NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[jl777]

I never did fully understand this, but maybe I finally can. Just to be clear, in Step 2, if I dont know the secret number, how can I make a tx that needs it hash? Or if I just make it use the hash, then wouldnt the first party be able to complete the tx with the hash without revealing the secret?

The tx uses Bitcoin "script" to check the hash of a value (so you *leave out the value*).

In reality it's a little more complicated because you need refund txs (with timeouts) but basically the whole point is that the 1st tx can't happen *without disclosing the number that was hashed* (which is all that the 2nd tx needs to become valid).

Ah, so it relies on bitcoin script capabilities. AT would need to support the equivalent functionality too

[1715216968]

1715216968

[1715216968]

1715216968

[1715216968]

1715216968

[CIYAM]

Is there a post somewhere detailing this solution?  When I run it in my head all I see are many unresolved forks -- the opposite of what a blockchain is supposed to solve: consensus.  I think I don't understand the solution.

You always have the potential for forks (Bitcoin regularly has 2 different blocks with the same height although has rarely gone much further than that apart from when we had the DB change issue).

The resolution of a fork is when others "build new blocks upon what they see as the best chain".

The problem with a nefarious player is that they might be trying to "build a secret chain" in the background.

If it were possible for them to do so then it could easily be accepted as the "new chain" by all nodes *but* with the rule that an equal weight chain will be ignored unless it was the *first* one that the node sees will just make that attack *harder* (as other nodes will prefer to build upon the non-secret chain assuming weights are equal).

[CIYAM]

Ah, so it relies on bitcoin script capabilities. AT would need to support the equivalent functionality too

Yes - you are correct (it has been something I've been thinking about).

[salsacz]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

[Damelon]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

Not at all, as long as the length is needed.

[punkrock]

NXTpool.net CLOSING SOON!

DOMAIN AND WEBSITE FOR SALE!

It was a test and an experience. All deposits will be paid back. Let's see, what the future brings. I will focus my work on nextcoin.org and NXTclient.net.

Thanks.

Ok  

Yes, I am sorry, but without enough NXT it doesn't make sense and the trouble with the blockchain yesterday was enough for me (all transactions I did were cancelled because of forking or what ever). So I decided to close it. It's also very hard to organize it, when people sending NXT from an exchanger and some of our users were... hmm... not the brightest bulb in the lamp store. Too much stress for me.

All deposits are paid back and pending in blockchain. Hopefully the NXT will reach their owners (including myself).

[bitcoinpaul]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

Depends. Target audience?

[salsacz]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

Depends. Target audience?

- Developers
- Snowden, Assange, Dotcom... and their fans

[Jerical13]

is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?

whatever it takes. if an idea is seen as a photon it can be anywhere, and travels all possible paths, and can be in more than one place at once. You must collapse the wave function to find its true position. That can only be done with observation and information. if it takes 14 minutes, so be it.

[lophie]

is this really something that can be done??

any forecast for when asset exchange will be live?

I just have my fingers crossed someone will figure atomic cross-chain txs out...  as far as the asset exchange goes I haven't seen too many bugs being reported...  so I would say VERY SOON!    

it is already there, but none knew how to implement it correctly neither to gain mass adoption of such a change to the protocols.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains.

[CIYAM]

it is already there, but none knew how to implement it correctly neither to gain mass adoption of such a change to the protocols.

I don't think that it requires any *changes* to the Bitcoin protocol to achieve (although you can't broadcast the refund txs *in advance* as I am pretty sure they won't get included in each node's "memory pool" but that is no big deal).

Basically *no-one has tried it* (or if they have they haven't published this to my knowledge).

My guess is that from the Bitcoin perspective it would "help" alts (so no incentive for the core devs to even bother to try it) and from the alt coin side they simply don't have any devs *capable* of doing this (as generally they are just "copy-pasta devs").

[bitcoinpaul]

from the alt coin side they simply don't have any devs *capable* of doing this (as generally they are just "copy-pasta devs").

Let's do this.

[lophie]

I just have my fingers crossed someone will figure implement atomic cross-chain txs out...  as far as the asset exchange goes I haven't seen too many bugs being reported...  so I would say VERY SOON!    

it is already there, but none knew how to implement it correctly neither to gain mass adoption of such a change to the protocols.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contracts#Example_5:_Trading_across_chains.

I fixed my post!    

By the way...  I have thrown some change on a couple IPOs...  if any of them work out...  I will buy 1M NXT from you!!!    

Thanks, that would be the end of all my nxt that I want to sell!. And almost there for Supercell Ipo <3

dont like to post many time so I am gonna write it here, multisig for gateways are lost efforts in my opinion, focus on anonymizing communications with the gateway instead. For example, gateways behind tor using bitmessage will recieve requests for deposits and withdrawals just fine, all ppl should care about is the total sum of in-within nxt network-out, who gets what is all in the encrypted messages sent to the gateway through bitmessage.

multisig? decenteralized trust by adding more trustee? with potentially losing all stake if one trustee went awol? I honestly dont get it. please explain. Also gateways have full node using bitcoind? What year is this? Just use electrum. It is better that a full node in terms of tradeoffs, security, effeciency and consistency.

I can discuss this in length and details if the devs are interested.

[lophie]

it is already there, but none knew how to implement it correctly neither to gain mass adoption of such a change to the protocols.

I don't think that it requires any *changes* to the Bitcoin protocol to achieve (although you can't broadcast the refund txs *in advance* as I am pretty sure they won't get included in each node's "memory pool" but that is no big deal).

Basically *no-one has tried it* (or if they have they haven't published this to my knowledge).

My guess is that from the Bitcoin perspective it would "help" alts (so no incentive for the core devs to even bother to try it) and from the alt coin side they simply don't have any devs *capable* of doing this (as generally they are just "copy-pasta devs").

Copy Pasta, Dump em on my plate and I am gonna pump em up, gobble gobble .

[martismartis]

What is API call "Get Forging Deadline" about?

[KyLins]

to landomata
I'm on the list
I pm you
I want to buy  shares of NMAC

[bitcoinpaul]

silence. everbody tries to implement atomic cross chain transactions.

[antanst]

Does anyone know what's the deal with the "0" account?

Code:

http://localhost:7876/nxt?requestType=getAccount&account=0

Code:

{    "errorCode": 4,    "errorDescription": "Incorrect "account"" }

However, there are transactions that send NXT's to it:

Code:

http://localhost:7876/nxt?requestType=getTransaction&transaction=18385933678340826032

Code:

{
    "sender": "11731960900805566730",
    "fee": 1,
    "amount": 1,
    "timestamp": 3334215,
    "referencedTransaction": "0",
    "confirmations": 48523,
    "subtype": 0,
    "block": "4009116466852765469",
    "senderPublicKey": "a9d616b10e11566f92617c8e055e170922e3212e28a0a061882ecaf6c82ce64f",
    "type": 0,
    "deadline": 1440,
    "signature": "996d2de4eaa7f4d60bb89f4730059884c7ca02dab66bdac33f2f6ace44c1bc0274d5e36b5766c948106dcbd6e1dedc55c2a24c363bb0c91d4f303a9b4276b339",
    "recipient": "0"

}

...and the blockchain explorer has an entry:

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=3000&acc=0

Perhaps an NRS bug?

[bitcoinpaul]

Does anyone know what's the deal with the "0" account?

Random guys are sending some NXT to this account. That's all. No one owns this account.

[bitcoinpaul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hdAnyC45ZbU#t=721

ethereum guy on max kaiser show.

Someone should tell him that Nxt already has these features. Oh no, wait till we have AE and AT running and then get Anon on the show. Moon.