|
BrianNowhere
|
 |
March 08, 2014, 08:33:17 PM |
|
Well thank you for clearing that up, I appreciate it. You'll find most of us 'free market' people are pretty nice. We generally don't care how other think or feel, so long as we don't have any force initiated on us. Very 'live and let live'. Again, thank you for your sincere apology.
Now I feel all warm and fuzzy  |
NXT: 4957831430947123625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even in the event that an attacker gains more than 50% of the network's
computational power, only transactions sent by the attacker could be
reversed or double-spent. The network would not be destroyed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:34:44 PM |
|
PLEASE PLEASE When you 'QUOTE'.... EDIT THE 'QUOTE' so it only shows what your reply is relevant too..Please don't quote whole rivers of text.... dare i say 'this is lazy'  It will make it a lot lot easier for all of us reading this thread to catch everything... I'm sure people will forget from time to time but please try to do this. Thanks  Ok. (I could not resist) Damn, I wanted to make this joke. edit: I did. |
|
|
|
|
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
 Offline
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:35:55 PM |
|
PLEASE PLEASE When you 'QUOTE'.... EDIT THE 'QUOTE' so it only shows what your reply is relevant too..Please don't quote whole rivers of text.... dare i say 'this is lazy' It will make it a lot lot easier for all of us reading this thread to catch everything... I'm sure people will forget from time to time but please try to do this. Thanks Ok. (I could not resist) Damn, I wanted to make this joke. edit: I did. Do not tease him. Oops.  |
|
|
|
|
|
antanst
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:37:54 PM |
|
If the merchant has already given you the requested item and after that the first transaction get lost/reverted/etc. (because you spend the money somewhere else) we talk about a double-spend.
You're talking about the case when the merchant accepts the transaction, before even seeing it confirmed even once? |
|
|
|
|
BrianNowhere
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:38:04 PM |
|
Thanks You're welcome. (I'm killing me) |
NXT: 4957831430947123625
|
|
|
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:39:18 PM |
|
If the merchant has already given you the requested item and after that the first transaction get lost/reverted/etc. (because you spend the money somewhere else) we talk about a double-spend.
You're talking about the case when the merchant accepts the transaction, before even seeing it confirmed even once? That is what instant transactions are about. |
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:42:26 PM |
|
Ripple (which puts these selling points first as well) has been around longer than Bitcoin or at least nearly as long I believe.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jerical13
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:43:11 PM |
|
The problem as I see it is that "loading" a card with NXT is not possible. It still needs to be confirmed on the network when it's spent and doesn't matter if it's a card, a cell phone or whatever. If the transaction speed is too slow it will never work for Point of Sale without merchants taking a leap of faith, off chain transaction verification (trusted 3rd party)
TF is the big selling point of NXT. It's why I became interested in it and purchased some because all the "literature" promised it.
Seems like a lot of indian giving might be happening. NXT seems to be in danger of becoming a slower version of RIPPLE if TF doesn't happen.
I was liking what I was reading about parallel block chains though. That gave me a little hope.
HODLING
[/quote]
I know it is not possible. It would take some work to do. But right now Instant network transactions are not possible. I am just trying to gage the effectiveness, and expenditure of resources in relation to the benefits of the outcome of making network transactions instant and provide a possible alternative solution for comparison.
The same as CFB is offering "parallel block chains" as a solution for comparison. I don't know anything about code writing or programing but I do know something about traditional payment services, so this is why I present this possible solution.
|
|
|
|
|
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:43:52 PM |
|
You're talking about the case when the merchant accepts the transaction, before even seeing it confirmed even once?
That is what instant transactions are about. Well, the merchant confirms it softly in such way that he checks if there is a transaction that would contradict the first one. But both transactions are still not included in a block and therefore not confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:45:48 PM |
|
The problem as I see it is that "loading" a card with NXT is not possible. It still needs to be confirmed on the network when it's spent and doesn't matter if it's a card, a cell phone or whatever. If the transaction speed is too slow it will never work for Point of Sale without merchants taking a leap of faith, off chain transaction verification (trusted 3rd party)
TF is the big selling point of NXT. It's why I became interested in it and purchased some because all the "literature" promised it.
