NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[bitcoinpaul]

I think different Nxt-Assets from the same underlying Asset from different Gateways would be interesting. Different Gateways will naturally emerge, so we shouldn't fight it but instead maybe pave the way for proper implementations by providing guidance, papers, how-tos?

same underlying asset -> different NXT asset -> same as ripple
USD != USD != USD; BTC != BTC != BTC
super confusing to users
bad

Sorry, but what is your solution to this? We cannot force other people NOT to build gateways for Nxt (and, for obvious reasons, we shouldn't). There will be more gateways, and overlaps of same assets. Don't fight it. Foster decentralization.

USDgox != USDstamp !=USDbtce; BTCgox != BTCstamp, ...... is not that bad.

I know it is not THE simplest solution for end users. But it is ok and interesting and leads to more options for assets. There could be a agreement of many gateways to use the same assets - but you cannot force it.

[1715115838]

1715115838

[1715115838]

1715115838

[1715115838]

1715115838

[1715115838]

1715115838

[1715115838]

1715115838

[jl777]

Now that I've thought about it a bit further I think I would actually prefer that we have a fixed prefix (say 16/32/64 bit) that indicates a message type with type #0 being raw data, type #1 being UTF-8 text and type #3 being URI (and maybe we could consider using the alias system to effectively map each of these type numbers to an internet media type http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml).

Although it's a little ugly I've realised that otherwise ATs are going to require far more complicated code (and we don't want to force that).

(that should make James happy I think)

Yes, I like simple.

As long as it is 4 or 8 bytes, it works for me. I like the idea about using Alias system to reserve prefix bytes. We could standardize on Aliases that are ("prefix" # all hex chars) reserve that prefix. This way, different apps wont process other apps' AM. Nothing will need to process these Aliases, it would just serve as a prefix reservation system.

[EmoneyRu]

Also only need to put the absolute path in the dbUrl

nxt.dbUrl=jdbc:h2:/mnt/nxt/nxt_db/nxt;DB_CLOSE_ON_EXIT=FALSE

EDIT: Also need updating... apiResourceBase, javadocResourceBase and uiResourceBase with the absolute path.

Maybe you just execute "cd /mnt/nxt/ && ./ruh.sh"?

[landomata]

   For example, we can sell our shares at some trade platform like other coin .
 
   I have send the buy confirmation message , please confirm .

   Thanks .

1) You can sell the shares on the Nxt Asset Exchange.

2) Buy confirmation received.

[CIYAM]

For those interested in the Bitcoin *bug* that would occur in 2140 assuming it isn't fixed before then.

The relevant code from Bitcoin (in main.cpp):

Code:

 nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / Params().SubsidyHalvingInterval());

A simplified program to show you what happens:

Code:

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

int main( )
{
   unsigned int x = 500000000;

   for( int i = 0; i <= 32; i++ )
      cout << "x >> " << i << " = " << ( x >> i ) << endl;
}

So if not fixed then Bitcoin isn't limited to 21M Bitcoins at all.

[jl777]

Addressing how TF will be implemented should be focused on protecting the blockchain (#1) and the network (#2).

Issues of "fairness" (perceived or otherwise) are at best a #3 priority (if even that).

"Fairness" issue can't be resolved while money exists, IMHO.

for me when I say fairness I mean this:

100 Nxt account is forging every day not every 10 year


aprox 1,44 Blocs per day. 100 Nxt account is forging every day. receives fees in proportion to their funds every day!!!

1.000.000.000 Nxt Coin
1.000.000 Nxt Coin per pool (share fee group)
30.000 Nodes participate in forging. if there are only 30 accounts linked per pool (share fee group)

this means;

Extremely decentralized network (in the exemple 30.000 Nodes) and therefore very secure network
Small accounts motivated to participate in forging (In the exemple 100 Nxt account is forging every day not every 10 year)
rich and poor have the same chance to forge because everybody forge everyday!!!!

nodecoin

[jl777]

I think different Nxt-Assets from the same underlying Asset from different Gateways would be interesting. Different Gateways will naturally emerge, so we shouldn't fight it but instead maybe pave the way for proper implementations by providing guidance, papers, how-tos?

same underlying asset -> different NXT asset -> same as ripple
USD != USD != USD; BTC != BTC != BTC
super confusing to users
bad

Sorry, but what is your solution to this? We cannot force other people NOT to build gateways for Nxt (and, for obvious reasons, we shouldn't). There will be more gateways, and overlaps of same assets. Don't fight it. Foster decentralization.

