Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 37 results by MarvellousMutant
Re: BitcoinWisdom.com - Live Bitcoin/LiteCoin Charts
Thank you, i very much appreciate the addition of Nxt.
Sry to bug you, but i still see some areas of improvement:
Why is the site called "Nxt / Btc" when the actual value shown is BTC / Nxt?
Also, the units in the graph shows Satoshis / Nxt.
The units should be the same for the whole Nxt site.
I think it would be better to have a conversion mBtc or µBtc than to satoshi.
Oh, and i would like to donate some Nxt to you.
Forex pair is different from price unit.Sry to bug you, but i still see some areas of improvement:
Why is the site called "Nxt / Btc" when the actual value shown is BTC / Nxt?
Also, the units in the graph shows Satoshis / Nxt.
The units should be the same for the whole Nxt site.
I think it would be better to have a conversion mBtc or µBtc than to satoshi.
Oh, and i would like to donate some Nxt to you.
BTC/USD => 1 BTC = 600 USD
NXT/BTC => 1 NXT = 0.00009544 BTC
Okay, but the numbers in the graph and for the actual price indicator should still have the same unit.
Re: BitcoinWisdom.com - Live Bitcoin/LiteCoin Charts
Thank you, i very much appreciate the addition of Nxt.
Sry to bug you, but i still see some areas of improvement:
Why is the site called "Nxt / Btc" when the actual value shown is BTC / Nxt?
Also, the units in the graph shows Satoshis / Nxt.
The units should be the same for the whole Nxt site.
I think it would be better to have a conversion mBtc or µBtc than to satoshi.
Oh, and i would like to donate some Nxt to you.
Sry to bug you, but i still see some areas of improvement:
Why is the site called "Nxt / Btc" when the actual value shown is BTC / Nxt?
Also, the units in the graph shows Satoshis / Nxt.
The units should be the same for the whole Nxt site.
I think it would be better to have a conversion mBtc or µBtc than to satoshi.
Oh, and i would like to donate some Nxt to you.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Okay, I will wait for that then. Is it only possible to buy NXTs with Bitcoins at the moment?
Yes. There are multiple exchanges listed on the first post of the thread. Dgex.com and Bter.com have the most liquidity.
You can buy Nxt on Bter using CNY.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
[...]
The big rule of wiki editing is be bold, because mistakes can always be fixed, changes can always be reverted, but nothing happens if no one starts doing it. I'm a hypocrite for saying this (but I'm working on it!). There's social conditioning holding us back, like in the company of so many smart people here, I keep feeling like I'm not the guy who should be doing this. But in order to achieve a truly free market of both price and ideas (which I believe we're all working towards), we need to grow past this, be willing to put our ideas and works up on the frontline, even if they're premature, flawed or even awful. Let other people improve it as time goes by. And in return, we should not regard those who stepped up first and fell short harshly.
The big rule of wiki editing is be bold, because mistakes can always be fixed, changes can always be reverted, but nothing happens if no one starts doing it. I'm a hypocrite for saying this (but I'm working on it!). There's social conditioning holding us back, like in the company of so many smart people here, I keep feeling like I'm not the guy who should be doing this. But in order to achieve a truly free market of both price and ideas (which I believe we're all working towards), we need to grow past this, be willing to put our ideas and works up on the frontline, even if they're premature, flawed or even awful. Let other people improve it as time goes by. And in return, we should not regard those who stepped up first and fell short harshly.
+1
People, write on the wiki! Lets make it less of a ghost town!
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Okay, i am all in for blockchain pruning or similar techniques which save bandwith and increase the overall speed.
Have you heard of the idea of a finite blockchain?
As we have all our accounts online, it should be more easy to implement than for bitcoin.
The basic idea is to have a "prove chain" which is basically just a chain of hashes containing hashes of earlier blocks. This way, not the whole blocks need to be saved but only to small hashes.
Full blocks are only kept for a short time.
Have you heard of the idea of a finite blockchain?