Seems like a lot of indian giving might be happening. NXT seems to be in danger of becoming a slower version of RIPPLE if TF doesn't happen.
I was liking what I was reading about parallel block chains though. That gave me a little hope.
HODLING
I know it is not possible. It would take some work to do. But right now Instant network transactions are not possible. I am just trying to gage the effectiveness, and expenditure of resources in relation to the benefits of the outcome of making network transactions instant and provide a possible alternative solution for comparison. The same as CFB is offering "parallel block chains" as a solution for comparison. I don't know anything about code writing or programing but I do know something about traditional payment services, so this is why I present this possible solution. [/quote] Could you point me to that solution of yours? |
|
|
|
|
xyzzyx
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
I don't really come from outer space.
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:46:41 PM |
|
If zerocoin/mixing is only an option for those who want to use it and do not become the standard of nxt core, then i see no problem. It would be the best of the two world. I just hope that zerocoin/mixing will simply be a layer on top of nxt for which user will have the choice to use it or not. Legal business will then simply not use the zerocoin/mixing functions.
I would like to see Zerocoin on its own chain, but doing so likely does have the drawback of making it easier to correlate users with transactions. Still, I'd rather it be optional. |
"An awful lot of code is being written ... in languages that aren't very good by people who don't know what they're doing." -- Barbara Liskov
|
|
|
|
antanst
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:53:35 PM |
|
That is what instant transactions are about.
Ah, right Well, the merchant confirms it softly in such way that he checks if there is a transaction that would contradict the first one. But both transactions are still not included in a block and therefore not confirmed.
I think there are already some Bitcoin merchants that "softly" check transactions and acknowledge payment instantly, like BitPay. This should prove particularly useful in their cases. Interesting stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:55:32 PM |
|
If zerocoin/mixing is only an option for those who want to use it and do not become the standard of nxt core, then i see no problem. It would be the best of the two world. I just hope that zerocoin/mixing will simply be a layer on top of nxt for which user will have the choice to use it or not. Legal business will then simply not use the zerocoin/mixing functions.
I would like to see Zerocoin on its own chain, but doing so likely does have the drawback of making it easier to correlate users with transactions. Still, I'd rather it be optional. Once again, where is the evidence Zerocoin is being implemented with Nxt? Where is the code? Who is the Nxt developer writing the code? How do you resolve the problems mentioned in this post? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249Zerocoin has a number of serious limitations:
- It uses cutting-edge cryptography which may turn out to be insecure, and which is understood by relatively few people (compared to ECDSA, for example).
- It produces large (20kbyte) signatures that would bloat the blockchain (or create risk if stuffed in external storage).
- It requires a trusted party to initiate its accumulator. If that party cheats, they can steal coin. (Perhaps fixable with more cutting-edge crypto.)
- Validation is very slow (can process about 2tx per second on a fast CPU), which is a major barrier to deployment in Bitcoin as each full node must validate every transaction.
- The large transactions and slow validation also means costly transactions, which will reduce the anonymity set size and potentially make ZC usage unavailable to random members of the public who are merely casually concerned about their privacy.
- Uses an accumulator which grows forever and has no pruning. In practice this means we'd need to switch accumulators periodically to reduce the working set size, reducing the anonymity set size. And potentially creating big UTXO bloat problems if the horizon on an accumulator isn't set in advance. |
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:56:36 PM |
|
There is no evidence Nxt is ever going to implement zerocoin. It's incompatible with 1000 TF Zerocoin has a number of serious limitations: - It uses cutting-edge cryptography which may turn out to be insecure, and which is understood by relatively few people (compared to ECDSA, for example). - It produces large (20kbyte) signatures that would bloat the blockchain (or create risk if stuffed in external storage). - It requires a trusted party to initiate its accumulator. If that party cheats, they can steal coin. (Perhaps fixable with more cutting-edge crypto.) - Validation is very slow (can process about 2tx per second on a fast CPU), which is a major barrier to deployment in Bitcoin as each full node must validate every transaction. - The large transactions and slow validation also means costly transactions, which will reduce the anonymity set size and potentially make ZC usage unavailable to random members of the public who are merely casually concerned about their privacy. - Uses an accumulator which grows forever and has no pruning. In practice this means we'd need to switch accumulators periodically to reduce the working set size, reducing the anonymity set size. And potentially creating big UTXO bloat problems if the horizon on an accumulator isn't set in advance. parallel blockchains would make it possible |
|
|
|
|
Jerical13
|
|
March 08, 2014, 08:56:50 PM |
|
If it is possible to speed up the network, in a resource efficient manor that wasn't out of balance with the purpose for speeding it up I say "Hell Yeah! Do it". If not , there are other options.