USDgox != USDstamp !=USDbtce; BTCgox != BTCstamp, ...... is not that bad.

I know it is not THE simplest solution for end users. But it is ok and interesting and leads to more options for assets. There could be a agreement of many gateways to use the same assets - but you cannot force it.

Then what is the point for multisig? Might as well just rely on centralized gateways

[bitcoinpaul]

Then what is the point for multisig? Might as well just rely on centralized gateways

Small Decentralization of Centralization perhaps.


edit: please give me your thoughts on this:

Sorry, but what is your solution to this? We cannot force other people NOT to build gateways for Nxt (and, for obvious reasons, we shouldn't).

[hala]

   For example, we can sell our shares at some trade platform like other coin .
 
   I have send the buy confirmation message , please confirm .

   Thanks .

1) You can sell the shares on the Nxt Asset Exchange.

2) Buy confirmation received.

 Ok,  thanks for your reply.

 Good luck.

[jl777]

Not sure how one guy would be in charge of three INDEPENDENT gateways. This is what I have been saying. We need to find three different, independent, separate, not the same guy, gateway operators.

That is not possible. You cannot formally prove that.

In addition to my post about implementing a public audit website for gateways (don't know if that's useful)

Can we limit risk also by limiting the volume of assets traded per gateway cluster - forcing the addition of gateways to process more (a risk based limit rather than a technical CPU/Network based limit) ?
e.g. each gateway can provide trust for up to X million of an asset so the trading volume for that asset is NGateways*X, if the volume is higher then you would not be able to deposit though the gateway to AE

This also means that someone knows if they run a gateway the volume is such that their node has to be involved and they will get some income and the existing gateway owners will want the additional node and will sign it into the cluster because they need the capacity.

You still have 3 way voting but then its 3 way voting between N gateways, the voting should be pseudorandom as all gateways should trust all others and we can similarly monitor signing behaviour - each gateway block should be identifying which nodes sign. One suspicious pattern would be if there is a locked pattern of signing between 3 colluding nodes this would be picked up.

The gateway block chain can be picked up from any of the nodes as it has to be common across all gateways doesn't it so they could not hide this signing patter which would be necessary to collude...

So if you have 4,5,10 gateway operators the only way a fraud could be totally hidden would be if more and more people colluded unless of course someone acquires or is secretly all of these operators.

The only solution that approaches fully trustless is to make each user part of a multisig gateway. It radical. Each multisig acct would hold amounts proportional to the users average NXT assets value.

People would need to be running a gateway program in the background that will be validating and signing withdraw requests. As people's NXT assets change, balances would have to shift between multisig accts to roughly match. This can be achieved by selecting deposits and withdraws from the multisig account that improves an overall balance metric.

the problem with this is approach is that not only is it getting pretty complicated, the odds of 2 of 3 customers going missing or simply offline becomes too high.

OK, so we change the model a bit to where there are two independent gateways with the customer's computers being the third. If a customer goes missing, the two gateways transfer the balance to active accts. To mitigate the risk of one of the two gateways going missing, each provably puts their private keys in two separate escrows.

The fundamental problem here is the the less trust you require, the more parties are involved and at some point the sheer number of small risks will end up making a multisig acct inaccessible, so you need to have an insurance layer.

If the community cannot support a three gateway setup, then there is no point to even using the multisig and might as well just turn into ripple. What if we could get Anon, abuelau and opticalcarrier to become the three gateways? Are they the same guy?

James

[Jerical13]

This may sound kinda sharkish but would it be possible to use the holding account to provide for the cost of the server? If there were enough banked in the holding account to cover withdraws and to make loans and charge interest?

