sure that I can get in + bring another from the Nxt community with me, using my contacts. Even if the whole of Christiania does not agree on making a unique LØN NxtCoin their local currency, the shops in Christiania could easily begin accepting Nxt.

Imagine the media attention, if a society like Christiania agreed on making Nxt - or a coin made on top of Nxt - their "national currency". If "INTERESTED", let me know.

/apenzl

nice idea.
haha

[lophie]

BTER finaly gave me back my 100K Nxt. It took more than one month...

Please tell us the details for future refrences on how to deal with them, thnx. and grats.

[CIYAM]

Do you know how to calculate what percentage is forging? If I can make each nodeminer do that calculation and also a check to make sure the acct is forging, we can create whatever reward we want. It could be per acct, per acct * sqrt(stake), per acct with max of X, per IP, etc.

The goal is to get people forging. If we make it in their financial interest to forge with a consistent generation of NODEcoin, then I think a lot of people will forge rather than not forge. Especially if the NODEcoins end up being worth more than the expected forging income, then the whole "pool" issue is moot.

A bit hard (meaning impossible) to know at any given point in time but you can analyse the historical data of the blockchain to work out which non-zero accounts have never forged or have not forged within a range of blocks (you can also add up the balances of all the accounts that *did* forge in that range).

When people can assign their forging right then I am guessing the total # of people forging will be *reduced* as some will opt out in favour of "easier money".

[Armando]

BTER finaly gave me back my 100K Nxt. It took more than one month...

Please tell us the details for future refrences on how to deal with them, thnx. and grats.

I've traded normal amounts there without any problems, had once delay with NXT deposit, but soved fast after email to support

[TwinWinNerD]

I'm considering locking this thread on page 2100.  What are everyones' thoughts?

I don't want to interrupt communication, but I think we would make more progress if we were better organized.

Poll - https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=839

Yeah, i am going ahead and saying it: The result will be super biased.
If you make the poll on nxtcrypto --> YES LOCK >80%
If you make the poll on bitcointalk -> NO  LOCK >80%

So there's that.

I'd vote for not locking it, we create a good number of random views by being on the top of this subforum all the time.

[jl777]

Do you know how to calculate what percentage is forging? If I can make each nodeminer do that calculation and also a check to make sure the acct is forging, we can create whatever reward we want. It could be per acct, per acct * sqrt(stake), per acct with max of X, per IP, etc.

The goal is to get people forging. If we make it in their financial interest to forge with a consistent generation of NODEcoin, then I think a lot of people will forge rather than not forge. Especially if the NODEcoins end up being worth more than the expected forging income, then the whole "pool" issue is moot.

A bit hard (meaning impossible) to know at any given point in time but you can analyse the historical data of the blockchain to work out which non-zero accounts have never forged or have not forged within a range of blocks (you can also add up the balances of all the accounts that *did* forge in that range).

When people can assign their forging right then I am guessing the total # of people forging will be *reduced* as some will opt out in favour of "easier money".

I just need a PoNA (Proof of NXT API) that the nodeminer runs, so that locally I check to see if it is forging, gather up PoNA and submit it. The PoNA just needs to be data that can be verified server side so that NODEcoins can be allocated to nodes running NXT API. Could be as simple as key data from API calls that show node has access to up to date blockchain. I will also add calculation of zerocoin Accumulator,which actually is a very good PoNA as long as we have regular minting of zerocoins. At .01 NXT transaction fee, i could have a bot generate a new zerocoin every minute. That ensures that each block requires a new Accumulator and thus provides adequate PoNA. As it is 1 NXT is way too expensive...

James

[middlepath]

I'm considering locking this thread on page 2100.  What are everyones' thoughts?

I don't want to interrupt communication, but I think we would make more progress if we were better organized.

Poll - https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=839

If you lock this, people will just migrate back to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.0  

[wakasaki808]

I'm considering locking this thread on page 2100.  What are everyones' thoughts?

I don't want to interrupt communication, but I think we would make more progress if we were better organized.

Poll - https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=839

If you close this, people will just migrate back to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.0 

or the newly created https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493722.0 ...

[jl777]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=493722.msg5441238#msg5441238

or here NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - pages 2100+

James

[2Kool4Skewl]

Good point.  By limiting forging power to 1% per account, I think we are opening ourselves up to a greater threat.  Any thoughts?

I don't think that we are at all. Firstly already only 1/4 of the "potential forging power" is being used (this will very likely change when people can grant forging rights to pools and we do not want to make it easy for 1 pool to have a huge amount of control which they *will* if there is no max. limit imposed).

