|
bitcoinpaul
|
 |
March 20, 2014, 12:24:52 AM |
|
Since many here are sick of my posts, ...
Mmmmhhh, others have different opinions. But sick of your posts?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
Damelon
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1010
|
|
March 20, 2014, 12:26:00 AM |
|
Ive not noticed anyone say they were sick of your posts. I read your writing and I 100% agree with it being ridiculous to try to adjust fees in client as NXT fluctuates in its value per fiat, which is why I've been saying we should determine how to untie fees from fiat. I just want to add support for the untying idea, too. Nxt should make sense in relation to itself. Trying to keep matching it to what happens with it in relation to outside entities will have us debating and jumping to keep up all the time. If anything, it introduces extra variables that we *don't* control into the mix. Occam's Razor suggests we look to minimise the variables. |
|
|
|
|
mczarnek
|
|
March 20, 2014, 12:31:24 AM |
|
NxtBook
Actually not true about nxtbook, you will be able to store that much info eventually using Nxt's decentralized storage, basic idea is you pay people for storage space and then you store your data across multiple harddrives, so that if any one of them goes down, others are holding onto it and if someone goes down, you copy it to another machine from one of the ones still there. So the idea is that you only need to store it on 3 or 4 machines at a time and you'd paid to keep it online. The more you are willing to pay per byte, the more machines and therefore security we can offer.
Similiar to multi-sigs you wouldn't have to store the entire data on every machine, just enough so that 2 out of 5 machines could reconstruct it or whatever.
If people hook up 2 or 3 TB drives and allow Nxt to use them for the decentralized storage system and get paid for them, they could make money off of the process and we'd end up with a lot of available storage space.
This could be used to host such images and will eventually be implemented. It would also allow us to provide an email service and store encrypted emails in a distributed manner, so google can't read your emails for example. I think that decentralized storage should be a big priority once asset and decentralized exchanges are finished. Especially because once we have decentralized storage working, then we can create the distributed computing option, and Nxt will become a supercomputer running across multiple forging machines.
p2p storage would be interesting. It would nice if something like Symform could be built on top of Nxt. Symform, is already offereing p2p storage: http://www.symform.com/Very interesting.. will have to further investigate, I see us running something very similar in the near future, except paying people for their storage space. Going back to the idea of running a supercomputer on top of Nxt, I had a thought, internet bandwidth is going to continue steadily increase for the next few years to the point where most people should be able to easily run a desktop remotely. ( http://blogs.cisco.com/news/the-2017-internet-a-look-at-the-future-courtesy-of-the-cisco-vni-forecast/ ). I already do sometimes when working remotely from home, I'll just log into my work computer and work from there. What if we tailored this decentralized computing to allowing people to buy essentially terminals that are bare-bones machines, probably $100 each, they plug into the Nxt network and essentially run their computers remotely paying by the hour or maybe more likely by the number of instructions executed? That way people using more processor intensive processes would still be paying more and counting instruction cycles would probably prevent limit cheating.. idk maybe not. We could probably begin with Linux and turn it into a decentralized operating system. Then you shift people around between computers and different cores as needed, when only running a word processor someone could run it on one core of someone's machine and run a different person on a different core. In fact every thread the program runs could potentially be run on different machines. Still a baby idea and needs further development and analysis and would require a lot of work and steps along the way and may not be worth it but could be very cool and help Linux better compete with Windows. I suspect once I finish with my current business idea I'll analyze this one further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
EvilDave
|
|
March 20, 2014, 12:54:13 AM |
|
Getting on Reuters is not the same as getting published in mainstream press outlets. BUT; We can use aphoditecoin as a test of the effectiveness of PRweb/newswire. Can u (or someone who's not me) keep monitoring aphroditecoin (ie Google it once/twice per day) and see if the mainstream picks up on it over the next few days? If we can see it working well for an obvious crapcoin, then maybe NXT should bite the bullet and spend some serious money to get some real press coverage, for example when AE launches. |
|
|
|
|
mczarnek
|
|
March 20, 2014, 12:55:04 AM |
|
Ive not noticed anyone say they were sick of your posts. I read your writing and I 100% agree with it being ridiculous to try to adjust fees in client as NXT fluctuates in its value per fiat, which is why I've been saying we should determine how to untie fees from fiat. I just want to add support for the untying idea, too. Nxt should make sense in relation to itself. Trying to keep matching it to what happens with it in relation to outside entities will have us debating and jumping to keep up all the time. If anything, it introduces extra variables that we *don't* control into the mix. Occam's Razor suggests we look to minimize the variables. I think one way to partially untie the transaction fee from the fiat value is to use percentage based fees instead of fixed fees. You would still want a cap on that though, since people are mostly sending around large amounts of Nxt right now. For example, a 0.1% fee with a 0.5 Nxt cap. Which is a very low fee, over 10 times lower than credit cards. The cap would have to be adjusted relative to fiat but that wouldn't be as urgent. This would also allow microtransactions that are fractions of a penny if some reason wanted. You would also have to include a bottom cap so that people don't use this as an opportunity to spam the network with very small transactions but again adjusting that would be less important because you could leave a big range for the top and bottom caps and most people would pay the very low percentage. Personally I'd switch the fee over to the receivers side, so that people don't feel like they are being penalized for sending someone money and if I'm getting money, personally I'm more willing to pay a small fee to get money than give it. |
|
|
|
NxtMinnow
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
March 20, 2014, 12:56:36 AM
Last edit: March 20, 2014, 01:15:42 AM by NxtMinnow |
|
opticalcarrier, no one is threatening BrianNowhere. BrianNowhere brings up some good points but throws FUD like " there's a lot of group-think over there" (here in this thread) and " the way the developers see it is that Nxt will only be the fuel used to trade in other currencies and therefore the value of Nxt can never go very high," BrianNowhere quoting CIYAM Open out of context possibly (or CIYAM Open being wrong about something) BTW, CIYAM Open is not a core Nxt developer. There are many Nxt developers and many are working in secret to avoid having to deal with the subversion represented by the spread of FUD. And more FUD from BrianNowhere, " I fail to see how generating one block (with 3 NXT) every 205 years will net me 1% annual interest." Nxt did not claim to offer 1% interest. Expecting a 1% return on 9 cents? Really? This is a Nxt developer thread whose sole purpose is to shape the features of Nxt by interacting with the community. When this thread is derailed by FUD, productivity goes down. BrianNowhere offered to help find programmers for Nxt, but then immediately continues to spread FUD. Then BrianNowhere is upset when his FUD is rebutted. And now we have a wall of FUD over at Reddit about Nxt. No thanks BrianNowhere. EDIT: It is points like this, quoting BrianNowhere, "These (Nxt) developers need to realize that they need to compete by having better features and systems that work better than their competitors whether their competitors are centralized, decentralized or whatever. Decentralized and Open source and even "Greener" are weak selling points for the majority of people. " that illustrate the difficulty in unified marketing of Nxt. I care about Open Source software that is reviewed and has no security backdoors. I care about decentralization of networks. The centralization of networks has created a dangerous concentration of power and many possible points of failure in our modern electronic world. Decentralized networks are robust and self-healing. No one person within Nxt knows every thing there is to know about Nxt. Every person has different motivations. Personally, I think that the low power requirement of running the Nxt network is a competitive advantage. make much sense what you say, very good article. Do You think about this proposal? market of byte size on the blockchain Vs Nxt
I don't know if that will fix the issues i mentioned in the article. I'm not even sure what makes one transaction have more bandwidth than another unless you are talking about large amounts of text or whatnot. I don't even want to get into this too much here because I'll probably be accused of throwing FUD. I'll be happy to field any questions on reddit though. is someone threatening you in PM or something? Im just not seeing any conflict in the thread. When I refer to fee based on transaction size, I refer to size in blockchain, which is exactly linear with network bandwidth. I have stopped responding to igmacas suggestions as I just cannot make heads nor tails from them; I cannot tell if there is just a translation issue or if he is just throwing out keywords and/or suggestions and hoping we will figure it all out based on his general suggestion, because he gives no method or model to his suggestions. |
|
|
|
|
|
mczarnek
|
|
March 20, 2014, 12:58:05 AM |
|
Getting on Reuters is not the same as getting published in mainstream press outlets. BUT; We can use aphoditecoin as a test of the effectiveness of PRweb/newswire. Can u (or someone who's not me) keep monitoring aphroditecoin (ie Google it once/twice per day) and see if the mainstream picks up on it over the next few days? If we can see it working well for an obvious crapcoin, then maybe NXT should bite the bullet and spend some serious money to get some real press coverage, for example when AE launches. The thing I suspect will happen with these is as soon as people can claim their coins, the value will plummet because most won't be able to do anything with it but will see it as an opportunity to cash out into their own well known fiat.. especially those who need it most. |
|
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 20, 2014, 01:00:20 AM |
|
I think one way to partially untie the transaction fee from the fiat value is to use percentage based fees instead of fixed fees. You would still want a cap on that though, since people are mostly sending around large amounts of Nxt right now. For example, a 0.1% fee with a 0.5 Nxt cap. Which is a very low fee, over 10 times lower than credit cards. The cap would have to be adjusted relative to fiat but that wouldn't be as urgent. This would also allow microtransactions that are fractions of a penny if some reason wanted.
I don't think any other crypto uses percentage based fees. Why should we? We don't want to make transactions even more expensive and complicated. We need to make them cheaper and simpler. 0.1 has been agreed by the community. |
|
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 20, 2014, 01:05:21 AM |
|
Getting on Reuters is not the same as getting published in mainstream press outlets. BUT; We can use aphoditecoin as a test of the effectiveness of PRweb/newswire. Can u (or someone who's not me) keep monitoring aphroditecoin (ie Google it once/twice per day) and see if the mainstream picks up on it over the next few days? If we can see it working well for an obvious crapcoin, then maybe NXT should bite the bullet and spend some serious money to get some real press coverage, for example when AE launches. The thing I suspect will happen with these is as soon as people can claim their coins, the value will plummet because most won't be able to do anything with it but will see it as an opportunity to cash out into their own well known fiat.. especially those who need it most. There is good chance that this (and other scam coins like this -- tons are coming after auroras success) will peak for a few days if it ever makes to a big exchange and coinmarketcap.com website. 75% are premined and "locked" so it will end up very high on coinmarket charts and that itself will start a buy frenzy. The same thing happened with aurora. Everyone is copying the same concept now. |
|
|
|
Damelon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1010
|
|
March 20, 2014, 01:19:34 AM |
|
opticalcarrier, no one is threatening BrianNowhere. BrianNowhere brings up some good points but throws FUD like " there's a lot of group-think over there" (here in this thread) and " the way the developers see it is that Nxt will only be the fuel used to trade in other currencies and therefore the value of Nxt can never go very high," BrianNowhere quoting CIYAM Open out of context possibly (or CIYAM Open being wrong about something)
BTW, CIYAM Open is not a core Nxt developer. There are many Nxt developers and many are working in secret to avoid having to deal with the subversion represented by the spread of FUD.
And more FUD from BrianNowhere, " I fail to see how generating one block (with 3 NXT) every 205 years will net me 1% annual interest." Nxt did not claim to offer 1% interest. Expecting a 1% return on 9 cents? Really?
This is a Nxt developer thread whose sole purpose is to shape the features of Nxt by interacting with the community. When this thread is derailed by FUD, productivity goes down.
BrianNowhere offered to help find programmers for Nxt, but then immediately continues to spread FUD. Then BrianNowhere is upset when his FUD is rebutted. And now we have a wall of FUD over at Reddit about Nxt. No thanks BrianNowhere.
Why call this FUD? Word have power, and all "FUD" does is basically invalidate what he says, which is too harsh. I see it as frustrated, but still valuable questioning. And not even all that frustrated, at that. The post on reddit is quite mellow. One of the brilliant things about forums is that you can read a post, think "what a piece of crap this is", fume, come back, and then look a bit more objectively and then take the time to rebut, without all the emotional intensifiers  "Spreading FUD" implies a hate campaign, which I don't see at all. I see someone who feels he is ignored on points he considers his key concerns. If someone feels those concerns need to be addressed, I feel it's better to applaud his commitment, rather than shove him out of the creative process. That's a part of an open discussion that might not be pleasant, but can lead to results. |
|
|
|
NxtMinnow
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
March 20, 2014, 01:33:33 AM |
|
Damelon, I agree with you that open software development and addressing concerns are important.
However, when a statement like, "What's kept me from dumping all my Nxt in disgust over being "lied" to, was the fact the "switch" that I took the "bait" for was actually pretty compelling in itself." is made by BrianNowhere it shows derisiveness.
No one "lied" to BrianNowhere about Nxt. Nxt did not pull a "bait and switch". Those are "emotional intensifiers" and are not representative of the communications of the Nxt community.
Nxt is developing and has many compelling advantages over Bitcoin. Nxt is young and needs more development and input from testers and users. Nxt does not need inaccurate information maliciously spread about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
opticalcarrier
|
|
March 20, 2014, 01:52:58 AM |
|
I think one way to partially untie the transaction fee from the fiat value is to use percentage based fees instead of fixed fees. You would still want a cap on that though, since people are mostly sending around large amounts of Nxt right now. For example, a 0.1% fee with a 0.5 Nxt cap. Which is a very low fee, over 10 times lower than credit cards. The cap would have to be adjusted relative to fiat but that wouldn't be as urgent. This would also allow microtransactions that are fractions of a penny if some reason wanted.
I don't think any other crypto uses percentage based fees. Why should we? We don't want to make transactions even more expensive and complicated. We need to make them cheaper and simpler. 0.1 has been agreed by the community. My suggestion of fee based on transaction size in blockchain is an extremely objective method based on blockchain resources. With % based, What about leasing forging power or recalling it? Or future transaction types? You end up being forced into picking arbitrary figuresthat have no relation to anything, |
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 20, 2014, 01:57:37 AM |
|
so i was thinking. perhaps one way that i could avoid running afoul of the law on my nxt silver bullion gateway is to emulate a dry cleaners. dry cleaners take in cloths, issue a claim check for those cloths, alter the state of the cloths, and then return them in exchange for the claim check. for some reason unknown to me this claim check is not considered a "security" under financial regulations. Technically it should be, you can leave your cloths at the dry cleaner for an extended period of time and then sell the claim check to someone else and then that person can use the claim check to acquire your cloths, the dry cleaner claim check is a security in every sense of the word but legally it just isn't. So what ever the reason for that is, which i dont know, i can use it to my advantage by emulating that business to a t.
so lets imagine that i am a silver dry cleaners and the melting of silver shot into a bar is the analogue of dry cleaning the cloths, the silver shot is the dirty cloths, and the silver bar is the clean cloths. You buy 10 ounces of silver shot from some online retailer and set the address for delivery as a POBox of my specification. You then use your nxt address to sign the tracking number of the order and send me enough nxt to pay for the "cleaning". The "dirty" silver arrives at my shop and I issue you a claim check. After enough time has passed for me to "clean" the silver that claim check will become redeemable for silver that is now in the form of a bar. From that point on if other people want to trade that claim check amongst each other than thats none of my business. If there are legal ramifications than the onus is on them, it has nothing to do with me.
the nice thing is that there will still be a market for my claim checks but i will never under any circumstances be one of the sellers in that market. so if you want to acquire physical silver than the process will be no more complex for you. you will simply buy one of these claim checks on the market from someone other than me and then reimburse it at my nxt address. The people who deal with ordering silver shot and shipping it to my po box will be in a sense speculators trying to take advantage of arbitrage and for that service they will be affording me a level of legal protection.
one would think that since now there is a new middle man between me and the consumer that this would cause the price to be higher but i dont think this is necessarily the case because there is an advantage to be gained from outsourcing the acquisition of silver shot, a large group of people competing with each other to find cheaper supplies than the other will probably be much more effective at acquiring cheap silver shot than i could be on my own.
tell me what you guys think. ill post this in my silver bullion thread also so if you are seeing this message any later than say a half hour after it was posted than it will probably be better to reply to it there.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
EvilDave
|
|
March 20, 2014, 02:03:09 AM |
|
Damelon, I agree with you that open software development and addressing concerns are important.
However, when a statement like, "What's kept me from dumping all my Nxt in disgust over being "lied" to, was the fact the "switch" that I took the "bait" for was actually pretty compelling in itself." is made by BrianNowhere it shows derisiveness.
No one "lied" to BrianNowhere about Nxt. Nxt did not pull a "bait and switch". Those are "emotional intensifiers" and are not representative of the communications of the Nxt community.
Nxt is developing and has many compelling advantages over Bitcoin. Nxt is young and needs more development and input from testers and users. Nxt does not need inaccurate information maliciously spread about it.
Yeah...but.....some people are just pessimistic sods/paranoid/easily disappointed, etc. BN could be more diplomatic, but I really can't/won't dismiss him as a troll. He seems genuine, but maybe a little frustrated about what he percieves as NXTs shortcomings, with a tendency to be over-dramatic. (just be grateful that Elmo hasn't figured out how to work a Reddit yet....  ) |
|
|
|
brooklynbtc
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
AKA jefdiesel
|
|
March 20, 2014, 02:04:29 AM |
|
I am not sure I understand what you mean by tagging. To me It would seem be more practical to implement if there were a set of "check the one that applies" categories that would actively limit the types of listings that could be used. Flexibility could be achieved by having a comprehensive set of categories to choose from, that could be added to if needed; and by allowing more detailed descriptions of the asset in the description field during the assets registration.
Tagging means to apply n tags to an object (this case: an asset). For instance: asset1: furniture, chair asset2: table, furniture asset3: furniture People can easily filter for furniture, chairs or tables without loosing flexibility. Many studies already showed that facet search (aka filtering) is the future and many webshops like ebay and amazon apply this way. Hierarchical searches are not practical anymore. Best example: You want to buy wine for your best friend. You know he loves wine from Italy. There is a shop offering wine. It applies a hierarchical search: red - sweet - Italy - Portugal - semi-sweet - Portugal - dry - Portugal white - sweet - Italy - Greece - Portugal - dry - Greece - Portugal rosé - sweet - Greece - dry - Italy - Greece How do you find what you need? You have no chance but to look it all through. When using a tagging system the flexibility is built in. No categorization is better or more top than another. Just my 2 cents. I see what you mean. Like a text search where a user could enter a keyword or phrase. I think that is a good idea. Actually both category indexing and your idea of tagging/ text searching would compliment each other. Categories would be better for broader searches and be more complicated for specific usage, and vice versa. I wonder if it would be possible to do your tag search by searching for key phrases or terms in the asset description, instead of creating a tagging application. Users could list there identifying terms in their description and a search application could identify these terms and index corresponding listings....possibly. I know when I search for wine online, I like to search by country, color, grape, appellation, producer, vintage, and price, not necessarily in any nested order. Nesting would just get overly complicated red -italian --merlot ---tuscany ----frescobaldi -----2011 ------sweet red -italian --merlot ---tuscany ----frescobaldi -----2011 ------dry red -italian --merlot ---tuscany ----frescobaldi -----2012 ------sweet red -italian --merlot ---tuscany ----frescobaldi -----2012 ------etc |
|
|
|
NxtMinnow
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
March 20, 2014, 02:11:49 AM |
|
Anon136, your proposal sounds similar to the function of the "pawn ticket" for U.S. pawnshops. I don't know under what auspices they are not classified as securities, but in effect they operate as bearer bonds for the item(s) held by the pawn shops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
btc2nxt
|
|
March 20, 2014, 02:12:05 AM |
|
Simplifying: [fakeCoin asset] (in the description) <Tags="fake", "fakecompany", "moon", "currency"> OR <AliasTags=Tags123> Tags123 URI: ("fake", "fakecompany", "moon", "currency") In this case, your client would just look for "pre-defined" categories (same as the previous example) and place the asset under those categories. So the asset in this example would be placed under the "currency" category in your client, and ignore the other tags for this purpose. Understandably, if the search function will take a lot of work to implement, we can define the standard now (so issuers can place these tags on their assets) and enable the search functionality in the future. But I think implementing the pre-defined list of categories should be achievable in the short-term. Pandaisftw +1 |
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 20, 2014, 02:22:07 AM |
|
Anon136, your proposal sounds similar to the function of the "pawn ticket" for U.S. pawnshops. I don't know under what auspices they are not classified as securities, but in effect they operate as bearer bonds for the item(s) held by the pawn shops.
another valid example. its the same thing basically. i dont know if this is enough of a legal shield to keep me in business, but IF they decide that what im doing is illegal, its probably enough of a shield to grant me a cease and desist warning rather than a black bag in the middle of the night. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
intmain()
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
March 20, 2014, 02:35:10 AM |
|
Well, let me provide an update after eight hours of straight programming. Here is essentially what I will be running with for the decentralized server addition. In this example Peer1 and Peer2 are not hallmarked, which is why they are using a hallmarked server as a common networking point. The purpose of this is to allow the two "peers" to send serialized objects to each other without taking up a large amount of bandwidth on the NXT network. Here is what a serverRequest object looks like. class serverRequest implements Serializable {
private int wantedPeer;
private String sharedNode;
private java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date();
private long time;
private int sender;
private byte[] signature;
public serverRequest(int receiver, int sender, String sharedNode){
this.sharedNode = sharedNode;
this.account = sender;
this.wantedPeer = receiver;
this.time = date.getTime();
long packetLong = Long.valueOf(sharedNode) + account + time + wantedPeer;
byte[] packetByte = ByteBuffer.allocate(8).putLong(packetLong).array();
this.signature = Crypto.sign(packetByte, secretPhrase);
}
} Establish a shared hallmarked server connection. - Peer1 chooses a hallmarkedServer to share a connection with Peer2
- Peer1 sends the serverRequest object to all hallmarkedServer(s) in peerList.
- hallmarkedServer(s) check their peerList to see if they are connected to Peer2
- if they are not the hallmarkedServer(s) broadcast the signed request to all the hallmarkedServer(s) they are connected to.
- if they are connected to Peer2 they send the serverRequest to Peer2
- Peer2 connects to IP (sharedNode) in request packet
- Peer2 sends a signed timestamp + sharedServer packet to the shared server (essentially just verifying the serverRequest)
- the shared server will now relay all serialized objects sent from Peer1 to Peer2 (on port 6666) and vice-versa.
Countermeasure to "passive" denial of service Every minute a object with the amount of sent data during the last minute is sent to hServer hServer sends this to the other Peer If this packet is not received by the other peer the shared hServer is forgotten and a new sharedServer is found |
|
|
|
|
|