You are suggesting fractional reserve.
To that, I just say no

James

I agree. It is a form of diluted fractional reserve. But implementing this gateway kind of creates a decentralization paradox....lets call it the "gateway paradox". It raises a few issues to me that I wonder about. I understand your desire to use it for the good of every one, and I can clearly see the benefits of its implementation (after your explanations and descriptions), and I know from reading your posts and conversing  with you that you have put a lot of work into it and you have the best intentions possible. But this gateway, if implemented in the way you are describing does create a paradox nonetheless.

First of all, it is a form of centralizing. despite the fact that you are implementing it as non-profit, there is a cost involved with providing this service. This cost will force the network to depend on  a source of funding, and this dependence gives whoever is funding it leverage, even though they are not going to make a direct NXT profit.

Secondly, there is a risk involved in having other peoples funds in the holding account. A risk that every NXTer bares whether they want to or not. I know you have done everything possible to make this gateway secure, and god forbid it should happen, but what if for some reason the funds in this holding account disappeared? It would create a situation that sort of mirrors the Mt. Gox debacle, but would send a shock wave out that would be insinuated into the Space-time fabric of the NXT universe and not be limited to an independent galaxy.

To compensate for these risks, a fractional reserve lending policy for funding the gateway is an acceptable application of the free market. To me, there is nothing wrong with responsible capitalism. I am against vampire capitalism and using fractional reserve policies to cripple an economy and to concentrate wealth to lenders. But reasonable and responsible fractional lending is not in and of itself bad.

What is worse: controlled fractional reserve lending, or pan-network repercussions to an involuntary risk? I would like it better if the gateway could fund itself and provide for the cost of its operation.

So this is the paradox.

I love this idea and it is surely worth pursuing, and I really do appreciate your selflessness and your work; and everyone elses work who had any support for this project; and this is not an attack on you in any way, as the gateway is your baby, and NXT is a free market, and you are free to do as you will with the fruits of your labor. But to me it does create this paradox.

The question has also occurred to me: Is the application of this gateway to the NXT AE going to be monopolized? Or could anyone who wanted to implement something similar do so? If this is possible This gateway may have other uses than the ones you have intended.

[bitcoinpaul]

Maybe I understand it wrong but to clarify things:

- you want to build a service provider (crypto coin gateway) for Nxt which uses AE and AM
- there will be (for now) three servers at different geo locations under charge of three different people to run this service provider
- this gives the user of this one gateway a nice feeling because it is less probable that the service provider runs away with the coins
- now I say this is a centralized solution but it is ok
- Did we ever thought we could have a complete 100% decentralized gateway solution for Nxt? I don't think so


What is your goal with the gateway implementation? A decentralized service provider? A built-in decentralized gateway in the Nxt-core? I think the second is not possible - is it?

edit: My opinion is that your gateway is a really BIG thing for nxt! But I want to clarify these things.

[Jerical13]

I  agree with you on needing to keep the cost low and using volume to drive the value of NXT. I can't help but wonder about the server costs and the risk of holding the other currencies. This may sound kinda sharkish but would it be possible to use the holding account to provide for the cost of the server? If there were enough banked in the holding account to cover withdraws and to make loans and charge interest?

For example, if there are 1000 people with money in the holding account it would be very unlikely that they would all want to withdraw at the same time. Knowing this you could safely lend a portion of the holding account out at interest to cover the cost of the server expense, and maybe bank some of the interest for insurance on the holding account. I don't mean to make a profit, as I understand your reasoning in wanting to provide the service for the worlds benefit, but economics is economics.

There is going to be a cost for providing this service. And it may be possible to generate the funds to pay for the service like this. Or if you made sure to include some proof of stake coins in the gateway inclusions and had enough of them banked to get fees for them (if that is possible).

 Maybe that is crazy.  

I think the AE is awesome and what you are doing with it is awesome. Game changing.

If I understand correctly, this idea is very bad.

Not nesaccarally. I think it would be a trade off.

[jl777]

Then what is the point for multisig? Might as well just rely on centralized gateways

Small Decentralization of Centralization perhaps.


edit: please give me your thoughts on this:

Sorry, but what is your solution to this? We cannot force other people NOT to build gateways for Nxt (and, for obvious reasons, we shouldn't).

When did I ever propose the multisig gateway being a monopoly?? That doesnt make sense and it is not possible anyway. It is not a "problem" the problem I am trying to solve is to make NXT AE immediately get dozens of popular and tradeable assets and making it as easy and safe for users. As long as we can get a threeway multisig gateway in place, there is no problem. any additional assets that come in via other gateways is extra gravy.

however, without some community established gateway, it becomes buyer beware. How is the mass market supposed to know that the BTC asset they got from joebob had no BTC backing it? Or what were his security precautions? In fact, the issuer of an asset is listed as 98473783959082935. users will have no way of differentiating scam gateways from real ones from amateur ones.

Sure the multisig gateway isnt perfect, but let us objectively compare it to the alternative

The question becomes, whether we as a community want to help new users by making it easy and relatively safe for them to deposit and trade cryptos inside NXT. Or do we just let whatever happens, happen. When people start complaining that they didnt receive their BTC, we just tell them, tough luck you should have been more careful? How exactly could they have even known what they were supposed to do. Who to trust?

No solution will be perfect, but we as a community are in the best position to make a gateway for the new users as safe as possible. Do we want new users?

James

[redsn0w]

Statistics of the votes(NXT Funding Committees)

[CIYAM]

Who to trust?

No-one - that is why atomic-cross chain transactions are the only *real solution* here (people trusted Gox and look where that has got them now).

[bitcoinpaul]

The question becomes, whether we as a community want to help new users by making it easy and relatively safe for them to deposit and trade cryptos inside NXT. Or do we just let whatever happens, happen. When people start complaining that they didnt receive their BTC, we just tell them, tough luck you should have been more careful? How exactly could they have even known what they were supposed to do. Who to trust?

No solution will be perfect, but we as a community are in the best position to make a gateway for the new users as safe as possible. Do we want new users?

James

+1

But we need to make things clear:

- your solution (a service provider) is not decentralized
- there will be other gateways (service providers)

[bitcoinpaul]

Who to trust?

No-one - that is why atomic-cross chain transactions are the only *real solution* here (people trusted Gox and look where that has got them now).

So there IS a possibility for a decentralized solution?

[CIYAM]

So there IS a decentralized solution?

*Yes* but it is not simple, nor quick and I don't believe that anyone has actually even done it.

Also it can't apply to Nxt itself until we have AT (as we don't have the equivalent of Bitcoin "script" until then).

[chanc3r]

Then what is the point for multisig? Might as well just rely on centralized gateways

The concept of the multi-sig gateways is great, and this is NOT centralisation it is a service of a new gateway type that is another NXT community innovation. So please do not call it centralisation - it would be if it were the ONLY gateway to NXT AE.

Also decentralisation cannot be anarchy or we can forget widespread adoption because the scammers will come in, exploit the decentralisation features, create confusion and run off with peoples stuff and AE will be seen as unsafe and people won't use it.

I think you can ensure that per gateway there is only one AE asset type for a RL Asset e.g. USD, I think this will avoid confusion, if you have a legit USD and a scammer can create US or USd or some variant people will get scammed.

I do think that there will be other gateways though, James multisig is a type of gateway, but Ripple or BTC-e might build their own gateway.

I think multi-sig is a great piece of work and once multi-sig is open source that maybe the type others build but before then we might see a more current ripple like gateway which is less secure as the asset is not fully escrowed.

So I think you can have the multi-sig approach for an asset on the NXT Multi-sig gateway which is fully escrowed and their will be other gateways which will also offer assets with different mechanisms for escrow or more risk.

What it does mean is we should look at one asset per gateway and be clear on the AE which gateway and asset is being traded through.

To be honest when you look at all the current exchanges, multisig run by one or two operators with a publicly visible gateway block chain isn't perfect but its a hell of a lot better than is out on the market currently.