Quote from: ChromaticStar on June 13, 2017, 05:42:01 PM

Quote from: nemgun on June 13, 2017, 05:23:15 PM

Quote from: ChromaticStar on June 13, 2017, 01:50:40 PM

Quote from: nemgun on June 13, 2017, 11:04:16 AM

Quote from: ChromaticStar on June 13, 2017, 04:51:41 AM

I haven't seen anything in the Whitepaper about "Reputation" or "Trust" of users, but I think they would be required. This may require some form of registration process. Here are a couple of possibilities.

Regarding a peer-to-peer transaction, how do you ensure that both peers add the appropriate transaction fee to ensure it is confirmed by the network allowing both parties to receive their trade?

Example: User A exchanges Bitcoin for Dash with User B. Neither user sets a fee. User A receives Dash right away, User B sees the Bitcoin transaction broadcasts to the network but it never gets confirmed.

Could it be possible for a user to outperform the validator's verification and transaction broadcast process causing a double-spend transaction and resulting in one user ending up with nothing?

Would a "Report User" feature be required if someone gets screwed out of their transaction?

Thanks for the feed back, regarding the verifications, they will be done by the validator, if there is any issue regarding the transactions it would be a fail due to NVO, there will be several verifications done by both sides prior to allow a transaction broadcast, if the user doesn't defines a transaction fee, it will be defined by the wallet when the order is sent. in order to cheat on the validator, one would have to get access to the validator which is secured by safeNet's encryption and protocole.

My second question may not have been clear enough. Since users control their private key, it is possible for them to have a non-NVO wallet that also broadcasts transactions for the same address. If I understand it correctly, there would be a small window of opportunity (fractions of a second) between when the validator verifies funds on the network and when it broadcasts a transaction. A user could broadcast a transaction with their non-NVO wallet after the validator has verified funds but before it broadcasts a transaction. The network will accept the first transaction from the non-NVO wallet broadcast and reject the validators broadcasted transaction as a double-spend. An attacker could quite easily take advantage of this critical loop-hole, hence the need for some measure of "Trust" between users on the exchange when conducting a transaction. If exchange volumes increased to a high level, would it be possible for a trusted user to launch a continuous massive double-spend attack across the market resulting in huge losses to users? DEXs are still a new concept and I don't know if this is a vulnerability or if it has been addressed or exploited yet.

Sorry, maybe I haven't been clear enough, creating a multisig address with the validator means that you will use one of your addresses, and create a multisig address using one of the validator's addresses, the result will be a shared address, which means that even if a user have the private key of the parent address (the one used to create the multisig address) and tries to broadcast a transaction, the validator will refuse to sign it as any transaction would require both signatures.

I am not too familiar with multisig addresses, but I will do some research. I appreciate your persistence in this project and answering my questions. The ICO market seems way overhyped right now with people throwing money at projects they don't understand and have no idea can deliver. I don't think there is too much more for me to ask. I will send funding shortly. I wish the development team the best!

Thank you for your support, if you find anymore questions during your researches, feel free to ask them.

Quote from: kaopadmoo on June 13, 2017, 05:45:17 PM

Developers who are interested in getting hired for this project who are also investors. Would the positions be advertised here or elsewhere?

If you are a developer and want to help or work with NVO, feel free to join slack, we can talk about it.

Quote from: obh on June 13, 2017, 05:51:42 PM

IS NVO target for long term project?
Why nvo.io website is register only for short period only?

Registry Expiry Date: 2017-10-20

Yes, NVO is a long term project, the registration can be prolongated. Thanks for pointing.

Quote from: Albortz on June 13, 2017, 06:23:53 PM

I need a couple of more answers.

I read a lot about it and I am a little out of date with my "skills" lol

1) I linked a ledger BTC address to the NVO. Does that address work? Its my personal address no exchange wallet tho basically it should work, but its a 24 word seed not 12....
Also i have multiple currencies on my ledger. Do I risk them if i open a counter wallet with my seed (in case thats possible because its 24 not 12 words)

2) There will be 15 million coins divided by all investors. Do the devs receive further coins, or do they simply cut out 50% of the fees for themselves?

3) From the timespan, how long does it take to have the product ready and launched? There are so many details with weeks of development that i lost count.

Hope anyone can enlighten me lol

1- I advise you to either create a paper wallet and use it, or use counterwallet directly.
2- No, the 15M tokens will be distributed, NVO won't hold any token.
3- 6-8 months depending on SafeNet's status.

Quote from: dzimbeck on June 13, 2017, 08:05:40 PM

-snip-
-snip-
-snip-
-snip-

You are saying I'm not a dev? Are you insane? I developed single handedly the world's first smart contracting platform BitHalo which was also the world's first multisig client and first dual coin software and also dev Bitbay. Never have I hired out a coder and write the 50,000 line software alone.

Now first of all, I'm not insulting you. ALL I care about is security its what I do for a living. I'm happy to see you guys are doing dev work but there is a problem with your branding. And please cool it with your assumptions I'm not calling names. Your response was amusing and shows you don't really read properly (I never once insulted you, your paper doesn't adequately explain the protocol)

What you just described 2 of 2 linked to 2 of 2 is NOT SAFE.

Basically the validator holding keys in each account can pretend to be the buyer or seller and double spend their payment. Basically what you are describing is multisignature exchange not decentralized exchange. It has some very serious security holes.

Validator can pretend to be buyer or seller, default on outgoing payments and cash in on live trades. Validators sign key can also be hacked and then double spent.

The only way to do decentralized trustless exchange is atomic trading (and maybe lightning network).

What you propose is more secure than let's say Poloniex but it is absolutely not decentralized. Now you can get angry, call this fud whatever. There is nothing in this for me except to point out the flaw of collusion in this design. Fix it or not is your call but investors be aware this is a multisig exchange, not a Dex.

On that note good luck.

Cool at least we're not grudging, you're welcome, let me explain how its going to work.

The situation you describe is true in the case where the validator is a single entity hosted on SafeNet, even if in order to get the private keys, one must basically break safenet.

The difference now (and this is a disclosed information) will be run simultaneously from different wallets, each wallet will have its own validator Instance, its job is to verify the orders and the transaction informations. During a trade, if someone manages to get access to its private key, he will be the unique victime of his cheating attempt, as the other instances won't accept his order.

It doesn't means that NVO will allow 0 confirmation bitcoin transactions, at this stage it would be hypotethical, a minimum of 1 block confirmation is required, however, LN integration is a must, as it solves a lot of issues experienced by the DEXs, Segwit will be helpfull too.

Regarding the possibility to send a transaction with low fees, the different validators will check this information too as the minimum will be determined by the validator depending on the network state.

I know about Bitbay and BitHalo, and i understand that you defend your ideas about atomic trading Wink

and i appreciate the exchange of idea.