Those that are "solo" forging are going to "split up" their NXT to ensure they get their maximum forging benefit (if they are bothered enough to forge then I think they would be bothered enough to do it in the most effective manner).

That is true, forging power will consolidate because people will want more consistent payouts.  So, limiting forging amounts per account is the only way to prevent colluding accounts from constructing a dangerously long chain.  Ian suggested limiting forging power to 1% or 10,000,000 Nxt.  I ran simulations with his program to give us some data to determine the best limiting forging percentage.  I ran each simulation three times.  All simulations were run for a period of ten years.  When I limited the forging power, I set the collusion rate to ninety percent.

If you do not limit forging power and set the simulator so one account controls 91% and nine accounts control 1% of Nxt, the longest blockchain the 91% holder can create is an average of 465 (514, 445, 435).

If you limit forging power to 1% per account and set the simulator for 100 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 142 (151, 137, 137).

If you limit forging power to 2% per account and set the simulator for 50 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 152 (166, 133, 156).

If you limit forging power to 4% per account and set the simulator for 25 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 1137 (1102, 1262, 1045).

If you limit forging power to 5% per account and set the simulator for 20 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 1452 (1443, 1459, 1454).

If you limit forging power to 10% per account and set the simulator for 10 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 1503 (1493, 1523, 1491).

From the results of the tests, we can see that limiting forging power to anything four percent or higher results in the colluding accounts being able to construct a longer blockchain than if we do not limit forging power and one account controls 90%.  Therefore, we should limit forging power to 1% or 2% per account.  I agree with Ian that forging power should be limited to one percent per account.

If we don't limit forging power, we have to accept the fact that we will have to wait for 465 minutes (one block per min) for confirmation if over ninety percent of the network is colluding.

[goldenmail]

I'm considering locking this thread on page 2100.  What are everyones' thoughts?

I don't want to interrupt communication, but I think we would make more progress if we were better organized.

Poll - https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=839

Please not lock.

[wakasaki808]

I don't think we need to lock this thread. This thread has nostalgia....we can look back to the point where NXT was only beginning(after it was released)

If anything just copy-paste the same message to a forum if its important enough. To generate some traffic at nxtcrypto for example.

[jl777]

Good point.  By limiting forging power to 1% per account, I think we are opening ourselves up to a greater threat.  Any thoughts?

I don't think that we are at all. Firstly already only 1/4 of the "potential forging power" is being used (this will very likely change when people can grant forging rights to pools and we do not want to make it easy for 1 pool to have a huge amount of control which they *will* if there is no max. limit imposed).

Those that are "solo" forging are going to "split up" their NXT to ensure they get their maximum forging benefit (if they are bothered enough to forge then I think they would be bothered enough to do it in the most effective manner).

That is true, forging power will consolidate because people will want more consistent payouts.  So, limiting forging amounts per account is the only way to prevent colluding accounts from constructing a dangerously long chain.  Ian suggested limiting forging power to 1% or 10,000,000 Nxt.  I ran simulations with his program to give us some data to determine the best limiting forging percentage.  I ran each simulation three times.  All simulations were run for a period of ten years.  When I limited the forging power, I set the collusion rate to ninety percent.

If you do not limit forging power and set the simulator so one account controls 91% and nine accounts control 1% of Nxt, the longest blockchain the 91% holder can create is an average of 465 (514, 445, 435).

If you limit forging power to 1% per account and set the simulator for 100 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 142 (151, 137, 137).

If you limit forging power to 2% per account and set the simulator for 50 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 152 (166, 133, 156).

If you limit forging power to 4% per account and set the simulator for 25 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 1137 (1102, 1262, 1045).

If you limit forging power to 5% per account and set the simulator for 20 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 1452 (1443, 1459, 1454).

If you limit forging power to 10% per account and set the simulator for 10 accounts, the longest blockchain generated by the colluding accounts is an average of 1503 (1493, 1523, 1491).

From the results of the tests, we can see that limiting forging power to anything four percent or higher results in the colluding accounts being able to construct a longer blockchain than if we do not limit forging power and one account controls 90%.  Therefore, we should limit forging power to 1% or 2% per account.  I agree with Ian that forging power should be limited to one percent per account.

If we don't limit forging power, we have to accept the fact that we will have to wait for 465 minutes (one block per min) for confirmation if over ninety percent of the network is colluding.

could you run the sim at 0.1%, 0.25% and 0.5%?