|
Propulsion
|
 |
November 08, 2014, 08:18:12 PM |
|
Just woke up... Putting on the kettle, this will be good  Holy Shit... That was freakin amazing... Evan, wow. |
|
|
|
|
qwizzie
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 2548
Merit: 1245
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:18:47 PM |
|
i put up a post in the Alternate cryptocurrencies here : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=852261.0Great work Evan, thanks for recording this .. cant wait to get my hands on this in Testnet |
Learn from the past, set detailed and vivid goals for the future and live in the only moment of time over which you have any control : now
|
|
|
Ignition75
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
www.dashpay.io
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:19:06 PM |
|
My head is exploding at the moment, this is going to open up ways of interacting with the Blockchain that we didn't even dream of...
Point of Sale integration for touchless payments... I need to do some reading...
|
The new generation have arrived and they brought their own currency...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jestah
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:21:03 PM |
|
Just woke up... Putting on the kettle, this will be good Holy Shit... That was freakin amazing... Totally agree. Very happy to see Evan making vids. Could there be anything better to show that he is for realz? |
|
|
|
|
|
janos666
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:21:58 PM |
|
I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from. Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air. 6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set). I know that but you didn't explain this. You present the instant tx as if it went through 6 confirmations while it clearly didn't (of any kind of confirmations with a set count of 6), so I find this a little confusing. I guess this behavior exist for software compatibility reasons and/or to suffice human preconception about legacy confirmations, but this should be explained. All I see is a number which doesn't make any sense in this context. |
|
|
|
|
crowning
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Activity: -42
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:24:15 PM |
|
I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from. Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks mines, nor 6 active masternodes to sign this tx, so this number seems to pop out of thin air. The transaction is (almost) instantly confirmed by the Masternodes, and the Masternodes block the transaction (so that the payer can't double spend the coins because the Masternodes will not accept his already used inputs) until the transaction is really confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
thelonecrouton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:27:40 PM |
|
Wonder how many views that's going to have by Monday?  |
|
|
|
|
|
roede94105
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:34:26 PM |
|
I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from. Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air. 6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set). I know that but you didn't explain this. You present the instant tx as if it went through 6 confirmations while it clearly didn't (of any kind of confirmations with a set count of 6), so I find this a little confusing. I guess this behavior exist for software compatibility reasons and/or to suffice human preconception about legacy confirmations, but this should be explained. All I see is a number which doesn't make any sense in this context. It's like, the MN is "vouching" by saying "ok, these coins have 6 confirmations" when they actually have none at the moment. Then, the MN ensures these coins cannot be double spent for the next 6 confirmations through the block chain (the regular confirmation process). Once it's there, I suppose the network takes over and we go back as usual. In his demo, he chose 6 because that's what exchanges might want, but if you put 2, the MN will "vouch" for only 2 block chain confirmations, if you put 20 it'll last for 20 confirmations etc.. Of course, i'm using "vouch" here when it's actually all trust less. I hope I'm not spreading wrong infos and that I was clear enough! |
|
|
|
|
qwizzie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2548
Merit: 1245
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:39:43 PM |
|
I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from. Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air. 6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set). I know that but you didn't explain this. You present the instant tx as if it went through 6 confirmations while it clearly didn't (of any kind of confirmations with a set count of 6), so I find this a little confusing. I guess this behavior exist for software compatibility reasons and/or to suffice human preconception about legacy confirmations, but this should be explained. All I see is a number which doesn't make any sense in this context. It's like, the MN is "vouching" by saying "ok, these coins have 6 confirmations" when they actually have none at the moment. Then, the MN ensures these coins cannot be double spent for the next 6 confirmations through the block chain (the regular confirmation process). Once it's there, I suppose the network takes over and we go back as usual. In his demo, he chose 6 because that's what exchanges might want, but if you put 2, the MN will "vouch" for only 2 block chain confirmations, if you put 20 it'll last for 20 confirmations etc.. Of course, i'm using "vouch" here when it's actually all trust less. I hope I'm not spreading wrong infos and that I was clear enough! nice explanation |
Learn from the past, set detailed and vivid goals for the future and live in the only moment of time over which you have any control : now
|
|
|
|
g4q34g4qg47ww
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:42:03 PM |
|
It's like, the MN is "vouching" by saying "ok, these coins have 6 confirmations" when they actually have none at the moment. Then, the MN ensures these coins cannot be double spent for the next 6 confirmations through the block chain (the regular confirmation process). Once it's there, I suppose the network takes over and we go back as usual.
In his demo, he chose 6 because that's what exchanges might want, but if you put 2, the MN will "vouch" for only 2 block chain confirmations, if you put 20 it'll last for 20 confirmations etc..
Of course, i'm using "vouch" here when it's actually all trust less.
I hope I'm not spreading wrong infos and that I was clear enough!
This helped for me thanks. I guess those coins stay locked for however many blocks that you have the setting for. |
|
|
|
|
toknormal
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1188
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:42:11 PM |
|
Wow. InstantX looks amazing. It's faster than Visa.
This is a game changer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
g4q34g4qg47ww
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:43:33 PM |
|
Testnet is going to be so much fun this time. If we stick with the shades of black for release names, I think the Instantx release will be a good time to unleash "Darkcoin Midnight" |
|
|
|
|
Rux
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1291
Merit: 1024
https://crypto.ba
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:45:24 PM |
|
next thing... Darkchain  |
RXC Crypto.ba Decentralized solutions!
|
|
|
|
sust1200
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:46:21 PM |
|
This looks very very good , maybe time to reinvest into this! |
|
|
|
|
roede94105
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:46:26 PM |
|
It's like, the MN is "vouching" by saying "ok, these coins have 6 confirmations" when they actually have none at the moment. Then, the MN ensures these coins cannot be double spent for the next 6 confirmations through the block chain (the regular confirmation process). Once it's there, I suppose the network takes over and we go back as usual.
In his demo, he chose 6 because that's what exchanges might want, but if you put 2, the MN will "vouch" for only 2 block chain confirmations, if you put 20 it'll last for 20 confirmations etc..
Of course, i'm using "vouch" here when it's actually all trust less.
I hope I'm not spreading wrong infos and that I was clear enough!
This helped for me thanks. I guess those coins stay locked for however many blocks that you have the setting for. I think so, yes. Might be why Evan warned that you can't InstantX over and over and have to wait some time - because the coins have to go back the "normal" route before being vouched for again. Or maybe it's just that you won't be allowed to InstantX again before your first instantX transaction is confirmed by the block chain the "normal" way, to ensure there will be no double spend. I'm not sure about that part, I'd like some confirmation from Evan if possible, what scenario is possible, and what scenario isn't: 1) I receive an InstantX transaction and try to immediately send them through InstantX before reaching the amount of confirmation blocks required. 2)I send an InstantX transaction and try to send another one before the first one is completely confirmed. |
|
|
|
|
|
wozzek23
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:48:11 PM |
|
Testnet is going to be so much fun this time. If we stick with the shades of black for release names, I think the Instantx release will be a good time to unleash "Darkcoin Midnight" Brilliant! At the strike at midnight, crypto Cinderella morphed into the Dark Lord of Crypto and the new day has started. 24 hours later the crypto world would recognize its new ruler.  |
|
|
|
|
alex-ru
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1010
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:49:48 PM |
|
Great video! You will be laughing at me - but most important that I get from: 1. This video: «There is some real man behind the project speaking fluently without stuttering and without Indian/Chinese accent». - May be not as «genius PR-man», but much better then «regular programmer». 2. Shadowcoin story: There are guys in Darkcoin team that can think strategically and "out of the box" and act as real entrepreneurs. - May be not «genius businessmen», but much better then «regular programmers». You will be laughing at me - but this 2 points of Darkcoin mean for me more than bunch of crypto features. |
|
|
|
|
roede94105
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:50:23 PM |
|
Testnet is going to be so much fun this time. If we stick with the shades of black for release names, I think the Instantx release will be a good time to unleash "Darkcoin Midnight" Brilliant! At the strike at midnight, crypto Cinderella morphed into the Dark Lord of Crypto and the new day has started. 24 hours later the crypto world would recognize its new ruler. "Darkcoin Maleficent - we said dark, not evil" |
|
|
|
|
crowning
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 212
Merit: 100
Activity: -42
|
|
November 08, 2014, 08:52:57 PM |
|
I think so, yes. Might be why Evan warned that you can't InstantX over and over and have to wait some time - because the coins have to go back the "normal" route before being vouched for again.
Or maybe it's just that you won't be allowed to InstantX again before your first instantX transaction is confirmed by the block chain the "normal" way, to ensure there will be no double spend.
I'm not sure about that part, I'd like some confirmation from Evan if possible, what scenario is possible, and what scenario isn't:
1) I receive an InstantX transaction and try to immediately send them through InstantX before reaching the amount of confirmation blocks required.
2)I send an InstantX transaction and try to send another one before the first one is completely confirmed.
According to the whitepaper the transaction lock is between an input (or more) and an output (or more). You'll still be able to spend other inputs. |
|
|
|
|
|