To use your words 'Hell Yeah' this is the way I would try to do it... and it is about infrastructure if you consider this to be how NXT works as a whole, but its not about H/W or shouldn't be (other than N/W). What ever works. I see NXT as opportunity in infinite forms. To me that is its infrastructure. The more solutions and variants the better. The more observations from different points of view the better. Really there is nothing to rule out both suggested solutions being implemented simultaneously. Plus this kind of conversation is just interesting. What do you mean by H/W and N/W ? missed that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 08, 2014, 09:01:26 PM |
|
There is no evidence Nxt is ever going to implement zerocoin. It's incompatible with 1000 TF Zerocoin has a number of serious limitations: - It uses cutting-edge cryptography which may turn out to be insecure, and which is understood by relatively few people (compared to ECDSA, for example). - It produces large (20kbyte) signatures that would bloat the blockchain (or create risk if stuffed in external storage). - It requires a trusted party to initiate its accumulator. If that party cheats, they can steal coin. (Perhaps fixable with more cutting-edge crypto.) - Validation is very slow (can process about 2tx per second on a fast CPU), which is a major barrier to deployment in Bitcoin as each full node must validate every transaction. - The large transactions and slow validation also means costly transactions, which will reduce the anonymity set size and potentially make ZC usage unavailable to random members of the public who are merely casually concerned about their privacy. - Uses an accumulator which grows forever and has no pruning. In practice this means we'd need to switch accumulators periodically to reduce the working set size, reducing the anonymity set size. And potentially creating big UTXO bloat problems if the horizon on an accumulator isn't set in advance. parallel blockchains would make it possible In other words, it's complete fiction right now with no evidence that anyone is even working on it to implement on Nxt and how it's going to be implemented. Not only there is no code, but how it will be implemented is unclear speculation. Plus there is no evidence it will work. We should stop making Youtube videos about Nxt having zerocoin "feature" as if it's implemented working feature. . salsacz delete your youtube video immediatly. |
|
|
|
|
Sebastien256
|
|
March 08, 2014, 09:03:27 PM |
|
In other words, it's completely fiction right now with no evidence that anyone is even working on it to implement on Nxt and how it's going to be implemented.
Plus there is no evidence it will work. We should stop making Youtube videos about Nxt having zerocoin "feature" as if it's implemented working feature. .
salsacz delete your youtube video immediatly.
please look at nxtcash on the list of thread: http://www.nxtcoins.nl/bitcointalk-threads/EDIT: If zerocoin/mixing is only an option for those who want to use it and do not become the standard of nxt core, then i see no problem. It would be the best of the two world. I just hope that zerocoin/mixing will simply be a layer on top of nxt for which user will have the choice to use it or not. Legal business will then simply not use the zerocoin/mixing functions.
parallel blockchains would make it possible
My point of view is that nxtcash should not be implemented in the nxt core, but as an optional layer over the core. Using Parallel block chain for nxtcash is a very good idea. |
|
|
|
|
Jerical13
|
|
March 08, 2014, 09:06:25 PM |
|
[/quote]
Could you point me to that solution of yours?
[/quote]
I was talking about the use of prepaid credit cards for use in point of purchase transactions as a way of possibly bypassing having to figure out how to make instant transactions possible through the network.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