As we have all our accounts online, it should be more easy to implement than for bitcoin.
The basic idea is to have a "prove chain" which is basically just a chain of hashes containing hashes of earlier blocks. This way, not the whole blocks need to be saved but only to small hashes.
Full blocks are only kept for a short time.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
I just asked bitcoinwisdom to add Nxt. Perhaps it would have more weight, if somebody else asked too.
Here is the thread.
Here is the thread.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Thanks for the link. But that only reduces the variance, it doesn't increase the expected gains from forging. Pools "work" (well, used to work) for Bitcoin and friends because expected gains (used to be) > costs even for small-timers, but the variance was extremely high. Nxt has low expected gains from forging. Poor shibes like me will likely have have expected gains of < 0 (after electricity and hardware costs), the only profitable ones may be ones that can do it in scale and have market advantages in the different parts of the cost equation, to keep costs down.
I share the concerns of centralization, but seems to me the way to deal with that is for leasers to be able to have some kind of influence on the forger's behavour (i.e. what txes they reject, scripts they don't run and how they blacklist/weigh other forgers). Maybe moving leasing power to someone else is sufficient, or maybe there needs to be some way for leaser's to inflict a penalty (but maybe with their own reputations on the line).
Expected gains = rewards - running costs
Running costs are extremely low for NXT: As most users have flatrates, it basically comes down to power costs. Even running the forging client on a netbook would only cost about 25 per year. Using the average per day there are 3.347.046,35 NXT fee generated per year.
This means, that forging on a netbook at the moment is profitable if you have more than 173,704.0 NXT on your account. As the price will increase and it is always possible to reduce power consumption by using a rasp-pi and a solar-panel, i do not think, that expected gains is a good argument for pooled forging.
All you could save by pooling would be 173,704.0 Nxt at the moment - a lot less if price increases.
Edit: Math was a off
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
[...]
Leased forging would solve all that.
Personally, I don't feel guilty for not forging. I own ~12k Nxt. I'm a poor shibe, could only afford to buy into 4.3k of it (at~250USD), the rest I received through helping out around here (thanks again everyone!). And if all I can afford is that amount, I definitely can't afford to run a public node, protect it against DDoS, upload lots of data, keep everything running, etc, regardless of any social expectation/ostracism. I'd be perfectly happy to lease my forging power though (but not actually send the nxt). Let someone who runs a service using Nxt and who can afford to do all the above forge in my stead. Personally, I'm happy to subsidize them a little by letting them keep my (likely small) forging gains. Or maybe, as Nxt develops, it'll be the other way round, they'll want to compete for my Nxt forging power and offer me incentives for doing so.
[...]
Leased forging would solve all that.
Personally, I don't feel guilty for not forging. I own ~12k Nxt. I'm a poor shibe, could only afford to buy into 4.3k of it (at~250USD), the rest I received through helping out around here (thanks again everyone!). And if all I can afford is that amount, I definitely can't afford to run a public node, protect it against DDoS, upload lots of data, keep everything running, etc, regardless of any social expectation/ostracism. I'd be perfectly happy to lease my forging power though (but not actually send the nxt). Let someone who runs a service using Nxt and who can afford to do all the above forge in my stead. Personally, I'm happy to subsidize them a little by letting them keep my (likely small) forging gains. Or maybe, as Nxt develops, it'll be the other way round, they'll want to compete for my Nxt forging power and offer me incentives for doing so.
[...]
I do not think that Leased Forging is a good idea. We do not need pools to achieve fair fee distribution. Have a look at Shared Forging instead.
This approach uses less resources and no pools need to be controlled. I think it is a much sleeker way to solve the problem.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Sometimes I feel a bit frustrated about the fee-system of Nxt, when I see these kind of blocks passing by:
[images deleted]
It's not really fair and the rich are getting even richer this way. I love Nxt, but there are small flaws which needs to be addressed. The critics will talk negative about Nxt because of these kind of issues.
