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

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 221239 times)

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #740 on: February 21, 2016, 08:08:54 am »

there seems to be a simple solution to mitigate the risk of destroying the asset ecosystem:

make assets be traded in fNXT.
This would require storing the ask/bid orders on the fNXT chain as non-prunable transactions, and those make the bulk of our transaction volume. And making the AE transaction types different from the other child chain transactions, another compromise I cannot do.

I strongly recommend to rethink that.

what you are saying is that you are willing to risk the destruction of the value of the NXT AE ecosystem.

Rejecting any form of compromise whatsoever means that no one will ever trust you again.

« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 08:30:15 am by LocoMB »
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #741 on: February 21, 2016, 08:10:45 am »

Okay, I see your point that the exchange rate of fNXT to NXT is more important, but I think the community will want to have a vote on the minimum hard coded fNXT fee same as the community did two polls on the fees for some txs before the 1.7 fork. Can you promise to respect and commit to the results of such voting?
No. It is an important part of the design that transactions on the fNXT chain should be discouraged and reduced to a minimum. The discussions so far in this thread have shown that a large part of the community does not really understand the 2.0 design and the reasoning behind it, and continues to not understand it even when explained repeatedly. Not everything should be decided by voting.

The whole NXT 2.0 design is hard to explain and too drastic of a change, we see knee-jerk reaction from many users. The reasons for fees are simple to explain and easy to understand.
The two polls before the 1.7 fork prove the community can take a rational decision after the devs have given their reasons. If the devs propose what they think is the ideal minimum fee and give two other options of 0.5x and 2x of that, I am sure the majority of votes will side with the devs' proposed option.

At the same time even 0.5x or 2.x choices should not be a large problem for security if majority goes for them? Do you agree with this rough calculation? If you disagree, can you present your calculations for hard coded fees and how precision of fees has been reached.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 08:15:35 am by lurker10 »
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #742 on: February 21, 2016, 08:28:00 am »

@JLP
You can always make poll that you are OK with all outcome. After all, you can decide the question and the possible answers for the poll.

It is best to allows some community input, imo.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 08:30:28 am by Sebastien256 »
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

allwelder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +196/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1867
  • NxtChina.org
    • View Profile
    • NxtChina.org
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #743 on: February 21, 2016, 08:30:46 am »


The main problem we identified relating to MS (and AE for that matter) to gain wider adoption is that you perform transactions in one token (MS, AE) but pay fees in another token (NXT).
While other crypto works like this or worse (CounterParty, MasterCoin, Ethereum if they ever develop tokens on top) no other financial instrument in the real world works like this.
We had quite a few projects which run into this problem.

Quote
Split Nxt into fNXT and NXT will make ChildChain NXT much like MS.

The benefit of child chain is that you transact and pay fees in the same token. Thus fixing this fundamental problem of MS/AE.
But eventual forgers only accept fNXT.
We still face the same problem that we perform transactions in one token (sidechain NXT) but pay fees in another token (fNXT).
Logged
NxtChina |Weibo |Twitter Donation welcomed:NXT-APL9-66GU-K8LY-B3JJJ

sadface

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +16/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #744 on: February 21, 2016, 08:31:28 am »

there seems to be a simple solution to mitigate the risk of destroying the asset ecosystem:

make assets be traded in fNXT.
This would require storing the ask/bid orders on the fNXT chain as non-prunable transactions, and those make the bulk of our transaction volume. And making the AE transaction types different from the other child chain transactions, another compromise I cannot do.

what compromise are you willing to do then?
Logged

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #745 on: February 21, 2016, 08:39:08 am »

The discussion is growing like a tree and it is hard to come to a consensus this way. I want to streamline things a bit and ask the only one main question. The root question where everything else grows from.

Do we want to keep the market of permanent storage for NXT or drop it?

Now a bit of explanation what is this about.
NXT has started with a cool feature for storing permanent messages up to 1000 bytes for a 1 NXT fee. This way a huge market was created. Multiple services were available now (MGW and FreeMarket to name some). But after 1.7 fork the fees were raised 30x so it is now 30 NXT for a permanent storage of 1000 bytes. With the 2.0 proposal the NXT will be no longer a player on the permanent storage market.
Is everyone fine with it? Personally I do not want to lose this market for whatever reason but if people vote for it we'll go for it. The reason to lose this market is that JLP does not want to support 2 different versions of code for both permanent and temporary messages.
We should clearly have a decision on this question and only after it start the discussion on fNXT split, distribution methods and insults.
Logged

allwelder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +196/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1867
  • NxtChina.org
    • View Profile
    • NxtChina.org
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #746 on: February 21, 2016, 08:44:22 am »


Nxt 2.0 is developed as a continuation of Nxt, and all Nxt stakeholders should have a right of a proportional stake in it, without having to pay again or go through an ICO. But if some desire not to use this right and remain on 1.7 after the 2.0 launch, my keepZombie account property proposal can be considered, to make sure we are not just printing money and allowing the same account to continue existing on both blockchains. Or some equivalent mechanism of burning 1.0 NXT to obtain 2.0 NXT+fNXT instead.
Agree,1:1 is the most reasonable distribution solution.
Logged
NxtChina |Weibo |Twitter Donation welcomed:NXT-APL9-66GU-K8LY-B3JJJ

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #747 on: February 21, 2016, 08:48:22 am »

With all due respect, if there is no sign from the devs to make concessions in minor issues or explain to the community why it's not possible to make such concessions (community can't understand and can't vote right is no good explanation), I think it makes sense to forge on both chains after the hard fork because the NXT 2.0 may never get popular support due to arbitrary decisions. Top-down dictatorship is not what we signed up for in crypto, reconsidering certain positions is strongly advised. Holding off from investing more in NXT is kind of what I feel now despite of the apparent solution to the scalability problem in the NXT 2.0 design, this is for no other reason than the signs of authoritarianism from the devs. I urge JL to give it another thought and make small compromises to retain community support in the long run.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #748 on: February 21, 2016, 08:50:02 am »

Do we want to keep the market of permanent storage for NXT or drop it?

I always tought blockchain was about decentralized consensus and not storage. I'm fine to drop it in exchange of extreme scalability of the 2.0 design.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 08:54:38 am by Sebastien256 »
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #749 on: February 21, 2016, 08:55:31 am »

Do we want to keep the market of permanent storage for NXT or drop it?

I always tought blockchain was about decentralized consensus and not storage. I'm fine to drop it in exchange of extreme scalability.
Thanks for your input Seb. If most of the people OK to drop this market (and extra 1-2M USD capitalisation) I am OK to go for it too. Anyone else to vote?
Logged

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #750 on: February 21, 2016, 08:58:02 am »

Do we want to keep the market of permanent storage for NXT or drop it?

I always tought blockchain was about decentralized consensus and not storage. I'm fine to drop it in exchange of extreme scalability.
Thanks for your input Seb. If most of the people OK to drop this market (and extra 1-2M USD capitalisation) I am OK to go for it too. Anyone else to vote?

But please note that we do not completely drop it because of the archieved node. I think archived node can support to some extent permanent storage.
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #751 on: February 21, 2016, 09:02:27 am »

Do we want to keep the market of permanent storage for NXT or drop it?

I always tought blockchain was about decentralized consensus and not storage. I'm fine to drop it.

We never had the market for permanent storage. This field is the business of Sia, Storj, Maidsafe and similar, of which my impression is that Sia is currently the best platform but I haven't looked closely.

Storing permanent data on everyone's node forever is not sustainable. And doing it the right way, a distributed system where each file is stored redundantly on a few nodes only, with a proof and guarantee that it is always available, fees for storage and all that, this is such a vast amount of work that it takes a dedicated platform like the above. We absolutely don't have the resources to work on that, and there is no need, when platforms that specialize in distributed storage only are being created. Instead, a bridge could be built to allow an archival node to offload its data to an external distributed storage platform like Sia, paying for it, and in return charging fees for providing the archival service. But building such a bridge is not part of the core, and is not yet needed.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #752 on: February 21, 2016, 09:11:51 am »


Why devs not keep current Nxt chain with all features as the MainChain,and add Sidechain with pruning?

Did we still remember that MS feature without any use?

Split Nxt into fNXT and NXT will make ChildChain NXT much like MS.

MS is the most asked for feature by business requests we get.

Don't assume that just because you don't see it on the forums, it doesn't exist.

We have made several PoC where we cannot disclose yet, because that is how businesses work: first test, then disclose.

The MAIN reason they say no is always denomination of fees in Nxt.

MS is seriously underused by people HERE, not by businesses.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #753 on: February 21, 2016, 09:13:11 am »

I urge JL to give it another thought and make small compromises to retain community support in the long run.
Trading assets on the fNXT chain, or keeping the whole NXT chain non-prunable, are not small compromises. Such would make the whole 2.0 work pointless, and in the long run unmaintainable.

The 2.0 design will be implemented, either by me and the other core devs, or by a competitor who does not need to make such compromises. And any artificial restriction added in 2.0, such as a forceful permanent peg of fNXT to NXT value will result in a platform that is not competitive, and it being an open source will immediately be overtaken by another with this restriction removed.

I am not forcing anyone from the Nxt community to migrate to 2.0, but I am also not going to spend the next 18 months of my life working on a design I am convinced is wrong. I will create 2.0, in collaboration with the other core devs, in the way we consider technically best, and we have already spent plenty of time discussing and refining the design before announcing it publicly. The community gets to decide whether to use it, and how exactly to migrate to it.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #754 on: February 21, 2016, 09:19:40 am »

I urge JL to give it another thought and make small compromises to retain community support in the long run.
Trading assets on the fNXT chain, or keeping the whole NXT chain non-prunable, are not small compromises. Such would make the whole 2.0 work pointless, and in the long run unmaintainable.

Trading assets on the fNXT chain, keeping the whole NXT non-prunable is obviously not feasible and unmaintainable. I asked for the possibility to vote on hard coded fNXT minimum fee with the option of a) your proposed fee and b) 0.5x, c) 2x options to be decided by the community or for explanation why 0.5x or 2x are insecure while 1x is secure. If there is no good explanation with precise calculations, it makes it an arbitrary decision on your part which makes it safe to assume that 0.5x and 2x should also be relatively secure, they are not that far from 1x, not an order of decimal magnitude.

Pegging fNXT is not free market, it's capital control policy. That wasn't the question.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 09:22:20 am by lurker10 »
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

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 #755 on: February 21, 2016, 09:28:46 am »

It seems to me that:
1) Pricing assets in fNXT solves assetholders' problem
2) Pricing assets in fNXT wreaks havoc on scalability
3) fNXT/NXT trading of course be possible, subject to restrictions we should discuss further
Are the building blocks not here for a possible solution, whether in the core or through third-party services?

Here's a scenario to consider :
Current Nxt keeps on rolling (with some improvements, like a saner MS interface,or even another client) while JLP develops Nxt2.0.
That's gonna be at least a year, probably more like 18 months. In that time there will be no major changes in core Nxt 1.7 functionality or API.

When Nxt2.0 is ready to rock.....figure out a distribution system for the fNXT (and maybe NXT2.0 for the first childchain) and kick the blockchain off, with no connection to the current Nxt 1.7 blockchain at all, (except for fNXT/NXT2.0 distribution)
If projects/users want to migrate....they can, or they can remain on the Nxt 1.7 fork...or on both.
Yeah, having 2 completely seperate NXT blockchains running simultaneously might be tricky, but it is certainly decentralised. :D

(and I doubt that the 2 blockchains will remain seperate for long, projects will spring up to bridge the gaps between 1.7 and 2.0, and the 2 should obviously share as much API compatibilty as is possible)


Please be very careful with this idea. It is one logical conclusion of where we might be heading, but I don't think it's a good one. It's like suggesting a trial separation. The danger is that it could end up in a situation that's just as bad for elements of the existing community as the present one might be, and possibly a lot worse. We've already established that figuring out distribution for fNXT/NXT is really, really hard. And, not to put too fine a point on it, we'd have to find a way of doing it such that TNSSE didn't end up looking like the biggest bait-and-switch since the Kinks' Ray Davies walked into a bar in old Soho and met L-O-L-A Lola...
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

maddy83

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +108/-50
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 292
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #756 on: February 21, 2016, 10:19:44 am »

Okay, I see your point that the exchange rate of fNXT to NXT is more important, but I think the community will want to have a vote on the minimum hard coded fNXT fee same as the community did two polls on the fees for some txs before the 1.7 fork. Can you promise to respect and commit to the results of such voting?
No. It is an important part of the design that transactions on the fNXT chain should be discouraged and reduced to a minimum. The discussions so far in this thread have shown that a large part of the community does not really understand the 2.0 design and the reasoning behind it, and continues to not understand it even when explained repeatedly. Not everything should be decided by voting.

So you will decide what happens, even if the majority of NXT holders oppose it? Do you realize that resembles a dictatorship?

I am not forcing anyone from the Nxt community to migrate to 2.0, but I am also not going to spend the next 18 months of my life working on a design I am convinced is wrong. I will create 2.0, in collaboration with the other core devs, in the way we consider technically best, and we have already spent plenty of time discussing and refining the design before announcing it publicly. The community gets to decide whether to use it, and how exactly to migrate to it.

Why is it that you get to decide the big picture of what NXT 2.0 will look like, and the community (NXT holders) get to decide only the small details? Maybe the community does not want your vision of NXT 2.0, but wants something else?

Also, aren't you being paid to work on NXT? You're an employee, that is all. You should work on what the NXT holders tell you to work on. I am personally not comfortable with the development process of NXT anymore, and I see that as a bigger issue than the NXT 2.0 issue.
Logged
Will do small programming tasks for NXT. PM me!

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +440/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #757 on: February 21, 2016, 10:26:14 am »


The main problem we identified relating to MS (and AE for that matter) to gain wider adoption is that you perform transactions in one token (MS, AE) but pay fees in another token (NXT).
While other crypto works like this or worse (CounterParty, MasterCoin, Ethereum if they ever develop tokens on top) no other financial instrument in the real world works like this.
We had quite a few projects which run into this problem.

Quote
Split Nxt into fNXT and NXT will make ChildChain NXT much like MS.

The benefit of child chain is that you transact and pay fees in the same token. Thus fixing this fundamental problem of MS/AE.
But eventual forgers only accept fNXT.
We still face the same problem that we perform transactions in one token (sidechain NXT) but pay fees in another token (fNXT).

The end user will only transact in the side chain token both for value transfer and fees. Only whoever maintains the side chain (perhaps the business owner) need to deal with fNXT.
For example, assume that I'm using a side chain token to pay for concert tickets.
There is one account distributing the tokens to users who pay fiat in return and perhaps 1000's of accounts getting the tokens and using them as entrance ticket.

Using MS, each concert visitor has to also obtain NXT in order to transact. This is unrealistic since it means that the organizer has to fund 1000's of accounts with NXT and make sure they won't run out of NXT but also make sure not to get manipulated by users which will use these NXT for something else.

Using child chain, the owner creates a child chain, distributes only the child chain tokens to 1000's of accounts which can immediately use it to transact in the child chain token and pay fees in the child chain token without possessing any NXT. Only when the business owner decides to submit a ChildChainBlock transaction to the main chain then the business owner pays the fNXT fees and receives the fees in the child chain token.
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

allwelder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +196/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1867
  • NxtChina.org
    • View Profile
    • NxtChina.org
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #758 on: February 21, 2016, 10:37:23 am »


The main problem we identified relating to MS (and AE for that matter) to gain wider adoption is that you perform transactions in one token (MS, AE) but pay fees in another token (NXT).
While other crypto works like this or worse (CounterParty, MasterCoin, Ethereum if they ever develop tokens on top) no other financial instrument in the real world works like this.
We had quite a few projects which run into this problem.

Quote
Split Nxt into fNXT and NXT will make ChildChain NXT much like MS.

The benefit of child chain is that you transact and pay fees in the same token. Thus fixing this fundamental problem of MS/AE.
But eventual forgers only accept fNXT.
We still face the same problem that we perform transactions in one token (sidechain NXT) but pay fees in another token (fNXT).

The end user will only transact in the side chain token both for value transfer and fees. Only whoever maintains the side chain (perhaps the business owner) need to deal with fNXT.
For example, assume that I'm using a side chain token to pay for concert tickets.
There is one account distributing the tokens to users who pay fiat in return and perhaps 1000's of accounts getting the tokens and using them as entrance ticket.

Using MS, each concert visitor has to also obtain NXT in order to transact. This is unrealistic since it means that the organizer has to fund 1000's of accounts with NXT and make sure they won't run out of NXT but also make sure not to get manipulated by users which will use these NXT for something else.

Using child chain, the owner creates a child chain, distributes only the child chain tokens to 1000's of accounts which can immediately use it to transact in the child chain token and pay fees in the child chain token without possessing any NXT. Only when the business owner decides to submit a ChildChainBlock transaction to the main chain then the business owner pays the fNXT fees and receives the fees in the child chain token.
Got it ,much thanks for the explanation.
Logged
NxtChina |Weibo |Twitter Donation welcomed:NXT-APL9-66GU-K8LY-B3JJJ

allwelder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +196/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1867
  • NxtChina.org
    • View Profile
    • NxtChina.org
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #759 on: February 21, 2016, 10:40:48 am »

https://www.deepdotweb.com/2016/02/08/nsa-switches-to-quantum-resistant-cryptography/
NSA claims SHA-256 is insecure.
Nxt also have this concerns,will consider some improvement in 2.0?
Logged
NxtChina |Weibo |Twitter Donation welcomed:NXT-APL9-66GU-K8LY-B3JJJ
Pages: 1 ... 36 37 [38] 39 40 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly