elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Nxt 2.0 design  
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.1 Upgrade before block 2870000 is mandatory!

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 211041 times)

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #420 on: February 17, 2016, 08:06:44 pm »

Ok, since we're nowhere near a consensus I'll take another stab, on the grounds that it's guaranteed to work eventually.

The proposal is a brilliant way to create a scalable blockchain ecosystem. Unfortunately, that's not what we're doing - we're adapting an existing ecosystem, and consequently it suffers from the problem of the city slicker who asks a local farmer for directions after he gets lost in the country and is given the answer, 'If you want to get there, you don't start from here.' Assuming there's no better way of doing it (I'm not technically competent enough to know), getting from A to B is inevitably going to be painful and the chief concern is minimising the pain.

Can we create fNXT tokens that are effectively worthless in the medium term because they are locked to their accounts and cannot initially be transferred? The distribution could be determined by snapshot or average over time, based on past/current/just before the split holdings, whatever, but they couldn't be traded for a couple of years. You can forge with them, lease them, admire their shiny cryptographic beauty, but you can't sell them. Maybe you increase the available/movable balance gradually over time, after an initial cooling off period.

That means:
1) Only people with a long-term interest in the success of the Nxt platform will want them. Who is going to dump assets for NXT if they won't see profits - maybe - for 2 years?
2) No one gets something for nothing. No one is on the wrong side of a de facto expropriation. There's no immediate dilution and any transfer of wealth that does occur is delayed and does so very slowly, hopefully against the backdrop of overall substantial expansion of Nxt.
3) Assetholders, who have supported Nxt for the past 18 months and provided its primary use case with millions of USD of assets and activity, don't get spanked.
4) There's no immediate dump of fNXT, which risks compromising the security of the network through whales accumulating and centralising forging.
5) There's no dump of NXT by disgruntled holders, see 4)

Revenues from forging would be paid in fNXT and could become available balance immediately.

Discuss.
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +439/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #421 on: February 17, 2016, 08:32:55 pm »

Size estimates just came in. In a nutshell:
At transaction rate of 2 per minute, like today's chain, space saving is marginal.
At transaction rate of 200 per minute for one chain, space saving ratio is 0.012 i.e. the blockchain size without derived tables in 2.0 is expected to be 83 times smaller than a similar blockchain based on the existing 1.7 design.

If we increase the block size this can be further improved.
If we have many child chains with sparse activity this will be reduced.

The back of envelope calculation can be viewed here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2lgUpSLxUJma3KsJV-lTs0B5mANolZqQZiS8StwVtI/edit?usp=sharing
You can leave your comments inside. Bare in mind, that this is not a White paper or an academic research just some estimates made by a tired, over worked engineer.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #422 on: February 17, 2016, 08:57:38 pm »

In anticipation of assets going down and then up when people re-buy them after the snapshot, some would take advantage of buying them on the cheap just before the snapshot, after having made sure they hold enough NXT (purchased e.g. with BTC) to get as much fNXT as they consider worthwhile. This would smoothen the asset price depression.

Overall, I think the event will differentiate between valuable assets with long term potential, that will get re-bought after the snapshot, and worthless ones, who people for now continue to hold just in case, but will not bother re-buying them again.

With all due respect do you think you as Core Dev should play god here in deciding what you think may happen??

In my opinion Core Devs should at first do not harm. You cannot guarantee this unless you take my suggestion. Doing otherwise supposes you really can predict best economics. But you are changing the game under the feet of people like me who never thought the rules would change.
Logged

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #423 on: February 17, 2016, 09:03:03 pm »

Why do people assume that asset prices will go down because of the increased demand for NXT at the time of the snapshot? Assets being not very liquid, selling them in order to have NXT at that time, and then trying to buy them again after, is the least rational approach, as you can't sell or buy much without affecting the price. Isn't it much more likely that people will buy NXT on exchanges, using BTC, ETH, USD, CNY, whatever they have but also whatever is liquid enough? Unless all your investments are into NXT and assets, and you have nothing else more liquid than those assets, but this is very unwise portfolio to have.

Taking a snapshot from before the 2.0 design announcement is technically possible, however it would hurt the Nxt stakeholders by preventing a possible (and quite likely) price increase in anticipation of the future snapshot. And such price increase would not come from asset owners selling for NXT, but BTC and fiat holders buying NXT, in amounts likely exceeding those coming from asset sellers (because of the liquidity problem). Yes, there would be a dump after the snapshot, but still some of those entering NXT in order to get fNXT at snapshot time would opt to keep at least some of it, expecting future platform growth, so overall the effect on price would be positive.

The second half of your quote suggest that you are taking about these changes as a marketing tool. If this is about marketing than I am even more against these changes, as I do not think changes of this magnitude should be about bringing more speculators into Nxt by trying to temporarily inflate Nxt price. Is this TRUELY a reason these changes are being proposed??
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 09:13:14 pm by Windjc »
Logged

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #424 on: February 17, 2016, 09:25:49 pm »

This is not a marketing driven idea, windjc....I've been privy (in excruciating detail) to all of this discussion, and JLP and Riker are definitely not thinking in terms of marketing. It's been all about the technology, all the way.

Think JL is referring more to the fact that every crypto change (like the step to Nxt 2.0) is/will be surrounded by way too much speculation, and that we will have to take this into account as much as possible (if that is possible, seeing how profoundly illogical the crypto market is)
Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #425 on: February 17, 2016, 09:39:38 pm »

This is not a marketing driven idea, windjc....I've been privy (in excruciating detail) to all of this discussion, and JLP and Riker are definitely not thinking in terms of marketing. It's been all about the technology, all the way.

Think JL is referring more to the fact that every crypto change (like the step to Nxt 2.0) is/will be surrounded by way too much speculation, and that we will have to take this into account as much as possible (if that is possible, seeing how profoundly illogical the crypto market is)

Really? That's how you read his second paragraph?
Logged

TheWireMaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +27/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
    • NXT Folks
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #426 on: February 17, 2016, 10:09:18 pm »

I'm no expert, but let me try to give my opinion. What if the current MS would become self sustainable which means that after the cost in NXT of issuing the currency, all transactions within that currency have fees paid in that same currency. Forgers will then have some coins of some currency other than nxt.
Assets can be issued by choosing the preferred currency, same for the Marketplace.
In that way NXT remains the same, but it's scalable through the MS.
It's similar but will not disrupt the current nxt financial system.
Am I saying something completely illogic here? If yes, sorry about that. :)
Logged
NXT-5WW2-XQ63-CFGM-G7YAJ

Tosch110

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +211/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2365
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #427 on: February 17, 2016, 10:24:06 pm »

The more I think of it, the more I like the proposal of Jean-Luc. There have been so much ideas floating in this forum what you can do with Blockchain technology and Nxt implementation of it and so much questions on scalability. The problem has mostly been the distribution of coins, how to get enough of them and can you provide enough transactions per second/minute etc to turn ideas into working projects. At the current stage a lot of projects did not make sense because you cannot effectively scale the fees of applications that have a lot of transactions versus other apps that have few transactions with a lot of data. Some would prefer low fees just to submit for example a lot of encrypted messages versus others that would like to store documents or other files on the Blockchain.

The proposal of Jean-Luc not only makes this possible to happen on ChilChains, it also reduces the current Blockchain bloat by an immense factor and enables people to create their own Blockchain currency. Everything with Nxt (even if fNxt, it is still the Nxt technology) in the Background. When we can find a proper solution to the distribution of coins, I think this will be amazing to build new things on.

I do not think this will do harm to the Asset Exchange. The main Chain will still remain Nxt and Assets will be traded as they did until now... why should this change when you do not even see a change in the official Wallet?

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #428 on: February 17, 2016, 10:24:42 pm »

This is not a marketing driven idea, windjc....I've been privy (in excruciating detail) to all of this discussion, and JLP and Riker are definitely not thinking in terms of marketing. It's been all about the technology, all the way.

Think JL is referring more to the fact that every crypto change (like the step to Nxt 2.0) is/will be surrounded by way too much speculation, and that we will have to take this into account as much as possible (if that is possible, seeing how profoundly illogical the crypto market is)

Really? That's how you read his second paragraph?

Er...yes. Not just the second paragraph, but everything I've seen from him on Nxt 2.0. JL is not about the marketing, sometimes to an annoying extent.
I can't see NXT 2.0 as a marketing/get NXT pumped move from him, it's just not the way he works.
But there will be loads of speculation around any change, and we need to be prepared for the consequences of that.
Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #429 on: February 17, 2016, 10:27:29 pm »

This is not a marketing driven idea, windjc....I've been privy (in excruciating detail) to all of this discussion, and JLP and Riker are definitely not thinking in terms of marketing. It's been all about the technology, all the way.

Think JL is referring more to the fact that every crypto change (like the step to Nxt 2.0) is/will be surrounded by way too much speculation, and that we will have to take this into account as much as possible (if that is possible, seeing how profoundly illogical the crypto market is)

Really? That's how you read his second paragraph?

Er...yes. Not just the second paragraph, but everything I've seen from him on Nxt 2.0. JL is not about the marketing, sometimes to an annoying extent.
I can't see NXT 2.0 as a marketing/get NXT pumped move from him, it's just not the way he works.
But there will be loads of speculation around any change, and we need to be prepared for the consequences of that.

Dave, that may be the case. But, now, in the face of criticism he seems to be arguing something altogether different. Please help me parse the meaning of the following quote:

"Taking a snapshot from before the 2.0 design announcement is technically possible, however it would hurt the Nxt stakeholders by preventing a possible (and quite likely) price increase in anticipation of the future snapshot. And such price increase would not come from asset owners selling for NXT, but BTC and fiat holders buying NXT, in amounts likely exceeding those coming from asset sellers (because of the liquidity problem). Yes, there would be a dump after the snapshot, but still some of those entering NXT in order to get fNXT at snapshot time would opt to keep at least some of it"


So now my idea of a snapshot is bad because of ^^^?

What exactly is the "loads of speculation" you refer to in "any change" around the idea of a snapshot?

Meanwhile, Jean Luc seems to be arguing that LACK of speculation around a change is now a bad thing. He is arguing FOR INCREASED speculation.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2016, 10:33:35 pm by Windjc »
Logged

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #430 on: February 17, 2016, 10:44:26 pm »

Yeah....I think I can see your point (finally, ;))

A snapshot from before the Nxt 2.0 announcement would prevent a speculative pump, and JL used the word 'hurt' in relation to how that would affect stakeholders......implying that some of the community may want to profit from the speculation surrounding the change.
I think JL is simply thinking ahead here, not trying to plan a pump.....any other interpretations ? (pending JL clarification)
Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

durerus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +106/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • user-owner
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #431 on: February 18, 2016, 12:09:15 am »

I suggest the following distribution of fNXT:
7.5% to SuperNET holders
7.5% to NxtVenture holders
5% to jl777hodl

And the rest based on snapshot from November 24th 2013.

That would be a fair distribution  ;D
Logged

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #432 on: February 18, 2016, 05:49:51 am »

Let's dream a bit :

In this move, you have forgers who decide to include a sideChainBlock or not.. that means forgers consensus has more power than today. It is equivalent on deciding on the fee of transactions. I'm sure a lot of miners out there would like this.

You also have an emphasis on archive nodes, they are separated and they can become a different kind of business.

If this is well organised, or at least has the potential to be, then it is a very good move. More power for forgers of the 2.0 scalable POS blockchain chain looks like a great marketing title to me.
I suspect that one of the failure of NXT is that only the devs decide. Here, forgers can decide more on a day to day basis. I'm not sure but if you look at Bitcoin, I would not be surprised that the real net investment is initially made in mining equipment. Because it's a system where miner decides.
Do you think the forgers will decide on the fees individually so the fees will be market driven? In this case fNXT will drop even lower: 1/100 of NXT or lower. The fees will be effectively zero until the blocks will become full.
Logged

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #433 on: February 18, 2016, 05:53:41 am »

I'm no expert, but let me try to give my opinion. What if the current MS would become self sustainable which means that after the cost in NXT of issuing the currency, all transactions within that currency have fees paid in that same currency. Forgers will then have some coins of some currency other than nxt.
Assets can be issued by choosing the preferred currency, same for the Marketplace.
In that way NXT remains the same, but it's scalable through the MS.
It's similar but will not disrupt the current nxt financial system.
Am I saying something completely illogic here? If yes, sorry about that. :)
Your design is a possible solution. There are multiple ways for implementing sidechains or monetary system (despite JLP words) but the idea of the 2.0 design is the ultimate prunning solution. This is were devs are proposing way too radical solutions.
Logged

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #434 on: February 18, 2016, 06:01:39 am »

Size estimates just came in. In a nutshell:
At transaction rate of 2 per minute, like today's chain, space saving is marginal.
At transaction rate of 200 per minute for one chain, space saving ratio is 0.012 i.e. the blockchain size without derived tables in 2.0 is expected to be 83 times smaller than a similar blockchain based on the existing 1.7 design.

If we increase the block size this can be further improved.
If we have many child chains with sparse activity this will be reduced.

The back of envelope calculation can be viewed here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2lgUpSLxUJma3KsJV-lTs0B5mANolZqQZiS8StwVtI/edit?usp=sharing
You can leave your comments inside. Bare in mind, that this is not a White paper or an academic research just some estimates made by a tired, over worked engineer.
Thanks. The access to the document is restricted.
Now I see some estimate. Now we can have faster transactions and bigger blocks. You increased tps 100x so I expect the blocks to be 100x bigger to handle this load as well as today. Do we expect any problems with 200 tx per minute rate and 25600 transactions per block limit? Somehow I feel that reaching those numbers will be a problem even with the new design.
Logged

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +439/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #435 on: February 18, 2016, 06:42:13 am »

Size estimates just came in. In a nutshell:
At transaction rate of 2 per minute, like today's chain, space saving is marginal.
At transaction rate of 200 per minute for one chain, space saving ratio is 0.012 i.e. the blockchain size without derived tables in 2.0 is expected to be 83 times smaller than a similar blockchain based on the existing 1.7 design.

If we increase the block size this can be further improved.
If we have many child chains with sparse activity this will be reduced.

The back of envelope calculation can be viewed here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2lgUpSLxUJma3KsJV-lTs0B5mANolZqQZiS8StwVtI/edit?usp=sharing
You can leave your comments inside. Bare in mind, that this is not a White paper or an academic research just some estimates made by a tired, over worked engineer.

Changed the sharing settings, now anyone can view and comment. Let me know how this works out.
There are some hidden columns on the document. I made them hidden so that it's easier to view the results. I can make them visible if you like to see the exact calculation.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #436 on: February 18, 2016, 08:12:08 am »

Size estimates just came in. In a nutshell:
At transaction rate of 2 per minute, like today's chain, space saving is marginal.
At transaction rate of 200 per minute for one chain, space saving ratio is 0.012 i.e. the blockchain size without derived tables in 2.0 is expected to be 83 times smaller than a similar blockchain based on the existing 1.7 design.

If we increase the block size this can be further improved.
If we have many child chains with sparse activity this will be reduced.

The back of envelope calculation can be viewed here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C2lgUpSLxUJma3KsJV-lTs0B5mANolZqQZiS8StwVtI/edit?usp=sharing
You can leave your comments inside. Bare in mind, that this is not a White paper or an academic research just some estimates made by a tired, over worked engineer.

Changed the sharing settings, now anyone can view and comment. Let me know how this works out.
There are some hidden columns on the document. I made them hidden so that it's easier to view the results. I can make them visible if you like to see the exact calculation.
Numbers do not look correct. I do not see database growing over time for 2.0 and I am pretty sure it must grow some way.
Logged

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +439/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #437 on: February 18, 2016, 08:22:07 am »

The database sizes in the sheet represent database growth during the course of one year.

You can see that in the 2.0 case, the expected transaction database size is tied to the number of blocks on the mother chain since all the child chain transactions are packed into a single prunable attachment of a ChildChainBlock transaction and there is only one such ChildChainBlock transaction per child chain per mother chain block.
The point is, that in the 2.0 design, growing transaction rate from 2 TPM to 200 TPM on the child chain does not change the database size. This is the essence of the scalability improvement since in the 1.x design growing from 2 TPM to 200 TPM will increase the blockchain by a factor of 100.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #438 on: February 18, 2016, 08:32:49 am »

The database sizes in the sheet represent database growth during the course of one year.

You can see that in the 2.0 case, the expected transaction database size is tied to the number of blocks on the mother chain since all the child chain transactions are packed into a single prunable attachment of a ChildChainBlock transaction and there is only one such ChildChainBlock transaction per child chain per mother chain block.
The point is, that in the 2.0 design, growing transaction rate from 2 TPM to 200 TPM on the child chain does not change the database size. This is the essence of the scalability improvement since in the 1.x design growing from 2 TPM to 200 TPM will increase the blockchain by a factor of 100.
I think 200 TPM on the child chain requires a higher mother chain TPS rate. Am I wrong?
Logged

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +439/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #439 on: February 18, 2016, 08:41:17 am »

The database sizes in the sheet represent database growth during the course of one year.

You can see that in the 2.0 case, the expected transaction database size is tied to the number of blocks on the mother chain since all the child chain transactions are packed into a single prunable attachment of a ChildChainBlock transaction and there is only one such ChildChainBlock transaction per child chain per mother chain block.
The point is, that in the 2.0 design, growing transaction rate from 2 TPM to 200 TPM on the child chain does not change the database size. This is the essence of the scalability improvement since in the 1.x design growing from 2 TPM to 200 TPM will increase the blockchain by a factor of 100.
I think 200 TPM on the child chain requires a higher mother chain TPS rate. Am I wrong?

I'm only considering in the transaction row the direct effect of child chain transactions on the blockchain size.
Additional transactions on the mother chain, for example to exchange NXT and fNXT or perform leasing are counted in the "fNXT related Table Size [MB]" the estimate is that the mother chain will operate at around 1/3 of transaction rate of the existing NXT chain. i.e. about 0.66 TPM.
If the mother chain has higher transaction rate this reduces scalability of course since the mother chain cannot be pruned.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly