NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs

[Istanbul34]

What was the big deal about multisig anyway?
Im not sure why the devs wanted to add this before launch, I would have been happy to wait for it to be added later but it is a good feature, but i should also mention that there are other coins currently already using it.

1) devs will be in control of a huge amount of coins and do not want to risk holding them in regular accounts.. 1 hack = devs lose credibility and nem dies.

2) other coins do have multisig, but not blockchain based multisig. there is a MASSIVE difference.

3) the more skeptical investors, or risk averse, will feel much safer investing in Nem knowing they can secure their investment safely with multisig.

4) 3rd parties(exchanges, payment processors et al) will be able to use multisig to secure funds so we wont have any mtgox, bter, bitstamp [and so] type hacks which make the coin stolen look bad even though its nothing to do with the actual coin(most of the time). also we wont ever end up in the position of nxt having to think about a roll back to recover 5% worth of coins that got stolen.

having multisig ready for launch was the BEST move the devs could have made.

Multisig is a great feature, but you are wrong saying that other coins don't have their blockchain based multisigs. Well, maybe at the moment they don't, but the will have it. And I'm talking about NXT right now. They are implementing their own realization of multisig in v.1.6 - 1.7 of NRS called "two-phased transactions", which they state is "much more powerful".

Here is the thread about it on their official forum.

And that's not all!

With their "Account Control" release it will be more powerful.

[jabo38]

I am not the best to answer this, but I will give it a try.  With Bitcoin, each service has their own multi-sig adaption; that they have to run extra software that they design themselves on top of the regular Bitcoin client.  use NEM asset exchange webpage to make a multisig account.  I can sign a transaction on my mobile app made by my friend, and somebody else can sign it on the desktop app made by the core devs, and so on.

I haven't used multisig fearure, but that's not what I see on google

the following bitcoin clients are known to support multi-signature addresses:

Bitcoin-qt
Electrum
Mycelium (Android app)
Android Wallet (Android app)
Airbitz (Android & iOS apps)
BitcoinSpinner (Android app)

Here is screen shot that shows very popular bitcoin wallet that I use (Electrum) supports multisig

https://electrum.orain.org/wiki/Multisig_Wallets


Looks to me BTC (and all it's clones) fully support multisig without third party support. Bitcoin-qt is the main bitcoin client

Good tips.  Thanks for the information.  I had played around with Mycelium on iOS and really liked it.  I hope they get multisig on iOS soon.  

As for NEM, I'd like to add that making an account on NEM is very easy.  I can actually make 4 of 4 multsig (or most any number) in under 30 seconds with very few clicks.

I made a video to demonstrate just how easy multisig is on NEM.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd-ZIbiFuOg

While its true that in NEM we only have one wallet right now, in the future it is completely possible for me to make the multisig account on my phone with one iOS app, and then my friend make transactions with that multisig with a completely different app maker on his Android phone.  I think that is pretty cool, because not everybody wants to be locked into the same wallet.  

[jabo38]

What was the big deal about multisig anyway?
Im not sure why the devs wanted to add this before launch, I would have been happy to wait for it to be added later but it is a good feature, but i should also mention that there are other coins currently already using it.

1) devs will be in control of a huge amount of coins and do not want to risk holding them in regular accounts.. 1 hack = devs lose credibility and nem dies.

2) other coins do have multisig, but not blockchain based multisig. there is a MASSIVE difference.

3) the more skeptical investors, or risk averse, will feel much safer investing in Nem knowing they can secure their investment safely with multisig.

4) 3rd parties(exchanges, payment processors et al) will be able to use multisig to secure funds so we wont have any mtgox, bter, bitstamp [and so] type hacks which make the coin stolen look bad even though its nothing to do with the actual coin(most of the time). also we wont ever end up in the position of nxt having to think about a roll back to recover 5% worth of coins that got stolen.

having multisig ready for launch was the BEST move the devs could have made.

Multisig is a great feature, but you are wrong saying that other coins don't have their blockchain based multisigs. Well, maybe at the moment they don't, but the will have it. And I'm talking about NXT right now. They are implementing their own realization of multisig in v.1.6 - 1.7 of NRS called "two-phased transactions", which they state is "much more powerful".

Here is the thread about it on their official forum.

And that's not all!

With their "Account Control" release it will be more powerful.

NXT's multisig is made by Kushti who is a very talented developer and he deserves respect for his hard work.  As far as I can the base of their multisig will be more or less like NEM's but it will have some integration with voting and/or account control.  At that point multisig does gain a lot more power and utility.   

I think it would be really cool if NEM's multisig developed along a similar line.  Right now this is just the first version and the devs just wanted to make sure just the basics were working so we can go forward with launch. 

[jelin1984]

Still waiting news
About

Launch day

[jabo38]

Some people are having problems with 0.5.5 because of some tweaks. The devs have said they are working on it, but for anybody that wants to try, here is how I trouble shot my problems.

What I did was go to search in windows.  Type "Java Config". 

In the Java control panel click "view".  Then delete all the things related to NEM. 

Then navigate to the NEM folder and delete the whole thing.  C:\Users\user name\nem

Turn off computer and restart.  Download the database file.  http://bob.nem.ninja/nis5.h2.db-11772.tgz

Also download the stand alone version from http://bob.nem.ninja/ (I had to unzip it and then unzip it a second time)

Then start NIS in the stand alone.  Then NCC.  Then close them both down.  (open the folder called "package".  click "runNis" and "runNcc".  If you do this correctly some command prompt boxes will pop up and be running code)

After 30 seconds close the NIS and NCC.

New NIS and NCC folders were created.  Paste in the database into the NIS folder at C:\Users\user name\nem\nis

Do not put any old wallets in NCC.  Just make fresh ones when NCC starts.

Restart NCC and NIS on stand alone. 

Go to  http://localhost:8989/ncc/web/index.html

[jelin1984]

sent me some test xem
adress is


TDFASC-HMA2WF-355XDT-QEIDID-O2S2SJ-7KJGPH-QUPG

[13Darko]

Good tips.  Thanks for the information.  I had played around with Mycelium on iOS and really liked it.  I hope they get multisig on iOS soon.  

As for NEM, I'd like to add that making an account on NEM is very easy.  I can actually make 4 of 4 multsig (or most any number) in under 30 seconds with very few clicks.

I made a video to demonstrate just how easy multisig is on NEM.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd-ZIbiFuOg

While its true that in NEM we only have one wallet right now, in the future it is completely possible for me to make the multisig account on my phone with one iOS app, and then my friend make transactions with that multisig with a completely different app maker on his Android phone.  I think that is pretty cool, because not everybody wants to be locked into the same wallet.  

Looks really easy. Nice!

[Eadeqa]

What was the big deal about multisig anyway?
Im not sure why the devs wanted to add this before launch, I would have been happy to wait for it to be added later but it is a good feature, but i should also mention that there are other coins currently already using it.

1) devs will be in control of a huge amount of coins and do not want to risk holding them in regular accounts.. 1 hack = devs lose credibility and nem dies.

2) other coins do have multisig, but not blockchain based multisig. there is a MASSIVE difference.

3) the more skeptical investors, or risk averse, will feel much safer investing in Nem knowing they can secure their investment safely with multisig.

4) 3rd parties(exchanges, payment processors et al) will be able to use multisig to secure funds so we wont have any mtgox, bter, bitstamp [and so] type hacks which make the coin stolen look bad even though its nothing to do with the actual coin(most of the time). also we wont ever end up in the position of nxt having to think about a roll back to recover 5% worth of coins that got stolen.

having multisig ready for launch was the BEST move the devs could have made.

While that is the ideal pov i do want to add some thing from my pov.

@2) I maintain that NEM is NOT the only system with blockchain enforced multi-sig. BTCs multi-sig has to be enforced by the blockchain. It may be right that you have to prepare everything for that on the client side but the blockchain has to enforce it somehow otherwise there is no multi-sig. If I have multi-sig set up and the network still accepts tx without the co-signatories then noone would dare to say BTC has multi-sig because that would be a lie. NEMs implementation is infinitely more userfriendly though.

@4) They have the possibility but I personally doubt that they will use it (eventhough they very much should). From my experience crypto-service providers have their one implementation and try to squeeze every new coin in there no matter what. Everything else is just to much of a hassle for many or even most. At least that's what I suspect.

i get what your saying, but the difference between preparing multisig transactions client side and not being sent out on the network until all signatories have signed is much much different to sending out a partly signed transaction on the blockchain and then being signed by other co-signatories and if it is not signed it is returned.. thats what i mean by "blockchain based" vrs "client side".. and the result of this difference is that nems is infinitely more user friednly as you say and most likely more secure. of course all multisig transactions are at some point put on the blickchain to be confirmed, but its how that is done that makes such a big difference if i understand it correctly.

I don't see much difference. You can create multisig address in BTC that starts with "3' and funds in that address can only be used if more than one person signs the transaction. Almost all bitcoin wallets support this feature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIbUSaZBJgU

[Eadeqa]

can  I make a multisig account with electrum, make you a signatory if you using mycileum, and make someone else a signatory who uses a different client?

Yes, you should be able to. Why won't it work? It's using same Secp256k1 spec. This is core bitcoin functionality. The multisig addresses starts with '3" (instead of '1') and it's same bitcoin protocol all clients use.

[Eadeqa]

well how come if heard many times that   multisig implementations are not cross compatible between one client and another? Il have to look into multisig more..

If they are not cross compatible how come they get confirmed by blockchain (miners)? There must be some core functionality that is same for it to work on entire bitcoin network.  Maybe the problem is that you have to manually send/notify the transaction to other person?

[gimre]

There's a dumb bot that awards nodes that are visible (therefore useful) for the (test-)network.

You can see his transfers on nembex, by searching for TCU533AYH4TOIXGULHHWZDHHTYYAAXYEEZKF6334

[KingCole]

everyone upvote please.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2vfk4j/most_user_friendly_implementation_of_multisig_iv/

Done

[MrPortMan]

世界的本質，表明進程需要開始學習中國。

Whether developers can think up so that blockchain could be stored on cloudy services of this type? http://yunpan.360.cn

There is so much everything, it is a pity on Chinese :c
http://360.cn

Center of the world Pacific Rim.

[mixmaster]

世界的本質，表明進程需要開始學習中國。

Whether developers can think up so that blockchain could be stored on cloudy services of this type? http://yunpan.360.cn

There is so much everything, it is a pity on Chinese :c
http://360.cn

Center of the world Pacific Rim.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

[makoto1337]

世界的本質，表明進程需要開始學習中國。

Whether developers can think up so that blockchain could be stored on cloudy services of this type? http://yunpan.360.cn

There is so much everything, it is a pity on Chinese :c
http://360.cn

Center of the world Pacific Rim.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

MrPortNem is saying that we should support Chinese nemsters by having nodes in Asia. I am running a node in Tokyo 

[_mr_e]

For anyone who questions why "blockchain based multisig" is so much better than "client side"...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd-ZIbiFuOg

compare the video posted above to this one:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbBrYVBb7lA

That is the most user friendly example of a bitcoin multisig wallet i could find. Notice the massive difference. That is the difference between client based(which as far as i can tell from the copay video is centralized) and blockchain based(which is decentralized).

Notice also, that a "secret" must be given to the co-signers so they can add themselves to the multisig address rather than making them co-signers via a blockchain transaction simply by selecting addresses in your contacts and sending a particular type of transaction to them to make them a co-signer. This means the same wallet must be used(Copay) by all co-signers. If one of those guys preferred say, electrum, he could not use his preferred client AND be a co-signer on a copay multisig account. This is bad because not only now will there be centralization of mining, but now, centralization and monopolization of clients which would stifle competition and ultimately innovation among clients once one client has the monopoly(visa?). The fact that a "secret" must be sent over the internet just seems very insecure to me also.

Blockchain based multisig is more secure, more decentralised, discourages monopolies, its faster, more user friendly and compatible across all variations of third party clients and making someone a co-signatory, and requesting a signature from them, can be seen on the blockchain which cant be done when utilizing client side multisig because co-signers are made co-signers, and are requested to sign transactions, off chain.

This is why i define Nems multisig as "blockchain" based, and (so far that i know of) all other released versions of multisig "client side". Saying there is not much difference is doing the devs an injustice imo.

What do you mean it's faster? In my experience I have to wait 2 blocks for a transaction for go through and be verified.

[MrPortMan]

世界的本質，表明進程需要開始學習中國。

Whether developers can think up so that blockchain could be stored on cloudy services of this type? http://yunpan.360.cn

There is so much everything, it is a pity on Chinese :c
http://360.cn

Center of the world Pacific Rim.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Cloudy storages of blockchain. That there the base of blocks was stored and there downloads. In the client it is necessary to give the chance of a choice where the blockchain base will be stored. For example Dropbox, Google disk, @mail.ru, Yandex disk, Yunpan360, etc.

[patmast3r]

世界的本質，表明進程需要開始學習中國。

Whether developers can think up so that blockchain could be stored on cloudy services of this type? http://yunpan.360.cn

There is so much everything, it is a pity on Chinese :c
http://360.cn

Center of the world Pacific Rim.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Cloudy storages of blockchain. That there the base of blocks was stored and there downloads. In the client it is necessary to give the chance of a choice where the blockchain base will be stored. For example Dropbox, Google disk, @mail.ru, Yandex disk, Yunpan360, etc.

Ooh...you mean checkpoints to make the sync faster.

[MrPortMan]

patmast3r. Exactly. Synchronization through cloudy services will be much faster and we won't need long hours to be synchronized. And the hard drive will be free from base of blocks. But it everything has to be at will. Who wants that let at himself stores the blockchain base. And who wants that let stores base of blockchain blocks on cloudy Dropbox, Google disk, Yunpan 360 servers, @mail.ru, Yandex disk, etc.

[gimre]

patmast3r. Exactly. Synchronization through cloudy services will be much faster and we won't need long hours to be synchronized. And the hard drive will be free from base of blocks. But it everything has to be at will. Who wants that let at himself stores the blockchain base. And who wants that let stores base of blockchain blocks on cloudy Dropbox, Google disk, Yunpan 360 servers, @mail.ru, Yandex disk, etc.

That is doable even now, just set nem folder to i.e. c:\dropbox.

But I think this won't work, as I guess dropbox (or anything else for that matter) will most likely try to sync whole db file, and that would be painful...