Maybe a percentage instead of a fixed fee? Curious to hear about the options.
[images deleted]
It's not really fair and the rich are getting even richer this way. I love Nxt, but there are small flaws which needs to be addressed. The critics will talk negative about Nxt because of these kind of issues.
Maybe a percentage instead of a fixed fee? Curious to hear about the options.
lets revise this thinking.. no one is getting "richer" by sending a 1NXT payment.
lets call NXT "Affordable"
I've forged plenty of blocks for 1, 2, 3 NXT. and just last week I forged a block with a 100,000 transaction that the sender included a 100NXT fee in., so I was happy.
The transaction fee should cover the cost in processing said transaction. As the size of the transaction does not depend on the amount beeing transferred, both transactions should have the same fee.
Otherwise you will open the door to spamming.
The fee should be as small as possible while still sustaining a secure network. As the costs for forging are so low, this mainly comes down to a fee that discourages spamming. Even without spamming and a theoretical fee of 0 nxt, the Nxt hodlers would secure the network by themself to secure their coins.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
That's just what i tried to address with my posting earlier today. Please have a look at the corresponding wiki page.
I am no dev but i would love to hear a comment on that idea. CfB?
I am no dev but i would love to hear a comment on that idea. CfB?
AFAIK this issue will be mentioned in the 3rd part of the plan.
Okay, you can reveal that then
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
nxt currently works as for small accounts have the same options as large accounts in forging the only solution is to join in a pool.
this will cause in the future centralization of the nodes and therefore a more vulnerable network.
if you decide to join a pool the solution is;
a) funds must stay in the Bob account
b ) forging power should remain in the node where stay Bob acount.
Instead the commission of forging if Bob acount forge should go to the "transparent" pool and the pool manager split the commission forging proportion to the amount of funds from the accounts that were at that time in the pool .
I do not know if this is technically very difficult to implement but it is clear that if not resolved this little by little will create pools and concentrating on a few network nodes and so understand a network more vulnerable to attack .
I think the pool is very good solution for the small investor gives "equity to the system not equality " but forging power of Bob acount should remain in the node where this account with funds for the sake of the security of the network.
Am I wrong in my thoughts?
this will cause in the future centralization of the nodes and therefore a more vulnerable network.
if you decide to join a pool the solution is;
a) funds must stay in the Bob account
b ) forging power should remain in the node where stay Bob acount.
Instead the commission of forging if Bob acount forge should go to the "transparent" pool and the pool manager split the commission forging proportion to the amount of funds from the accounts that were at that time in the pool .
I do not know if this is technically very difficult to implement but it is clear that if not resolved this little by little will create pools and concentrating on a few network nodes and so understand a network more vulnerable to attack .
I think the pool is very good solution for the small investor gives "equity to the system not equality " but forging power of Bob acount should remain in the node where this account with funds for the sake of the security of the network.
Am I wrong in my thoughts?
Bitvoin has the same problem. A few pools will remain, where all the little fuckers, like me with my erupters, join in.
That's just what i tried to address with my posting earlier today. Please have a look at the corresponding wiki page.
I am no dev but i would love to hear a comment on that idea. CfB?
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
What we need is as much bandwidth as possible. But we also need this bandwidth to be distributed to as many peers as possible in order to be less dependent on single forgers.
Your idea of diminishing return for multiple Nxt on the same IP is one way to reach that goal.
But i think, that each Nxt should have the same forging power. Everything else will result in people feeling betrayed. Also it might be possible to game such a system.
My solution does not garuantee high and distributed bandwidth. But it gives incentive to forge even for smaller balances (of course only possible with fractional NXT).
Of course it is impossible to forbid pooling. But if the protocol would distribute rewards more evenly, they would become obsolete..
Your idea of diminishing return for multiple Nxt on the same IP is one way to reach that goal.
But i think, that each Nxt should have the same forging power. Everything else will result in people feeling betrayed. Also it might be possible to game such a system.
My solution does not garuantee high and distributed bandwidth. But it gives incentive to forge even for smaller balances (of course only possible with fractional NXT).
Of course it is impossible to forbid pooling. But if the protocol would distribute rewards more evenly, they would become obsolete..
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
What we do need is as many clients as possible forging. This will secure the network, and more importantly improve the bandwidth of the network.
Using pools is the wrong direction. I do not think its a good idea to make the effective_balance leaseable. This will only lead to centralization and only a few clients beeing online the whole day.
Instead, lets try to built a system were the top X forgers of each block get equally paid out. This should be doable without pools:
As transparent forging allows us to determine the next forger, it would also allow us to determine the top X forgers for each block.
Have the fee split among them accoring to their 'contribution'.
Example:
Through Transparent forging, the network knows, that
Account A will forge the Block in 30 Seconds
Account B could forge in 50 Seconds
Account C could forge in 55 Seconds
The fee of this Block is 100 Nxt.
So A will get 46.5 Nxt, B will get 28 Nxt and C will get 25.5 NXT (rounded).
This could be extended to X accounts where X is the number of accounts forging for at least Y blocks in a row. For example, set Y to 5 to have the blocks rewarded forging for at least five blocks.
Edit: Added to the proposal page on the wiki. Feel free to discuss, comment, edit there.
Using pools is the wrong direction. I do not think its a good idea to make the effective_balance leaseable. This will only lead to centralization and only a few clients beeing online the whole day.
Instead, lets try to built a system were the top X forgers of each block get equally paid out. This should be doable without pools:
As transparent forging allows us to determine the next forger, it would also allow us to determine the top X forgers for each block.
Have the fee split among them accoring to their 'contribution'.
Example:
Through Transparent forging, the network knows, that
Account A will forge the Block in 30 Seconds
Account B could forge in 50 Seconds
Account C could forge in 55 Seconds
The fee of this Block is 100 Nxt.
So A will get 46.5 Nxt, B will get 28 Nxt and C will get 25.5 NXT (rounded).
This could be extended to X accounts where X is the number of accounts forging for at least Y blocks in a row. For example, set Y to 5 to have the blocks rewarded forging for at least five blocks.
Edit: Added to the proposal page on the wiki. Feel free to discuss, comment, edit there.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
People, wake up! jl777 is exactly the kind of guy Nxt needs to go beyond what it is now. We need thinkers and visionary.
I don't think that anyone here has a problem with his ideas - the frustration that myself and some others have had has been in communicating with James about just "how" to do things (rather than "why" do them).
If I understand correctly, the problem is this monstrous thread where you cannot discuss different topics deeply without becoming crazy. Let us use the wiki for in-depth discussions.
+1
+1
+1, jl777 has some good ideas!
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
Please help me with fleshing out the wiki on the voting system:
http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Voting_System
I have just copy-pasted the summary posted by smartwart till now.
http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Voting_System
I have just copy-pasted the summary posted by smartwart till now.
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
I have read up on atimic transactions and think that it is a very good idea.
Should not be too difficult to implement i think.
I vote to implement AT as soon as possible!
Should not be too difficult to implement i think.
I vote to implement AT as soon as possible!
Re: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information
On the Blockchain Pruning:
Why dont we implement a Finite Blockchain?
This has been discussed for bitcoin for a longer time and one of the biggest hurdle was to implement the accounts tree as bitcoins can be saved offline.
This is not hte case for NXT, perhaps it could be used to solve our problem.
Here is the paper: http://www.bitfreak.info/files/pp2p-ccmbc-rev1.pdf
Why dont we implement a Finite Blockchain?
This has been discussed for bitcoin for a longer time and one of the biggest hurdle was to implement the accounts tree as bitcoins can be saved offline.
This is not hte case for NXT, perhaps it could be used to solve our problem.
Here is the paper: http://www.bitfreak.info/files/pp2p-ccmbc-rev1.pdf