Nxt Forum

Nxt Discussion => Nxt Core Development => Core Development Discussion => Topic started by: Jean-Luc on February 08, 2016, 08:54:39 pm

Title: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 08, 2016, 08:54:39 pm
We have been brainstorming the Nxt 2.0 design for some time now, and here is our current proposal. This is a high level summary, and many details are not yet known, more specific design decisions will be made as the development moves along. What we propose is a significant architectural change, not just a bundle of features. And it will take us some time to get there.

- A new main chain will be created, on which NXT becomes a token used for forging only, "forgingNXT". The current NXT ecosystem will become a child chain, preserving all features and holdings except the ability to forge. At the hard fork block, each NXT owner will have his NXT converted to both tokens in 1:1 ratio, and all other holdings migrated to the NXT child chain.

- It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT, so small stakeholders not interested in forging may decide to sell their fNXT to large stakeholders running forging nodes. This would lead to some centralization, but also to a higher percentage of the (f)NXT stakeholders forging and thus securing the complete Nxt ecosystem.
   
- Child chains will all run the same code, but each one can be configured to have only a subset of the all possible features if needed. The NXT child chain will have all possible transaction types enabled.

- Each child chain will have its own native token/currency, in which payment transactions are denominated, asset ask/bid orders are placed, digital goods are priced, etc. Child chain transaction fees will also be in the native token.

- All transactions from all chains must be processed by all nodes. All nodes will carry all child chains for the last 1440 blocks at least. Archival nodes can opt to store one or more child chains longer, or indefinitely.

- Transactions on the child chains will be pruned completely after 1440 blocks on nodes not configured to archive them longer. A new node downloading the blockchain from scratch must make the assumption that since the forgers and all nodes that were running the blockchain at the time the prunable data was still there approved those transactions, they must have been valid at that time, even though the data to validate them again is no longer available.

- It must be possible to validate though that the effective fNXT balances of the forgers were indeed those that they claim to be. This is why transactions on the forging chain which change fNXT balances cannot be pruned, and must be kept to a minimum of essential transaction types.

- The child chain "blocks" will be implemented as a prunable attachment of a single (one per block per chain) transaction, of type ChildchainBlock, on the main chain. Anyone can create a ChildchainBlock transaction. However, it is up to the forgers that create blocks on the main chain to decide whether to include this ChildchainBlock transaction in a block. Forgers, just like all nodes, do full validation of all child chain transactions included in a ChildchainBlock, as long as the data has not been pruned yet.

- If there have been no transactions on a chain, there is no need to create a ChildchainBlock transaction for it, unlike the main chain where we continue to have blocks every 60s even if they are empty. We can think about reducing the main chain block times in order to allow for some child chains to have more frequent blocks.

- The forgers will accept fees in fNXT only, with the minimum fee required by the protocol for each transaction type also denominated in fNXT.

- When a ChildchainBlock transaction is included by a forger in the main chain, its creator pays a fee in fNXT to the forger. The amount of this fee is up to the ChildchainBlock creator, but must be at least equal to the total of minimum fees calculated in fNXT for each child chain transaction included. In return, the ChildchainBlock creator receives the fees, in native child chain token, paid by the senders of those child chain transactions.
       
- The exchange rate of child chain token to fNXT will therefore be determined by market forces. If no-one is willing to include a child chain transaction in a ChildchainBlock, it would mean that the fee offered in native token is not considered equivalent to the required minimum fNXT fee for this particular transaction, and such transaction will expire unconfirmed. If the value of the child chain native token drops to zero, no-one will be willing to create ChildchainBlocks for it, and transaction processing on this childchain will stop.

- Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block, since at the end the forgers will still look at the fee/size ratio for each transaction and will want to maximize their forging profits, subject to main chain block size and transaction numbers limits.

- Before the pruning, each node must verify not only that the hash of the ChildchainBlock transaction matches, but that all transactions of the child chain enclosed within it are valid, i.e. there is no double spending, and all other validations. For that the node needs to know the current balances for all account holdings, on that child chain. To be able to still do pruning, we need a snapshot transaction, which takes a snapshot of the current child chain state only, without any history that led to this state. Then, after this transaction has been accepted in the blockchain for more than 720 blocks, we can assume that it is valid, prune all history for that chain before that snapshot, and discard the previous snapshot.

- The snapshot transaction for each child chain is created at regular intervals, such as 1440 blocks, by the forger of the current block. It will only contain the hash of the snapshot, not the full snapshot data.

- The snapshot data itself does not need to propagate through the network when the snapshot transaction is created. Each node that already is up to date, already has the state of the child chain being snapshotted, so it can generate such a snapshot for itself. It must only validate that the hash the forger calculated for the snapshot indeed matches its own snapshot.

- It is only nodes that are downloading the blockchain from scratch that would need to download the latest complete snapshot, and this is another reason that each node must generate and keep around this snapshot, to be able to serve it to such new nodes. The snapshot download can be in a torrent-like manner, different pieces from multiple nodes.

- Because every up-to-date node needs to validate all current transactions, even though we significantly reduce the long term blockchain bloat problem in terms of disk space used, and bandwith to download the blockchain from scratch, there will still be a bottleneck in terms of CPU for processing data on all chains, and the bandwith of having to receive and process current transactions for all chains. But since nodes don't need to validate past child chain transactions that have already been pruned, overall downloading the blockchain from scratch should be faster and less CPU intensive.

- The forging chain which all nodes share guarantees security, even for child chains that don't have many users and have transactions only occassionally. In return, each of the child chains gets the ability to be pruned. Child chains no longer need to keep all their old data going back to genesis in order to be secure, because they do not forge.

- As a first step, we will start with just the forging main chain, and the NXT chain as a single child chain to it, and perhaps a test child chain. Once we have this working, we implement the features required to be able to dynamically create a new child chain, or edit the properties of existing child chains.


Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Tosch110 on February 08, 2016, 09:09:05 pm
We have been brainstorming the Nxt 2.0 design for some time now, and here is our current proposal. This is a high level summary, and many details are not yet known, more specific design decisions will be made as the development moves along. What we propose is a significant architectural change, not just a bundle of features. And it will take us some time to get there.

- A new main chain will be created, on which NXT becomes a token used for forging only, "forgingNXT". The current NXT ecosystem will become a child chain, preserving all features and holdings except the ability to forge. At the hard fork block, each NXT owner will have his NXT converted to both tokens in 1:1 ratio, and all other holdings migrated to the NXT child chain.

- It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT, so small stakeholders not interested in forging may decide to sell their fNXT to large stakeholders running forging nodes. This would lead to some centralization, but also to a higher percentage of the (f)NXT stakeholders forging and thus securing the complete Nxt ecosystem.

Wow, I have to let this sink for a while. This is a huge change. I can see the benefits of it. What does "each NXT owner will have his NXT converted to both tokens" mean? That if I hold 10,000 NXT I would receive 10,000 NXT and 10,000 fNXT?

I am a little skeptic but I think you have put much thought into it. So I assume correctly that "official" Nxt childchain looks very similar to the current chain? But there is a meta "fNxt" chain above this, which holds and maintains the fNXT? Need to think this through and am looking forward to more discussions about this concept!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 08, 2016, 09:19:54 pm
I don't understand the ChildchainBlock things. So basically NXT blocks will just become data attached to special transactions into the fNXT blockchain ? If yes, how the fees is pay and by who ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 08, 2016, 09:23:57 pm
Sounds interesting.

Which transaction types will be preserved on the forging chain?

What sort of mechanism can be implemented to exchange NXT to fNXT and back?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 08, 2016, 09:51:29 pm
Have you considered cross chaining? Since there is a mother chain for forgning, will there be a bridge chain as well?

 I assume some children will be public while others will be permissioned. Would it be sensible to keep the tx in the mother chained pruned from the start? What I mean is that you could still forge a childs' records but not leak any data at all from the child, i.e records in the mother will only be a signed hash which can be used to validate the history of the child.

Asking for a friend.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 08, 2016, 09:57:15 pm
Economically, I think this make sense (from a first read).

Current forging do not yield a lot of profit. So the official NXT child chain should not be very much affected at the fork. I see that fNXT would take value eventually as more and more child chain are registered. Actually, at fork, probably the fNXT will drop in value compare to NXT. Indeed, there is a lot of current NXT that do not forge, so those extra fNXT might be sold after the fork.

If I understand correctly, the official NXT child chain will be the only chain who will always be process no matter the market dept of the fNXT/NXT? Because, I understand that some child chain could stop functionning if this dept is empty, and of course this should never happen on the official NXT child chain.

Overall, I'm not so sure what will be the main difference between the official NXT child chain and the other child chain. What are the avantage of using the main NXT child chain instead another child chain?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: apenzl on February 09, 2016, 12:04:14 am
Very interesting.

Anyone can create a ChildchainBlock transaction. However, it is up to the forgers that create blocks on the main chain to decide whether to include this ChildchainBlock transaction in a block.

(..)

- The exchange rate of child chain token to fNXT will therefore be determined by market forces. If no-one is willing to include a child chain transaction in a ChildchainBlock, it would mean that the fee offered in native token is not considered equivalent to the required minimum fNXT fee for this particular transaction, and such transaction will expire unconfirmed. If the value of the child chain native token drops to zero, no-one will be willing to create ChildchainBlocks for it, and transaction processing on this childchain will stop.

Can forgers choose individually which ChildchainBlocks they want to forge?

Let’s say a business creates a sidechain, offers a service, charges users in a native token (would this be an MS currency?) but the business also runs its own forging node. Could this business make its forging node include all childchain transactions from its own childchain? Or does the childchain need consensus among all fNXT to get transactions processed?

The business might want to spend money earned via the childchain service to cover costs for its own forging node, even if forging the childchainblocks earns them no fNXT. If consensus among all forging nodes are needed to get transactions processed, could the business itself pay extra rewards to the forgers who forge their (fee-less) ChildchainBlocks? In other words; Charging users for transactions is not the only way to make money. Is there a way for a business to cover transaction costs for their users?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LibertyNow on February 09, 2016, 12:16:17 am
What problem are we trying to solve?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 09, 2016, 12:48:41 am
What problem are we trying to solve?

Blockchain bloat and scalability, I think.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 09, 2016, 01:27:43 am
The fees are interesting.  After reading it a few times, I think I understand how it is supposed to work.  Fees on a child chain are paid in its native token and paid to the chain creator.  However, when a fee is paid, the creator of the chain also pays a fee of at least the minimal fNXT needed.  So every time a transaction happens, the creator needs fNXT, but will receive the chain's native coins.

Interesting way to handle this
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: komputor on February 09, 2016, 04:19:47 am
This is quite a big change. Noib question: how are ms tokens and child chains different from each other? Functionally speaking. What benefits are there to child chains over creating ms currencies?

Since each child chain will inherit the same properties as the current main nxt system, does this mean that each new child chain becomes a dependent sub-economy, but essentially just a clone of the original nxt design?

From what I now gather, this will allow for multiple public and private blockchains ecosystems to run simultaneously under one bucket. How does this benefit the creators of these side chains? Why would they choose to create a nxt side chain instead of just a clone?

In the current model, the fees goes to the forgers. In the child chain model, who gets all the fees for all the transactions in a particular child chain? The creator? Then who will get all the fees currently being generated in the main nxt child chain?


Sent from my ASUS_Z00LD using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jabo38 on February 09, 2016, 04:31:12 am
What's the advantage for me to build on a child chain verses the main chain?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lovely89 on February 09, 2016, 06:16:31 am
In the current model, the fees goes to the forgers. In the child chain model, who gets all the fees for all the transactions in a particular child chain? The creator? Then who will get all the fees currently being generated in the main nxt child chain?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00LD using Tapatalk

All fees go to the forgers via fnxt. Therefore fnxt will hold value because it's needed as fees to secure the network. How the fnxt is bought or given to the forgers, I don't know. If it's up to the creator, then I too am wondering who will pay fees for the current nxt chain (unless there is some sort of peg?).

If it is paid by the users of the chain, do they require to hold fnxt purely for fees?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 06:40:30 am
I will try to give my simplified understanding of the idea:
At the moment of time all nxters will have 2 coins instead of one (I call them Forgies and Coinies). If you had 10000 NXT you will get 10000 Forgies and 10000 Coinies. You can forge with Forgies and have normal NXT experience with Coinies. Surpisingly Coinies can be converted to Forgies 1:1 so we will have 2x amount of Forgies now.
Now someone may create another coin (let's call it Monies). Those Monies can be traded and moved around by Monie users and fees are being payed in Monies too. But in order to snapshot this activity in the blockchain someone should pay some Forgies to the forgers.

Now my concerns about this design:
1. It looks like a Monetary System done right. Thanks for it.
2. Who will be paying Forgies (fNXT) for writing the sidechain blocks into blockchain? If you will require sidechain users to do it the design will be as unusable as current implementation of MS. Each user will need to store some Forgies together with his Monies in his wallet. It is not user friendly at all.
3. This decision may be economically devastatable for NXT. Right now forging is not profitable but it is connected to the value of the NXT token such as divs payment, messaging, permanent storage and currency features. In the new design the Forgie token cannot do anything but forging. It cannot be used for anything hence the price will be nearing zero (and do not forget 2x supply). I expect each Forgie price to set at 1/10 of NXT price at the fork moment and declining in the future leading to lower blockchain security.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sabertooth on February 09, 2016, 07:01:41 am
I will try to give my simplified understanding of the idea:
At the moment of time all nxters will have 2 coins instead of one (I call them Forgies and Coinies). If you had 10000 NXT you will get 10000 Forgies and 10000 Coinies. You can forge with Forgies and have normal NXT experience with Coinies. Surpisingly Coinies can be converted to Forgies 1:1 so we will have 2x amount of Forgies now.
Now someone may create another coin (let's call it Monies). Those Monies can be traded and moved around by Monie users and fees are being payed in Monies too. But in order to snapshot this activity in the blockchain someone should pay some Forgies to the forgers.

Now my concerns about this design:
1. It looks like a Monetary System done right. Thanks for it.
2. Who will be paying Forgies (fNXT) for writing the sidechain blocks into blockchain? If you will require sidechain users to do it the design will be as unusable as current implementation of MS. Each user will need to store some Forgies together with his Monies in his wallet. It is not user friendly at all.
3. This decision may be economically devastatable for NXT. Right now forging is not profitable but it is connected to the value of the NXT token such as divs payment, messaging, permanent storage and currency features. In the new design the Forgie token cannot do anything but forging. It cannot be used for anything hence the price will be nearing zero (and do not forget 2x supply). I expect each Forgie price to set at 1/10 of NXT price at the fork moment and declining in the future leading to lower blockchain security.
If that is the case then forget asset/asset because that would just be one less purpose for coinies. Which would leave things like Aliases and sending messages? So why would anybody keep more than a few bucks worth of coinies at any given time? Even 2 million users with $5 in NXT would mean coinies would really never go anywhere.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 07:19:30 am
I will try to give my simplified understanding of the idea:
At the moment of time all nxters will have 2 coins instead of one (I call them Forgies and Coinies). If you had 10000 NXT you will get 10000 Forgies and 10000 Coinies. You can forge with Forgies and have normal NXT experience with Coinies. Surpisingly Coinies can be converted to Forgies 1:1 so we will have 2x amount of Forgies now.
Now someone may create another coin (let's call it Monies). Those Monies can be traded and moved around by Monie users and fees are being payed in Monies too. But in order to snapshot this activity in the blockchain someone should pay some Forgies to the forgers.

Now my concerns about this design:
1. It looks like a Monetary System done right. Thanks for it.
2. Who will be paying Forgies (fNXT) for writing the sidechain blocks into blockchain? If you will require sidechain users to do it the design will be as unusable as current implementation of MS. Each user will need to store some Forgies together with his Monies in his wallet. It is not user friendly at all.
3. This decision may be economically devastatable for NXT. Right now forging is not profitable but it is connected to the value of the NXT token such as divs payment, messaging, permanent storage and currency features. In the new design the Forgie token cannot do anything but forging. It cannot be used for anything hence the price will be nearing zero (and do not forget 2x supply). I expect each Forgie price to set at 1/10 of NXT price at the fork moment and declining in the future leading to lower blockchain security.
If that is the case then forget asset/asset because that would just be one less purpose for coinies. Which would leave things like Aliases and sending messages? So why would anybody keep more than a few bucks worth of coinies at any given time? Even 2 million users with $5 in NXT would mean coinies would really never go anywhere.
I don't think Coinie value will be hurt much. Many people do not bother forging. And Bitcoin does not have any functionality but sending and still it has nice value for people.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sabertooth on February 09, 2016, 07:24:59 am
NXT can do that now so why complicate things even more? What is the extra utility gained?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 07:26:48 am
NXT can do that now so why complicate things even more? What is the extra utility gained?
Proper implementation of Monetary System and almost zero blockchain bloat.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 09, 2016, 07:29:55 am
By the first look and reading it few times, I would say leave NXT alone, as it is now. All stuff with sidechains and if they will have own coin for their chain fees, looks great. I have in mind one real world use case, which is impossible to do with today NXT system, but sidechain with their internal fees solves my problem. No problem for sidechain to pay for main chain in NXT for securing it :) That could be solved by business project.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sabertooth on February 09, 2016, 07:36:25 am
NXT can do that now so why complicate things even more? What is the extra utility gained?
Proper implementation of Monetary System and almost zero blockchain bloat.

I'm not talking about the MS/chain tech, I'm talking about splitting the tokens, I did not really see an explanation for it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 07:37:35 am
NXT can do that now so why complicate things even more? What is the extra utility gained?
Proper implementation of Monetary System and almost zero blockchain bloat.

I'm not talking about the MS/chain tech, I'm talking about splitting the tokens, I did not really see an explanation for it.

It allows you to prune the existing NXT blockchain to the bare minimum.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sabertooth on February 09, 2016, 07:47:29 am
NXT can do that now so why complicate things even more? What is the extra utility gained?
Proper implementation of Monetary System and almost zero blockchain bloat.

I'm not talking about the MS/chain tech, I'm talking about splitting the tokens, I did not really see an explanation for it.



It allows you to prune the existing NXT blockchain to the bare minimum.

So NXT gets relegated to a MS like currency then?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 07:48:37 am

It allows you to prune the existing NXT blockchain to the bare minimum.

All this pruning madness is not really as forward looking as you think. Nodes are nodes, they can retain the full history of a bloated blockchain. As previously mentioned, you don't need any data leak into the mother, just pure validation and hashes, but the children probably don't need it [Pruning], especially since there are so many of them which probably distributes the data more over several chains.

Who says in future applications that clients need a full chain to work properly in this model? As long as you have a thriving node community, clients don't really need to know 99.999999% of the big picture, just the stuff that concerns the client.

Destroying data is not a liable way in a system based on saving data. Just hoping someone will actually save it all is gambling.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 07:56:41 am
NXT can do that now so why complicate things even more? What is the extra utility gained?
Proper implementation of Monetary System and almost zero blockchain bloat.

I'm not talking about the MS/chain tech, I'm talking about splitting the tokens, I did not really see an explanation for it.



It allows you to prune the existing NXT blockchain to the bare minimum.

So NXT gets relegated to a MS like currency then?

No, the utility of the NXT chain itself does not change. The NXT chain no longer needs to forge and therefore can be pruned. The goal is that all applications built on top of NXT will continue to function with minimal changes.
Think about it, we'll no longer need to store forever every message sent between two random users, every asset trade, every dividend payment of 0.002 NXT. We just save the state and proof that it is correct.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sabertooth on February 09, 2016, 08:00:40 am
NXT can do that now so why complicate things even more? What is the extra utility gained?
Proper implementation of Monetary System and almost zero blockchain bloat.

I'm not talking about the MS/chain tech, I'm talking about splitting the tokens, I did not really see an explanation for it.



It allows you to prune the existing NXT blockchain to the bare minimum.

So NXT gets relegated to a MS like currency then?

No, the utility of the NXT chain itself does not change. The NXT chain no longer needs to forge and therefore can be pruned. The goal is that all applications built on top of NXT will continue to function with minimal changes.
Think about it, we'll no longer need to store forever every message sent between two random users, every asset trade, every dividend payment of 0.002 NXT. We just save the state and proof that it is correct.

So trading against assets and div payments is all that is left for NXT then?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 08:04:38 am
... the utility of the NXT chain itself does not change ...

So trading against assets and div payments is all that is left for NXT then?

Not following you ... you can still use the whole NXT ecosystem as is just on a child chain.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 08:12:23 am
No, the utility of the NXT chain itself does not change. The NXT chain no longer needs to forge and therefore can be pruned. The goal is that all applications built on top of NXT will continue to function with minimal changes.
Think about it, we'll no longer need to store forever every message sent between two random users, every asset trade, every dividend payment of 0.002 NXT. We just save the state and proof that it is correct.
You should not and cannot splitting the forging NXT and main NXT. Forging must be tied to economical activity of the coin. Maybe you will have not so effective prunning but you will destroy the coin otherwise.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: HCLivess on February 09, 2016, 08:25:50 am
What a beautiful design, sidechains, prunning, slalability. I like it a lot.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 08:29:35 am
Forging must be tied to economical activity of the coin.

It is still tied, if you like your child chain to work, you need to pay forging fees so that forgers include your ChildChainBlock transactions in fNXt blocks. In return you'll receive the fees in the native token of the child chain. So there is economical tie just indirect one.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: superresistant on February 09, 2016, 08:31:25 am
 
Impressive changes and very interesting new features. Nxt stand for innovation, good work.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 08:36:27 am
Forging must be tied to economical activity of the coin.

It is still tied, if you like your child chain to work, you need to pay forging fees so that forgers include your ChildChainBlock transactions in fNXt blocks. In return you'll receive the fees in the native token of the child chain. So there is economical tie just indirect one.
How much such blocks do we expect after the fork? Let's suppose I have 1000 fNXT. What can I do with them? I only can forge (which will take forever to forge anything) or sell. You see there is no buy incentive here. Hence the price will decline dramatically due to broken economical tie with main currency.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 08:50:09 am
Forging must be tied to economical activity of the coin.

It is still tied, if you like your child chain to work, you need to pay forging fees so that forgers include your ChildChainBlock transactions in fNXt blocks. In return you'll receive the fees in the native token of the child chain. So there is economical tie just indirect one.
How much such blocks do we expect after the fork? Let's suppose I have 1000 fNXT. What can I do with them? I only can forge (which will take forever to forge anything) or sell. You see there is no buy incentive here. Hence the price will decline dramatically due to broken economical tie with main currency.

We are developing blockchain technology which can scale to global scale. If people won't be willing to invest 10$ a month to support it by forging, so be it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 09:00:16 am
Which transaction types will be preserved on the forging chain?
Sending fNXT from one account to another, leasing, and trading fNXT to any of the native child chain tokens. These transactions will have higher fees compared to transactions on child chains, as they will need to be stored permanently. No messages, no assets, nothing else. That also means no phasing, no account control, no shuffling, etc.
Quote
What sort of mechanism can be implemented to exchange NXT to fNXT and back?
Something similar to the current asset exchange ask/bid orders.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 09:04:03 am
Forging must be tied to economical activity of the coin.

It is still tied, if you like your child chain to work, you need to pay forging fees so that forgers include your ChildChainBlock transactions in fNXt blocks. In return you'll receive the fees in the native token of the child chain. So there is economical tie just indirect one.
How much such blocks do we expect after the fork? Let's suppose I have 1000 fNXT. What can I do with them? I only can forge (which will take forever to forge anything) or sell. You see there is no buy incentive here. Hence the price will decline dramatically due to broken economical tie with main currency.

We are developing blockchain technology which can scale to global scale. If people won't be willing to invest 10$ a month to support it by forging, so be it.
I am talking about the price of fNXT token. Which will decline dramatically and lead to the lower security of the blockchain and economical fallout on NXT ecosystem. And you are replying with 10 USD donations? How is it related?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 09:04:37 am
Have you considered cross chaining? Since there is a mother chain for forgning, will there be a bridge chain as well?
What does that mean?
Quote
I assume some children will be public while others will be permissioned.
The opposite of public is private. No, there can be no private (in the sense of not publicly readable) chains.
Quote

Would it be sensible to keep the tx in the mother chained pruned from the start? What I mean is that you could still forge a childs' records but not leak any data at all from the child, i.e records in the mother will only be a signed hash which can be used to validate the history of the child.
No. Every node must validate everything, and therefore have access to it, before it gets pruned. You cannot validate whether a hash is correct without having seen the data, and having verified that the data is correct based on the current child chain state. If only a selected handful of nodes have access to the data and others don't, the network will break.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 09:05:35 am
If I understand correctly, the official NXT child chain will be the only chain who will always be process no matter the market dept of the fNXT/NXT? Because, I understand that some child chain could stop functionning if this dept is empty, and of course this should never happen on the official NXT child chain.
There will be no such hardcoded restriction. The "official" NXT child chain will stop functioning if it does not pay its fees.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 09:11:24 am
I am talking about the price of fNXT token. Which will decline dramatically and lead to the lower security of the blockchain and economical fallout on NXT ecosystem. And you are replying with 10 USD donations? How is it related?

Its quite possible that fNXT + child NXT would have lower value than NXT 1.x, can you really tell what would be the prices of these tokens a year from now or base any real decisions on this ? The only risk I see to the network is that someone will purchase large amount of fNXT in order to attack the blockchain but this by itself would increase the value of fNXT and make it more difficult to attack the network.
My argument is that even if forging is not profitable, and I agree it might not be profitable, people will still forge in order to maintain the child chains which has utility and scale.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 09:22:06 am
I am talking about the price of fNXT token. Which will decline dramatically and lead to the lower security of the blockchain and economical fallout on NXT ecosystem. And you are replying with 10 USD donations? How is it related?

Its quite possible that fNXT + child NXT would have lower value than NXT 1.x, can you really tell what would be the prices of these tokens a year from now or base any real decisions on this ? The only risk I see to the network is that someone will purchase large amount of fNXT in order to attack the blockchain but this by itself would increase the value of fNXT and make it more difficult to attack the network.
My argument is that even if forging is not profitable, and I agree it might not be profitable, people will still forge in order to maintain the child chains which has utility and scale.
Let's suppose fNXT price will be 1/10 of NXT price. Now we have half of the total NXT forging: 500 000 000 NXT. With lower price I suppose we will have less people forging so we will have say 300 000 000 fNXT forging. It will be equal to 30  million NXT or 300000 USD. To have 50% stake you will need 15 million NXT or 150000 USD. Not a small amount but remember that with this amount you can attack fNXT and get a much bigger main NXT control. So with 150k USD you will be able to destroy 8m USD economics and probably repay your expences back.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 09:27:30 am
Can forgers choose individually which ChildchainBlocks they want to forge?
They should be able to, just like now they can select which transactions to include.
Quote
Let’s say a business creates a sidechain, offers a service, charges users in a native token (would this be an MS currency?) but the business also runs its own forging node. Could this business make its forging node include all childchain transactions from its own childchain? Or does the childchain need consensus among all fNXT to get transactions processed?
The only consensus needed should be that the fee in fNXT received by the block forger (and paid by the ChildchainBlock creator) is at least the minimum required based on the specific transaction types and sizes. When the forger and the creator are the same, we have the same situation as now, that a forger can include his own transactions for free. We may have to adopt the same protection measures, spread back the fees to the previous few forgers.

Quote
The business might want to spend money earned via the childchain service to cover costs for its own forging node, even if forging the childchainblocks earns them no fNXT. If consensus among all forging nodes are needed to get transactions processed, could the business itself pay extra rewards to the forgers who forge their (fee-less) ChildchainBlocks? In other words; Charging users for transactions is not the only way to make money. Is there a way for a business to cover transaction costs for their users?
I guess yes, the consensus required is that the forger has received the fee in fNXT. Whether the creator of the child chain block got anything in return, doesn't matter. If such a business is willing to pay fees in fNXT to whomever happens to forge the next block, sufficient to cover the minimum, the actual child chain transactions can be submitted with 0 native token fees.

I was thinking though that the client (the UI) should suggest a fee, in the native token, based on the current market rate as determined by recent trade history for that token vs fNXT. Obviously in this case it will not work, need to do some special case about it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 09:28:29 am
Let's suppose fNXT price will be 1/10 of NXT price. Now we have half of the total NXT forging: 500 000 000 NXT. With lower price I suppose we will have less people forging so we will have say 300 000 000 fNXT forging. It will be equal to 30  million NXT or 300000 USD. To have 50% stake you will need 15 million NXT or 150000 USD. Not a small amount but remember that with this amount you can attack fNXT and get a much bigger main NXT control. So with 150k USD you will be able to destroy 8m USD economics and probably repay your expences back.

By this logic you only need 250k USD now to gain 50% of the forging stake. Try acquiring this much stake for 250k USD.

Still, you're right in that the value of fNXT must be maintained at a decent level to make it expensive to attack the network. The fees that Childchain creator pays to the forgers should be high enough, looking at the current fees after 2+ years of network running can we economically quantify what these fees should be?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 09:29:55 am
Let's suppose fNXT price will be 1/10 of NXT price. Now we have half of the total NXT forging: 500 000 000 NXT. With lower price I suppose we will have less people forging so we will have say 300 000 000 fNXT forging. It will be equal to 30  million NXT or 300000 USD. To have 50% stake you will need 15 million NXT or 150000 USD. Not a small amount but remember that with this amount you can attack fNXT and get a much bigger main NXT control. So with 150k USD you will be able to destroy 8m USD economics and probably repay your expences back.

By this logic you only need 250k USD now to gain 50% of the forging stake. Try acquiring this much stake for 250k USD.
You calculated it wrong.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 09:32:46 am
Let's suppose fNXT price will be 1/10 of NXT price. Now we have half of the total NXT forging: 500 000 000 NXT. With lower price I suppose we will have less people forging so we will have say 300 000 000 fNXT forging. It will be equal to 30  million NXT or 300000 USD. To have 50% stake you will need 15 million NXT or 150000 USD. Not a small amount but remember that with this amount you can attack fNXT and get a much bigger main NXT control. So with 150k USD you will be able to destroy 8m USD economics and probably repay your expences back.

By this logic you only need 250k USD now to gain 50% of the forging stake. Try acquiring this much stake for 250k USD.
You calculated it wrong.

Can you explain?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 09:33:15 am
The fees are interesting.  After reading it a few times, I think I understand how it is supposed to work.  Fees on a child chain are paid in its native token and paid to the chain creator.  However, when a fee is paid, the creator of the chain also pays a fee of at least the minimal fNXT needed.  So every time a transaction happens, the creator needs fNXT, but will receive the chain's native coins.
It is the creator of each specific child chain block, not the creator of the chain itself. The chain creator has no special role at all, any more than the current Genesis account does.
Anyone should be able to create a child chain block, if willing to pay the fee in fNXT and get back the total of native token fees from the child chain transactions. How exactly this will work remains to be thought through, but it should be possible to out-bid a child chain block creator and offer more fNXT for the same content, and then the forger should pick the best offer.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 09:34:20 am
Let's suppose fNXT price will be 1/10 of NXT price. Now we have half of the total NXT forging: 500 000 000 NXT. With lower price I suppose we will have less people forging so we will have say 300 000 000 fNXT forging. It will be equal to 30  million NXT or 300000 USD. To have 50% stake you will need 15 million NXT or 150000 USD. Not a small amount but remember that with this amount you can attack fNXT and get a much bigger main NXT control. So with 150k USD you will be able to destroy 8m USD economics and probably repay your expences back.

By this logic you only need 250k USD now to gain 50% of the forging stake. Try acquiring this much stake for 250k USD.
You calculated it wrong.

Can you explain?
By this logic I need at least 2,5m USD to gain 50% of the forging stake right now. And 50%-100% more in real market environment.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 09:36:09 am
Let's suppose fNXT price will be 1/10 of NXT price. Now we have half of the total NXT forging: 500 000 000 NXT. With lower price I suppose we will have less people forging so we will have say 300 000 000 fNXT forging. It will be equal to 30  million NXT or 300000 USD. To have 50% stake you will need 15 million NXT or 150000 USD. Not a small amount but remember that with this amount you can attack fNXT and get a much bigger main NXT control. So with 150k USD you will be able to destroy 8m USD economics and probably repay your expences back.

By this logic you only need 250k USD now to gain 50% of the forging stake. Try acquiring this much stake for 250k USD.
You calculated it wrong.

Can you explain?
By this logic I need at least 2,5m USD to gain 50% of the forging stake right now. And 50%-100% more in real market environment.

yeah, I missed a zero, do you really think you can acquire 50% of the forging stake now if you had 5m USD?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 09:36:50 am
There is an awful lot to take in here and a lot of confusion. Please can I urge the TNSSE guys, or someone else suitably capable, to create a clear and accessible explanation.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 09:37:16 am
yeah, I missed a zero, do you really think you can acquire 50% of the forging stake now if you had 5m USD?
Why not?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 09:37:47 am
There is an awful lot to take in here and a lot of confusion. Please can I urge the TNSSE guys, or someone else suitably capable, to create a clear and accessible explanation.
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10828.msg208718#msg208718
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 09:41:06 am
yeah, I missed a zero, do you really think you can acquire 50% of the forging stake now if you had 5m USD?
Why not?

Because NXT is not liquid for bulk purchases. You can try buying over the counter, but I don't think it's feasible either.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 09:43:06 am
There is an awful lot to take in here and a lot of confusion. Please can I urge the TNSSE guys, or someone else suitably capable, to create a clear and accessible explanation.
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10828.msg208718#msg208718

Saw that, thanks :)
So a couple of clarifications:
1) fNXT (forgies) price may crash, because people only use it for forging. Most Nxters won't mind because their NXT were also duplicated to coinies, which they will use as they use current NXT. Hopefully they will notice very little and the changeover will be pretty uneventful.
2) New child chains (such as businesses might create for their own tokens - MS done properly) won't require end users to pay forgies. But someone has to, in order to keep the new chain secure. So essentially you have a model where a new chain is leased from the main chain, in return for regular (?) fees, dealt with centrally by the business. This is what will give fNXT value. This is the productisation of Nxt and I like it.
3) Who pays the fees for coinies to remain active?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 09:48:21 am
Let's suppose I have 1000 fNXT. What can I do with them? I only can forge (which will take forever to forge anything) or sell. You see there is no buy incentive here. Hence the price will decline dramatically due to broken economical tie with main currency.
Like all cryptocurrencies now, initially the price of fNXT will be maintained by speculation about their future value, even if that exceeds the forging income they provide at present. They could also be traded back and forth to any of the native tokens. This may not be a very liquid market initially, but neither is the NXT vs fiat/BTC most of the time now. If there is increased child chain transaction activity, demand for fNXT should be expected to grow, if not, we would fail anyway.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 09:50:07 am
Let's suppose I have 1000 fNXT. What can I do with them? I only can forge (which will take forever to forge anything) or sell. You see there is no buy incentive here. Hence the price will decline dramatically due to broken economical tie with main currency.
Like all cryptocurrencies now, initially the price of fNXT will be maintained by speculation about their future value, even if that exceeds the forging income they provide at present. They could also be traded back and forth to any of the native tokens. This may not be a very liquid market initially, but neither is the NXT vs fiat/BTC most of the time now. If there is increased child chain transaction activity, demand for fNXT should be expected to grow, if not, we would fail anyway.

So what if you have 100 child chains. Some are the equivalent of rimbit, whereas others have $100 million businesses built on them. Will any of the tokens be exchangeable 1:1 with fNXT?!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 09, 2016, 09:53:14 am
All NXT Converted to fNXT,so what will be the native token for NXT Child chain?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 09:54:37 am
All NXT Converted to fNXT,so what will be the native token for NXT Child chain?

NXT. You get both.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 09:59:41 am
how are ms tokens and child chains different from each other? Functionally speaking. What benefits are there to child chains over creating ms currencies?
Transactions using MS currencies pay their fees in the native token of the child chain they are created on. Those MS currencies don't need to have a value relative to fNXT, they will not cease to exist if their value drops to zero. The MS currencies will still have use for crowdfunding, voting tokens, or just game money.

A child chain has all transaction fees paid in its own token, and this token can be used for any transaction types enabled on it, asset trading, DGS purchases, anything that NXT is used now for. MS currencies can't do that.

Quote
Since each child chain will inherit the same properties as the current main nxt system, does this mean that each new child chain becomes a dependent sub-economy, but essentially just a clone of the original nxt design?

From what I now gather, this will allow for multiple public and private blockchains ecosystems to run simultaneously under one bucket. How does this benefit the creators of these side chains? Why would they choose to create a nxt side chain instead of just a clone?
They get the benefit of security provided by all nodes that run the Nxt platform, and validate all transactions. They don't need to keep forging and generate blocks all the time. They get the ability to prune old transactions, without sacrificing security. And the ability for trading to fNXT, to other child chain tokens, and to assets on other child chains if allowed.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 09, 2016, 09:59:53 am
All NXT Converted to fNXT,so what will be the native token for NXT Child chain?

NXT. You get both.
Okay.
Seems Child Chain much like MS based on current NXT Main currency Chain. :(
Things become more complicated.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: icoin on February 09, 2016, 10:01:26 am
Great initiative.
Does the child chain have flexibility?
For example, does a child chain would be flexible enough to implement quantum resistant crypto for its child blocks, or implement smart contracts? Etc etc..
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 09, 2016, 10:04:04 am
I am still trying to determine what role the native NXT coins role will be...

 - No longer plays a role in forging
 - Child chains are able to use all the features of NXT
 - Child chains will move onto centralized exchanges and will have BTC pairings. Furthermore superBTC will be able to trade with child chains.
 - Now has to compete with fNXT. Some view this as doubling the supply of NXT.

It seems clear that fNXT has a role (while i think this might fail at least it has a clear role), but what is NXT's?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:15:47 am
So what if you have 100 child chains. Some are the equivalent of rimbit, whereas others have $100 million businesses built on them. Will any of the tokens be exchangeable 1:1 with fNXT?!
No, there will be no such peg, even for NXT itself. Only at the hard fork block we start at 1:1 distribution, but when a ChildcoinBlock creator creates a block, he can offer more, or less, fNXT, to the forger, if the market value of the tokens included as fees has increased or decreased.

A business like Rimbit can decide to subsidize their transactions and keep paying fees in fNXT even if the real market value of the Rimbit included is not equivalent, and this should be fine, because the forgers do get their fNXT. But such business must have a way of making money somehow, to be able to buy those fNXTs, if they want to continue this indefinitely.

How a new child chain will be bootstrapped, what starting point for the value of its token to use, I don't know yet. It could be that first just the token is created and trading to/from fNXT allowed, to establish some baseline market value. And if this is manipulated by the chain creator, it is still ok, they cannot continue the manipulation without running out of funds at some point. The initial cost of creating a child chain should be very high, to protect against abuse.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 09, 2016, 10:17:48 am
All NXT Converted to fNXT,so what will be the native token for NXT Child chain?

NXT. You get both.
Ha,seems we are inflating the whole system.Price will surely decline.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:24:19 am
Does the child chain have flexibility?
For example, does a child chain would be flexible enough to implement quantum resistant crypto for its child blocks, or implement smart contracts? Etc etc..
All nodes must run the same code and understand all transaction types. A child chain can be restricted not to support some transactions or features, but cannot add its own features, unless we implement and make such features potentially available to other child chains too.
The "NXT" child chain does not necessarily need to have all features that a child chain can have though. If we implement some restrictive features needed for a particular child chain type, no need to enable those on the NXT child chain too.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 10:29:32 am
So Nxt itself will have to pay fNxt in order to operate. All regular txs on the Nxt chain are paid in NXT. Who pays the fNXT?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:35:57 am
I am still trying to determine what role the native NXT coins role will be...

 - No longer plays a role in forging
 - Child chains are able to use all the features of NXT
 - Child chains will move onto centralized exchanges and will have BTC pairings. Furthermore superBTC will be able to trade with child chains.
 - Now has to compete with fNXT. Some view this as doubling the supply of NXT.

It seems clear that fNXT has a role (while i think this might fail at least it has a clear role), but what is NXT's?
It will be same as what NXT is now, minus the ability to forge. It will have the network effect, because this is what all NXT owners will continue to have. Currently a clone can also have all the features of NXT yet doesn't have the same value, a child chain with exactly the same features will be just like a clone, but why would NXT holders migrate to it?

SuperBTC should become a token for a child chain instead of the asset that it is now. As it is pegged to BTC, it is a different economy, with its own risks.

An asset should be possible to trade in NXT, or in SuperBTC, by submitting the ask/bid transaction on the corresponding child chain, unless the asset issuer or the child chain properties do not allow that. It is the transactions that need to belong to a specific child chain, in order to be possible to be able to prune them, and to have their fees in different tokens. But many entities such as assets will be global, since as I explained every node will need to be able to validate every child chain transactions, therefore needs the current state of every child chain. Which exactly objects will be global and which restricted to a child chain remains to be determined.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 09, 2016, 10:38:24 am
fNXT will be pegged with Current NXT with 1:1 always,right?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 09, 2016, 10:41:06 am
fNXT will be pegged with Current NXT with 1:1 always,right?
No. Market will decide both ways.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 10:45:47 am
So Nxt itself will have to pay fNxt in order to operate. All regular txs on the Nxt chain are paid in NXT. Who pays the fNXT?

@J-L (or anyone who knows): is this correct?

cassius
10:43 AM Who pays fNXT to secure the NXT chain?

blackyblack
10:43 AM @cassius: I think the idea is to pay fees in NXT and forger will decide if fNXT rate is suitable

cassius
10:43 AM Hm, ok. That's actually pretty good
10:44 So forgers will end up collecting potentially dozens of sets of fees in different currencies

blackyblack
10:44 AM guess so

cassius
10:44 AM The more chains are secured on fNXT, the more lucrative forging will be

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:48:15 am
So Nxt itself will have to pay fNxt in order to operate. All regular txs on the Nxt chain are paid in NXT. Who pays the fNXT?
Anyone willing to do it. Unlike forging where we need an algorithm to determine in a random but predictable way who the next forger should be, it doesn't matter who does the bundling of a group of child chain transactions into a ChildchainBlock transaction, because at the end it is a main chain forger (selected by the current forging algorithm, based on fNXT effective balance) who needs to include this ChildchainBlock transaction into a main chain block, and does all their validation again (and all other nodes do that too).

How that will work in practice remains to be designed. I guess similar to how Shufflers work, those willing to do an exchange of fNXT to NXT (because this is what the result is, they pay fNXT they have to the forger, and get NXT from the child chain transactions in return), will run such a process, with some parameters limiting the amounts they want to exchange and the rate willing to accept. The default NRS client should have some basic implementation, maybe not very smart but making sure it does not overload the network (by e.g. everyone trying to create such blocks). It will really be like a trading bot.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 10:51:08 am
Right, so you have regular forgers within the NXT chain, who forge for NXT, and 'meta forgers' who secure the NXT chain on the fNXT chain - also in return for NXT, but this is converted to fNXT at the market rate?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: icoin on February 09, 2016, 10:55:19 am
Does the child chain have flexibility?
For example, does a child chain would be flexible enough to implement quantum resistant crypto for its child blocks, or implement smart contracts? Etc etc..
All nodes must run the same code and understand all transaction types. A child chain can be restricted not to support some transactions or features, but cannot add its own features, unless we implement and make such features potentially available to other child chains too.
The "NXT" child chain does not necessarily need to have all features that a child chain can have though. If we implement some restrictive features needed for a particular child chain type, no need to enable those on the NXT child chain too.
What can be done to allow flexibility?
Since, one child chain might want to implement a feature that other child/main chain does not need, and all features cannot be implemented on main chain, hence, without flexibility, system cannot scale.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 09, 2016, 11:14:13 am
Right, so you have regular forgers within the NXT chain, who forge for NXT, and 'meta forgers' who secure the NXT chain on the fNXT chain ..
- I think it is vice versa: "you have regular forgers who forge fNXT chain for fNXT tokens, and 'subsidiary bundlers' who bundling a blocks of child chain for the child tokens." 
And IMHO it is too complicated to be practical.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 11:18:54 am
Q: Have you considered cross chaining? Since there is a mother chain for forgning, will there be a bridge chain as well?

A: What does that mean?

Concrete example: Could a coloured coin move from child A to child B?

I'm not saying this is important or useful at the launch of 2.0, but maybe something to consider while writing the new implementation?

Quote
Q: I assume some children will be public while others will be permissioned.

A: The opposite of public is private. No, there can be no private (in the sense of not publicly readable) chains.

Is this contraint only due to the fact that forgers must read the full content of the child's transaction?

If it's "impossible", could we introduce another method for allowing private (in the sense of unreadable data for outsiders) chains? This could mean a world of difference to a lot of potential business users.

Overall my point is that the more modular and flexible NXT is, the higher the chance for greater adoption. If we are to compete against a world machine, then at least we must see to it that NXT's comparable limitations translates to ease of use and flexibility within the boundries. Parties who want to foster a baby should have a maximum of choice to make something that fits them without having to rewrite half the software and not be able to commit blocks for validation to the mother.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 11:19:55 am
Right, so you have regular forgers within the NXT chain, who forge for NXT, and 'meta forgers' who secure the NXT chain on the fNXT chain - also in return for NXT, but this is converted to fNXT at the market rate?
To avoid confusion, I wouldn't call those who create ChildcoinBlocks forgers. They are the ones who receive NXT for what they do, the real forgers receive the fNXT.

It could be that only forgers are allowed to create ChildcoinBlocks, but then we are forcing them to accept each of the child chain tokens instead of fNXT. They may not want that, and if they don't, the child chain should not stop, as someone else may be willing to do the conversion, either for business reasons (to keep the chain running), or because he finds the current market rate good and wants to do the trade.

We need the level of indirection provided by creation of such ChildcoinBlocks in order to be able to do pruning. After pruning, what remains from all child chain transaction is just a hash. There is no record left that the ChildcoinBlock creator received the child tokens collected as fees, and what their amount was. But there is a permanent record left that the forger received the fNXT, which is what matters, to be able to re-create all forgers' effective balances from scratch when downloading the blockchain and verify that they legitimately forged all blocks. If they did, it is assumed that all other, now pruned, transactions on the child chains were valid at the time they were processed, and the current final state for all chains is valid, even if the detailed history leading to it is missing.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 11:30:33 am
Right, so you have regular forgers within the NXT chain, who forge for NXT, and 'meta forgers' who secure the NXT chain on the fNXT chain - also in return for NXT, but this is converted to fNXT at the market rate?
To avoid confusion, I wouldn't call those who create ChildcoinBlocks forgers. They are the ones who receive NXT for what they do, the real forgers receive the fNXT.

It could be that only forgers are allowed to create ChildcoinBlocks, but then we are forcing them to accept each of the child chain tokens instead of fNXT. They may not want that, and if they don't, the child chain should not stop, as someone else may be willing to do the conversion, either for business reasons (to keep the chain running), or because he finds the current market rate good and wants to do the trade.

We need the level of indirection provided by creation of such ChildcoinBlocks in order to be able to do pruning. After pruning, what remains from all child chain transaction is just a hash. There is no record left that the ChildcoinBlock creator received the child tokens collected as fees, and what their amount was. But there is a permanent record left that the forger received the fNXT, which is what matters, to be able to re-create all forgers' effective balances from scratch when downloading the blockchain and verify that they legitimately forged all blocks. If they did, it is assumed that all other, now pruned, transactions on the child chains were valid at the time they were processed, and the current final state for all chains is valid, even if the detailed history leading to it is missing.

Ok, so the ChildcoinBlocks forgers middlemen are effectively the ones who exchange NXT for fNXT and bundle txs?
This has to be dealt with carefully. It cannot be centralised (e.g. on the child chain creator) or risk there not being a market for NXT<>fNXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 11:34:43 am
Concrete example: Could a coloured coin move from child A to child B?
If you are talking about assets, such objects will really be global. Whether a specific asset is hidden or not accessible on some child chain, and if such restriction is permanent or can be changed, those are details that can be decided later.

Quote
Quote
Q: I assume some children will be public while others will be permissioned.

A: The opposite of public is private. No, there can be no private (in the sense of not publicly readable) chains.

Is this contraint only due to the fact that forgers must read the full content of the child's transaction?

If it's "impossible", could we introduce another method for allowing private (in the sense of unreadable data for outsiders) chains? This could mean a world of difference to a lot of potential business users.
Not just forgers, absolutely everyone. Forgers don't have any special role in validating transactions, they only decide which transactions to include. This is fundamental to how Nxt works.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 11:41:27 am
Ok, so the ChildcoinBlocks forgers middlemen are effectively the ones who exchange NXT for fNXT and bundle txs?
This has to be dealt with carefully. It cannot be centralised (e.g. on the child chain creator) or risk there not being a market for NXT<>fNXT.
I think by default forgers should also act as such middlemen, at least for NXT/fNXT processing, with some configuration to also enable that for other child chains or disable even for NXT.
The child chain creator must not have any special powers, I agree, because there is always a risk that their account may be compromised, this should not break the child chain in any way.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 11:46:50 am
Ok, so the ChildcoinBlocks forgers middlemen are effectively the ones who exchange NXT for fNXT and bundle txs?
This has to be dealt with carefully. It cannot be centralised (e.g. on the child chain creator) or risk there not being a market for NXT<>fNXT.
I think by default forgers should also act as such middlemen, at least for NXT/fNXT processing, with some configuration to also enable that for other child chains or disable even for NXT.
The child chain creator must not have any special powers, I agree, because there is always a risk that their account may be compromised, this should not break the child chain in any way.

Yes, that would make sense. I feel that the original NXT should have a privileged position, at least to start with. However, it would be wrong to force forgers to accept the Rimbit-childchain-coins. Naturally many forgers would immediately dump child coins for NXT or BTC or fiat at market rates, but that doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 11:52:56 am
Q: Is this contraint only due to the fact that forgers must read the full content of the child's transaction?

A: Not just forgers, absolutely everyone. Forgers don't have any special role in validating transactions, they only decide which transactions to include. This is fundamental to how Nxt works.

Then excuse my unfamiliarity with the system, but is it so that only peers in the child chain will validate and then forgers trust those validations?

The problem I seek to solve is the one of permissioned chains where the parties can exchange data without revealing the specifics (or payload if you want) of what is being exchanged. A group of business users could like to have their own thing going and still want to commit (some or all) validated tx to the mother for a variety of non-trust and judicial reasons.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 12:27:50 pm
There is no trust involved, this is why everyone needs to validate all transactions. First, when a new unconfirmed transaction is received by a node, it validates it and only then keeps it in its memory pool and forwards it to others. When a forging account running on that node reaches its time to generate a block, it goes through all unconfirmed transactions in its memory pool (already validated), selects as many of them as possible to fit into a block (by default making sure to maximize the fees it will receive), creates the block and sends it to some of its peers. Each node that receives a new block goes through all transactions in it and validates all, and accepts the block only if all transactions are valid, and only then propagates the block further. Subject to rules on selecting the best fork, and all other details about forging. But no-one blindly trusts the forgers, or any other node from which a block or a transaction is received.

If only a few nodes have access to the data in some transactions, an attacker can send an invalid transaction (data not matching the hash for example) to the whole network, and nodes that don't have access have to accept it as they cannot know whether it matches or not. Nodes that do have access to the data will never accept it. But as they are a minority, the blockchain fork forged by the rest of the network will grow faster, and on that fork the invalid transaction will be included. That minority of nodes that do know that the transaction is invalid will never switch to that fork, even though it is the winning one. As a result, the network will fork permanently.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: petko on February 09, 2016, 12:36:40 pm
I see an opportunity for simple payment verification of payments in the child chains. It's pretty much similar to SPV in Bitcoin with the difference that the POW is substituted with fNXT POS.

The verifier has the whole fNXT chain processed, and the SPV proof is the child block that contained the respective transaction (if the transactions were organized in Merkle tree, the Merkle path would have been enough). So having the child (NXT) block, the verifier checks that the block has indeed a corresponding ChildcoinBlocks transaction in the fNXT chain, and can (similarly to Bitcoin) safely assume that the child payment was correctly verified by the full nodes.

With this, the SPV client software doesn't need to download the whole child chain state - only to process the fNXT chain. (Yeah, JLP just explained how important it is everyone to run full node, but anyways we cannot prevent the development of alternative clients, and SPV clients are essential for the Bitcoin adoption IMO)

Another application is a two-way peg similar to the one proposed by the blockstream guys - https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf
In fact, since every node processes the fNXT chain, converting fNXT to child tokens is pretty strait-forward - a transaction that specifies the amount and to which child chain are the tokens converted.
The SPV proof comes in use for the opposite conversion: in order to claim the fNXT tokens, the converter includes in the fNXT transaction an SPV proof that the child tokens were locked at least 720 blocks ago.
Of course the problem is the fNXT blockchain bloating. Even with Merkle path, the size of the NXT to fNXT conversion transaction would be log(size_of_the_sidechain_block). And it must be stored forever in the fNXT chain.

Edit: there might be a more economical approach to NXT->fNXT conversion - instead of providing a proof for the lock, the converter can directly lock the child tokens with a transaction in fNXT chain. But have to think further about how is this possible... maybe I'm wrong from the very beginning.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Ludom on February 09, 2016, 01:03:31 pm
I'm very enthusiast about this Nxt 2.0

Edit : forget my questions, I don't understand very well the proposition.

I have some questions:
- On the childchain "Nxt", who pays the fees for the motherchain? Should we wait on free willing of the forgers of the childchain "Nxt". If it's so, some forger will pay and other will not.
Do you think to propose a tool to make pay collectively the fees?

For sure, the project is revolutionary. I see how the motherchain will be fully decentralised, I see how an organisation/business can launch a childchain and take care on the fees (centralised system). But I don't understand how to create a fully decentralised childchain if we have to pay the fees to the motherchain.
It's possible to have childchains without paying fees to the motherchain?

I don't worry about the price of the NXT. It'll be switched between two new tokens :
- MILK (motherchain token)
- NXT  token (childchain Nxt with the established economic activity token)

With our MILK we'll be allowed to forge for all the childchains (and be rewarded with the fees)
With our NXT token we continue to forge for the Nxt fees and we continue to use it to buy assets and things.

But is it possible to create two tokens for the mother blockchain ? One token for the forging power and one token to pay the fees. I think it could be a good feature. It's like the difference between the motor and the fuel.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 01:33:58 pm
- MILK (motherchain token)

MILK - fNXT 1-0
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 09, 2016, 02:01:31 pm
If we're going to be picking names: I'd call the motherchain 'Legion' :
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legion
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 09, 2016, 02:05:54 pm
" " Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block "

[5:37]
If NXT can't be included in a block we are fuck. Because he don't want to make an exception for NXT

[5:37]
This NXT 2.0 will kill NXT "

Since NXT will become childchain like any other, this NXT 2.0 could kill NXT with more childchain. So have you any plans for that or your opinion is "let's the market decide if NXT have to survive or not to your NXT 2.0" ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 02:10:50 pm
If we're going to be picking names: I'd call the motherchain 'Legion' :
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/legion

Not this one, Dave? :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_%28demons%29
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 09, 2016, 02:22:10 pm
We are many......


But, seriously, guys: Slack debate is all fine and good......but even with archiving, the best place for the NXT 2.0 discussion is here on the forum.
Figuring out the perfect plan for side/child-chain implementation is going to take a lot of discussion, and that discussion needs to be publicly visible and permanently recorded. 

Slack is fine for letting off some steam, but real policy-setting discussions should be here.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 02:22:19 pm
" " Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block "

[5:37]
If NXT can't be included in a block we are fuck. Because he don't want to make an exception for NXT

[5:37]
This NXT 2.0 will kill NXT "

Since NXT will become childchain like any other, this NXT 2.0 could kill NXT with more childchain. So have you any plans for that or your opinion is "let's the market decide if NXT have to survive or not to your NXT 2.0" ?

Regarding "Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block", I believe this addresses the situation when blocks are completely full with transactions, in this case transactions are prioritized by fee regardless if they are NXT transactions or other child chain transactions.
Therefore such welcome situation won't kill NXT of course, the NXT transactions will simply have to wait for the next block.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 09, 2016, 02:25:24 pm
- MILK (motherchain token)

MILK - fNXT 1-0

How would you promote the "MILK" keyword in Google ? Maybe MILC
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 02:28:52 pm
I for one will read the OP many, many times and actually try to understand it properly.

I think the key message here is an ecology of connected chains and then we can all argue the details in the coming months?

How about MILCK, Riker? Like magick.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 09, 2016, 02:29:46 pm
" " Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block "

[5:37]
If NXT can't be included in a block we are fuck. Because he don't want to make an exception for NXT

[5:37]
This NXT 2.0 will kill NXT "

Since NXT will become childchain like any other, this NXT 2.0 could kill NXT with more childchain. So have you any plans for that or your opinion is "let's the market decide if NXT have to survive or not to your NXT 2.0" ?

Regarding "Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block", I believe this addresses the situation when blocks are completely full with transactions, in this case transactions are prioritized by fee regardless if they are NXT transactions or other child chain transactions.
Therefore such welcome situation won't kill NXT of course, the NXT transactions will simply have to wait for the next block.

Only if their is place in the next block. Because it will be a competitive market, no way to be sure that NXT transactions will be on the next block. This plan will just create competitor to NXT. Competitor that might kill it.

And as say on Slack. This could kill NXT AE too. Because people are going to sell their assets just to get more NXT before the fork. Have you something in mind for that ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 09, 2016, 02:32:58 pm
@jetboy...that sums it up pretty well.

And, before we forget: one of JLP's strongest argumemts for prunable sidechains is scalablity.

The proposed architecture will, in theory, be able to scale way further than any other blockchain system.
Goodbye to eternal blockchain bloating, say hello to hundreds of baby blockchains.... 

Edit: +1 to Seccour....how will we handle the issue of Assets being liquidated to gain fNXT/MILK ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 02:38:41 pm
Competition and free market is good.
If some assets are sold, they were not good in the first place.
If a childchain coin is better than NXT, then NXT is not fit to survive anyway.
Why do you think the childchain coin will be better? NXT is strong and has weathered many a storm, and been distributed to many users over 2+ years. A competing childchain coin will have to experience many ups and downs before it can become as strong. Why so afraid?

There is no doubt the design needs to be discussed in all details. But making such assumptions as 'NXT will die' is premature and ungrounded.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yassin54 on February 09, 2016, 02:42:53 pm
I think I'll avoid this comment  :D
and wait and see, too hard for me to understand
Deleted my post sorry  :P
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 09, 2016, 02:44:56 pm
NXT WAS competitive until all of it's unique features will be stripped away by child chains. I wouldn't call the liquidation of assets due to an external fork as being free market.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 09, 2016, 02:53:28 pm
Competition and free market is good.
If some assets are sold, they were not good in the first place.
If a childchain coin is better than NXT, then NXT is not fit to survive anyway.
Why do you think the childchain coin will be better? NXT is strong and has weathered many a storm, and been distributed to many users over 2+ years. A competing childchain coin will have to experience many ups and downs before it can become as strong. Why so afraid?

There is no doubt the design needs to be discussed in all details. But making such assumptions as 'NXT will die' is premature and ungrounded.

The place in a block is limited. A large amount of childchain > to the place in the block is enough to kill NXT if they have enough to pay the fees. Because company will not want to see their childchain dead, they will pay the fees. And it would be enough to kill NXT even if NXT was fit to survive.

Allow the creation of competitors that can kill NXT is just the craziest things i have ever saw in the cryptoworld.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 02:54:18 pm
NXT WAS competitive until all of it's unique features will be stripped away by child chains. I wouldn't call the liquidation of assets due to an external fork as being free market.

All the unique features will stay on the NXT child chain, the forging feature will go on to the forging fNXT chain. Which features will be stripped?

Liquidation of assets is voluntary, there is no force that makes you liquidate them. Voluntary = free market.

I think this proposed change to NXT 2.0 is so radical that we can have a split of NXT 1.x and NXT 2.0 if some forgers choose to stay on the old NXT. And this is free market too and is good. The more life forms, the more advanced is evolution.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 03:00:25 pm
The place in a block is limited. A large amount of childchain > to the place in the block is enough to kill NXT if they have enough to pay the fees. Because company will not want to see their childchain dead, they will pay the fees. And it would be enough to kill NXT even if NXT was fit to survive.

Allow the creation of competitors that can kill NXT is just the craziest things i have ever saw in the cryptoworld.

The company will need to generate profits to pay fees or it will run itself to bankruptcy.

If NXT is fit to survive, it will survive with all the fees it has to pay. If it doesn't, it doesn't. The best way to make a competitive life form is throw it out in the wild and make it adapt to all the storms. NXT will have a very good head start, personally I don't feel concerned for its future as a child chain.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 09, 2016, 03:01:35 pm
NXT WAS competitive until all of it's unique features will be stripped away by child chains. I wouldn't call the liquidation of assets due to an external fork as being free market.

All the unique features will stay on the NXT child chain, the forging feature will go on to the forging fNXT chain. Which features will be stripped?

Liquidation of assets is voluntary, there is no force that makes you liquidate them. Voluntary = free market.

I think this proposed change to NXT 2.0 is so radical that we can have a split of NXT 1.x and NXT 2.0 if some forgers choose to stay on the old NXT. And this is free market too and is good. The more life forms, the more advanced is evolution.

of course its forced liquidation of assets ,because only nxt currency holders get fnxt .So if you are in assets you will lose 50 %( dont get fnxt)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 03:05:20 pm
NXT WAS competitive until all of it's unique features will be stripped away by child chains. I wouldn't call the liquidation of assets due to an external fork as being free market.

All the unique features will stay on the NXT child chain, the forging feature will go on to the forging fNXT chain. Which features will be stripped?

Liquidation of assets is voluntary, there is no force that makes you liquidate them. Voluntary = free market.

I think this proposed change to NXT 2.0 is so radical that we can have a split of NXT 1.x and NXT 2.0 if some forgers choose to stay on the old NXT. And this is free market too and is good. The more life forms, the more advanced is evolution.

of course its forced liquidation of assets ,because only nxt currency holders get fnxt .So if you are in assets you will lose 50 %( dont get fnxt)

No. Forced liquidation is when you have to pay your margin call or face your trading account being shut down, it's a brokerage term.

There is no forced liquidation in the proposed design. Your account is not shut down if you don't sell assets.

If you're in assets now, you don't forge anyway, why are you concerned about having fNXT?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 03:07:04 pm
NXT WAS competitive until all of it's unique features will be stripped away by child chains. I wouldn't call the liquidation of assets due to an external fork as being free market.

All the unique features will stay on the NXT child chain, the forging feature will go on to the forging fNXT chain. Which features will be stripped?

Liquidation of assets is voluntary, there is no force that makes you liquidate them. Voluntary = free market.

I think this proposed change to NXT 2.0 is so radical that we can have a split of NXT 1.x and NXT 2.0 if some forgers choose to stay on the old NXT. And this is free market too and is good. The more life forms, the more advanced is evolution.

This may well come down to network effect. Right now, anyone can fork Nxt (FIMK, Horizon) and compete. But they haven't got the adoption or market cap of Nxt. This plan means the same can happen, but that economic activity is used to pay the original Nxt chain forgers. It effectively allows white-label licensing of the Nxt blockchain.

There may well be some hiccups, and I'm interested to see how the dump-the-assets-for-fNXT issue will be addressed, but in general this looks like a way to leverage Nxt rather than compete it out of existence. Actually, it's somewhat similar to BCNext's original intention of having NXT the currency replaced by MS coins (except that it might work better).
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 09, 2016, 03:10:33 pm
What does NXT have going for it now? The child chains have all the exact same features NXT has...but with possibly more (backed by BTC or dividends etc).
All the child chains will move to BTC pairings, who would go out of their way to pair up with NXT if it isn't as liquid?

NXT simply cannot compete and it will be left to die a slow death once people realize it's worthless.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 09, 2016, 03:13:26 pm
Regarding "Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block", I believe this addresses the situation when blocks are completely full with transactions, in this case transactions are prioritized by fee regardless if they are NXT transactions or other child chain transactions.
Therefore such welcome situation won't kill NXT of course, the NXT transactions will simply have to wait for the next block.

blocks being full reminds me of the current bitcoin discussion. when will they be full? if you want to 'solve' scalability thats an important factor.
do you understand scalability in terms of blockchain size or tps? since pruning was introduced it has been a major goal to keep the chain 'slim'. is that the sole reason to move nxt to a child chain?

Liquidation of assets is voluntary, there is no force that makes you liquidate them. Voluntary = free market.

nxt has been advertising to businesses and to people to invest into their assets for a long time. you can't just 'fuck them over' like this. this issue definately needs to be adressed.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 09, 2016, 03:14:52 pm
NXT WAS competitive until all of it's unique features will be stripped away by child chains. I wouldn't call the liquidation of assets due to an external fork as being free market.

All the unique features will stay on the NXT child chain, the forging feature will go on to the forging fNXT chain. Which features will be stripped?

Liquidation of assets is voluntary, there is no force that makes you liquidate them. Voluntary = free market.

I think this proposed change to NXT 2.0 is so radical that we can have a split of NXT 1.x and NXT 2.0 if some forgers choose to stay on the old NXT. And this is free market too and is good. The more life forms, the more advanced is evolution.

of course its forced liquidation of assets ,because only nxt currency holders get fnxt .So if you are in assets you will lose 50 %( dont get fnxt)

No. Forced liquidation is when you have to pay your margin call or face your trading account being shut down, it's a brokerage term.

There is no forced liquidation in the proposed design. Your account is not shut down if you don't sell assets.

If you're in assets now, you don't forge anyway, why are you concerned about having fNXT?

because you lose on half new nxt ecosystem.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 03:16:21 pm
What does NXT have going for it now?

NXT has confidence and believers going for it now, yes few of them, but selling has almost stopped, it has flushed out all the weaks hands, all the non believers.
Any child chain coin must do the same before it can compete, each decentralized child chain will have its own whales that will apply selling pressure for years. NXT child chain will have 3 years of a head start assuming this NXT 2.0 happens in a year.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheWireMaster on February 09, 2016, 03:22:13 pm

NXT simply cannot compete and it will be left to die a slow death once people realize it's worthless.

My God! How pessimistic!
I think that it's worth a lot. It's just that most of the people trading cryptos are speculators and probably even don't know what is behind all those acronyms in the exchanges, and the price comes from there, and that's not so exciting at the moment for NXT.
But in terms of features I think NXT is just great!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 03:23:22 pm
because you lose on half new nxt ecosystem.

If you don't buy assets, you don't get profits from the business of companies behind these assets, you lose by not getting those profits.
If you don't forge you don't get profits from forging.
You can't get everything, you need make choices.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 09, 2016, 03:29:39 pm
because you lose on half new nxt ecosystem.

If you don't buy assets, you don't get profits from the business of companies behind these assets, you lose by not getting those profits.
If you don't forge you don't get profits from forging.
You can't get everything, you need make choices.

 there is a big difference in just forging and doubling up (1 nxt :1fnxt) .People chose not to forge , but now situation is different because of new rule change .
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: wolffang on February 09, 2016, 03:35:08 pm

NXT simply cannot compete and it will be left to die a slow death once people realize it's worthless.

My God! How pessimistic!
I think that it's worth a lot. It's just that most of the people trading cryptos are speculators and probably even don't know what is behind all those acronyms in the exchanges, and the price comes from there, and that's not so exciting at the moment for NXT.
But in terms of features I think NXT is just great!

I am also a fan of NXT!
I have followed the Poloniex exchange alot and there are too many trolls yelling to buy crappy crypto. I think ETH is overhyped.
When you talk about NXT they all say you can't earn money with it, cause highly technical and no marketing and sexy looks, doesn't sell.

But the point with NXT is that there is no super marketing team behind them, like for example Ethereum has.
There are some events planned in March for NXT, but i don't think that it will help in the speed that is necessary.
We have to watch out that Ethereum won't get so popular that they get so much money and support and will be able to develop faster than the NXT team is able too. The head start will than slowly vaporize.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: komputor on February 09, 2016, 03:52:28 pm
how are ms tokens and child chains different from each other? Functionally speaking. What benefits are there to child chains over creating ms currencies?
Transactions using MS currencies pay their fees in the native token of the child chain they are created on. Those MS currencies don't need to have a value relative to fNXT, they will not cease to exist if their value drops to zero. The MS currencies will still have use for crowdfunding, voting tokens, or just game money.

A child chain has all transaction fees paid in its own token, and this token can be used for any transaction types enabled on it, asset trading, DGS purchases, anything that NXT is used now for. MS currencies can't do that.

Quote
Since each child chain will inherit the same properties as the current main nxt system, does this mean that each new child chain becomes a dependent sub-economy, but essentially just a clone of the original nxt design?

From what I now gather, this will allow for multiple public and private blockchains ecosystems to run simultaneously under one bucket. How does this benefit the creators of these side chains? Why would they choose to create a nxt side chain instead of just a clone?
They get the benefit of security provided by all nodes that run the Nxt platform, and validate all transactions. They don't need to keep forging and generate blocks all the time. They get the ability to prune old transactions, without sacrificing security. And the ability for trading to fNXT, to other child chain tokens, and to assets on other child chains if allowed.

So essentially the proposal is to create an engine that fuels multiple proof of stake chains like NXT where one of them will be NXT as we know it itself. However, this allows new chain creators to leverage the existing infrastructure of the NXT network, create blocks on demand, enable inter-chain transactions and fix the blockchain bloat problem. Thanks for the clarifications, so far i like this proposal a lot and i look forward to seeing this discussion evolve.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 09, 2016, 04:01:27 pm
I do get the feeling that some people have not read the OP, so here it is again, just in case :

We have been brainstorming the Nxt 2.0 design for some time now, and here is our current proposal. This is a high level summary, and many details are not yet known, more specific design decisions will be made as the development moves along. What we propose is a significant architectural change, not just a bundle of features. And it will take us some time to get there.

- A new main chain will be created, on which NXT becomes a token used for forging only, "forgingNXT". The current NXT ecosystem will become a child chain, preserving all features and holdings except the ability to forge. At the hard fork block, each NXT owner will have his NXT converted to both tokens in 1:1 ratio, and all other holdings migrated to the NXT child chain.

- It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT, so small stakeholders not interested in forging may decide to sell their fNXT to large stakeholders running forging nodes. This would lead to some centralization, but also to a higher percentage of the (f)NXT stakeholders forging and thus securing the complete Nxt ecosystem.
   
- Child chains will all run the same code, but each one can be configured to have only a subset of the all possible features if needed. The NXT child chain will have all possible transaction types enabled.

- Each child chain will have its own native token/currency, in which payment transactions are denominated, asset ask/bid orders are placed, digital goods are priced, etc. Child chain transaction fees will also be in the native token.

- All transactions from all chains must be processed by all nodes. All nodes will carry all child chains for the last 1440 blocks at least. Archival nodes can opt to store one or more child chains longer, or indefinitely.

- Transactions on the child chains will be pruned completely after 1440 blocks on nodes not configured to archive them longer. A new node downloading the blockchain from scratch must make the assumption that since the forgers and all nodes that were running the blockchain at the time the prunable data was still there approved those transactions, they must have been valid at that time, even though the data to validate them again is no longer available.

- It must be possible to validate though that the effective fNXT balances of the forgers were indeed those that they claim to be. This is why transactions on the forging chain which change fNXT balances cannot be pruned, and must be kept to a minimum of essential transaction types.

- The child chain "blocks" will be implemented as a prunable attachment of a single (one per block per chain) transaction, of type ChildchainBlock, on the main chain. Anyone can create a ChildchainBlock transaction. However, it is up to the forgers that create blocks on the main chain to decide whether to include this ChildchainBlock transaction in a block. Forgers, just like all nodes, do full validation of all child chain transactions included in a ChildchainBlock, as long as the data has not been pruned yet.

- If there have been no transactions on a chain, there is no need to create a ChildchainBlock transaction for it, unlike the main chain where we continue to have blocks every 60s even if they are empty. We can think about reducing the main chain block times in order to allow for some child chains to have more frequent blocks.

- The forgers will accept fees in fNXT only, with the minimum fee required by the protocol for each transaction type also denominated in fNXT.

- When a ChildchainBlock transaction is included by a forger in the main chain, its creator pays a fee in fNXT to the forger. The amount of this fee is up to the ChildchainBlock creator, but must be at least equal to the total of minimum fees calculated in fNXT for each child chain transaction included. In return, the ChildchainBlock creator receives the fees, in native child chain token, paid by the senders of those child chain transactions.
       
- The exchange rate of child chain token to fNXT will therefore be determined by market forces. If no-one is willing to include a child chain transaction in a ChildchainBlock, it would mean that the fee offered in native token is not considered equivalent to the required minimum fNXT fee for this particular transaction, and such transaction will expire unconfirmed. If the value of the child chain native token drops to zero, no-one will be willing to create ChildchainBlocks for it, and transaction processing on this childchain will stop.

- Child chains will compete with each other for inclusion into a block, since at the end the forgers will still look at the fee/size ratio for each transaction and will want to maximize their forging profits, subject to main chain block size and transaction numbers limits.

- Before the pruning, each node must verify not only that the hash of the ChildchainBlock transaction matches, but that all transactions of the child chain enclosed within it are valid, i.e. there is no double spending, and all other validations. For that the node needs to know the current balances for all account holdings, on that child chain. To be able to still do pruning, we need a snapshot transaction, which takes a snapshot of the current child chain state only, without any history that led to this state. Then, after this transaction has been accepted in the blockchain for more than 720 blocks, we can assume that it is valid, prune all history for that chain before that snapshot, and discard the previous snapshot.

- The snapshot transaction for each child chain is created at regular intervals, such as 1440 blocks, by the forger of the current block. It will only contain the hash of the snapshot, not the full snapshot data.

- The snapshot data itself does not need to propagate through the network when the snapshot transaction is created. Each node that already is up to date, already has the state of the child chain being snapshotted, so it can generate such a snapshot for itself. It must only validate that the hash the forger calculated for the snapshot indeed matches its own snapshot.

- It is only nodes that are downloading the blockchain from scratch that would need to download the latest complete snapshot, and this is another reason that each node must generate and keep around this snapshot, to be able to serve it to such new nodes. The snapshot download can be in a torrent-like manner, different pieces from multiple nodes.

- Because every up-to-date node needs to validate all current transactions, even though we significantly reduce the long term blockchain bloat problem in terms of disk space used, and bandwith to download the blockchain from scratch, there will still be a bottleneck in terms of CPU for processing data on all chains, and the bandwith of having to receive and process current transactions for all chains. But since nodes don't need to validate past child chain transactions that have already been pruned, overall downloading the blockchain from scratch should be faster and less CPU intensive.

- The forging chain which all nodes share guarantees security, even for child chains that don't have many users and have transactions only occassionally. In return, each of the child chains gets the ability to be pruned. Child chains no longer need to keep all their old data going back to genesis in order to be secure, because they do not forge.

- As a first step, we will start with just the forging main chain, and the NXT chain as a single child chain to it, and perhaps a test child chain. Once we have this working, we implement the features required to be able to dynamically create a new child chain, or edit the properties of existing child chains.

A lot of the stuff people are panicking about right now (ie the issue of the value of Asset holdings and fNXT) simply haven't been worked out yet, so don't jump to any conclusions.

My take on JLP's proposal is that this architecture could solve the issue of blockchain scalability. If so, then NXT will have solved one of the biggest issues with creating a sustainable financial eco-system on the blockchain, something that BTC (for example  ;D)  will probably never solve.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 09, 2016, 04:06:45 pm
My take on JLP's proposal is that this architecture could solve the issue of blockchain scalability. If so, then NXT will have solved one of the biggest issues with creating a sustainable financial eco-system on the blockchain, something that BTC (for example  ;D)  will probably never solve.

That's exactly the point. Well said. +1
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 04:19:48 pm
I think we can let the fear dissipate a bit. With such a small community with very little commercial interest, we should be able to solve most issues with a minimum of loss.

There are a number of economic and technical scenarios that need to be worked out and solved before one would go ahead and implement it. I previously raised concern about how fNXT/Milck distribution would happen and that's just one of many things that has to be expored and ironed out. There should also be a discussion about how much of a concern bloat is, who says every user needs to sustain their own local copy of a full blockchain in the first place? Will bloat really be a problem for nodes? Are there other ways to mitigate bloat? Should children be more flexible and radical then hitherto suggested? What is the true role of the motherchain? Forging only? What effects can pruning have on a public archive?

Let's not also forget that devs have a lot of stake, both literally and figuratiely. They don't want to do anything that ruins their own efforts and posessions.

EDIT: Neawanna, I ilke your question. Less tx in-block and faster confirm times makes fivedouble sense in this world. This also makes sense in Milck economy, I think. Another thing to explore!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: wolffang on February 09, 2016, 04:21:07 pm
- MILK (motherchain token)

MILK - fNXT 1-0

What about FoMoN: Forging Mother of Nxt  ???
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: wolffang on February 09, 2016, 04:32:11 pm
We have been brainstorming the Nxt 2.0 design for some time now, and here is our current proposal. This is a high level summary, and many details are not yet known, more specific design decisions will be made as the development moves along. What we propose is a significant architectural change, not just a bundle of features. And it will take us some time to get there.

- A new main chain will be created, on which NXT becomes a token used for forging only, "forgingNXT". The current NXT ecosystem will become a child chain, preserving all features and holdings except the ability to forge. At the hard fork block, each NXT owner will have his NXT converted to both tokens in 1:1 ratio, and all other holdings migrated to the NXT child chain.

- It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT, so small stakeholders not interested in forging may decide to sell their fNXT to large stakeholders running forging nodes. This would lead to some centralization, but also to a higher percentage of the (f)NXT stakeholders forging and thus securing the complete Nxt ecosystem.
   
- Child chains will all run the same code, but each one can be configured to have only a subset of the all possible features if needed. The NXT child chain will have all possible transaction types enabled.

- Each child chain will have its own native token/currency, in which payment transactions are denominated, asset ask/bid orders are placed, digital goods are priced, etc. Child chain transaction fees will also be in the native token.

I am quite new to the blockchain tech, so sorry if my question is stupid.

Why do you need a main motherchain for only forging?
Isn't it possible to create multiple "child" chains that can be multiplied when there is more forging power needed and decreased when less is necessary?
A bit like VM idea, you need more processing power... ok lets get more CPU, we need less, lower it.

Than you can keep the Main chain as it is right now for Nxt and have multiple "child" chain types. 1 type for only forging (that can be increased or decreased depending on needs) 1 type for other coins and for example 1 type for business that need a seperate "lease" of NXT blockchain capabilities.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: coretechs on February 09, 2016, 04:33:28 pm
I like the concept of sub-chains (do they have to be "child" chains?) but my initial thought is that a split between tokens to secure the main chain and tokens for the proposed Nxt sub-chain is a risky idea.  The economics of the whole system would change pretty drastically, but I do agree it is ultimately better to decouple the price of the forging token from assets/items/etc in the Nxt economy.  The forging NXT would need to have strong incentives for holding and a liquid market, but I'm concerned the free-market result would end up looking like NSC.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: VanBreuk on February 09, 2016, 04:44:47 pm
I pretty much agree with what coretechs wrote above (thanks for expressing it more accurately than I could in little time).

This decoupling would probably have looked a safer bet if the market was stronger. Granted that the market could change before the 2.0 implementation gets close enough, but the concept sounds more akin to a theoretical implementation à la BCNext, less concerned with the market of Nxt as platform/currency, than to the current scenario where forging has a minimal market impact. Plus the anticipation of such decoupling could be a deterrent for NXT exchange.

Is a middle ground still considered in dev discussion? Where the main chain is not that heavily pruned, or current NXT features are moved partially to sub chains without revoking the role of NXT as both forging fuel and currency. In the long run, lite clients are very likely to steal the show in most adoption cases and full nodes should still be far from being unmanageable.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 04:45:17 pm
I like the concept of sub-chains (do they have to be "child" chains?) but my initial thought is that a split between tokens to secure the main chain and tokens for the proposed Nxt sub-chain is a risky idea.  The economics of the whole system would change pretty drastically, but I do agree it is ultimately better to decouple the price of the forging token from assets/items/etc in the Nxt economy.  The forging NXT would need to have strong incentives for holding and a liquid market, but I'm concerned the free-market result would end up looking like NSC.

I think this might be the situation at first; fNXT would likely plummet in value, whilst NXT would retain most or all of the value it currently has due to the services built on it. But over time, revenues from all of the child chains would filter through to fNXT. fNXT would become the big deal, possibly more valuable than any single subchain, and early adopters/holders would do well from it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 09, 2016, 04:45:31 pm
I like the concept of sub-chains (do they have to be "child" chains?) but my initial thought is that a split between tokens to secure the main chain and tokens for the proposed Nxt sub-chain is a risky idea.  The economics of the whole system would change pretty drastically, but I do agree it is ultimately better to decouple the price of the forging token from assets/items/etc in the Nxt economy.  The forging NXT would need to have strong incentives for holding and a liquid market, but I'm concerned the free-market result would end up looking like NSC.

In regards to NSC, there is no incentive to keep the NSC.  fNXT has the incentive of receiving forging fees and the fact that people will still need fNXT to perform transactions on the child chains from my understanding.  (Also, in regards to the new NXT token, it will still need to be used for all the current assets and any services built on that chain to give it value)
What I am still trying to understand from the OP is how the fees will work in a user friendly way.  It sounds like child chains will have nodes that support that chain (possibly other chains too?) and the main chain.  These nodes will need fNXT to include the tx in a block while the user pays the tx in the child chain's token (so they don't need to know anything about fNXT) and that fee goes to the node that included the block?

So the value for each (from my understanding of everything):
fNXT -> Forging and child chain nodes needing it to include txs from their chain
NXT -> Current assets and services build on that blockchain
Child chain tokens -> The services this chain supports, users needing this token to perform tx's
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 09, 2016, 04:52:09 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price. But if the asset issuer you invested in has kept many of his NXT (like SuperNET, for example), he will get as many fNXT. So the capital of that company increases with the value of NXT. A problem arises with companies that sold their NXT. I don't think that problem can be solved without hindering NXT to grow.

I don't think it is a problem that NXT the childchain could theoretically be killed by another childchain filling all the blocks. That presupposes such a high demand for memory space in the motherchain and therefore for fNXT that you will profit a lot if you hold fNXT. Investors shouldn't mind NXT the childchain dying if that means that NXT the motherchain makes them rich.

The only big risk I see with NXT 2.0 is a community split. But I think you gotta risk that when you are in crypto to create a realistic (=scalable) alternative to fiat.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 09, 2016, 04:58:46 pm
I don't think it is a problem, that NXT the childchain could theoretically be killed by another childchain filling all the blocks.
If this were to ever happen, wouldn't we increase the block size since all chains would be negatively effected by full blocks (if this isn't too difficult to do)?

The only big risk I see with NXT 2.0 is a community split. But I think you gotta risk that when you are in crypto to create a realistic (=scalable) alternative to fiat.
This is my current biggest fear.  I like the NXT 2.0 idea overall.  Sure, it may need some tweaking and refining, but I like the approach personally. 
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 09, 2016, 05:04:37 pm
I do get the feeling that some people have not read the OP, so here it is again, just in case :
 
My take on JLP's proposal is that this architecture could solve the issue of blockchain scalability. If so, then NXT will have solved one of the biggest issues with creating a sustainable financial eco-system on the blockchain, something that BTC (for example  ;D)  will probably never solve.

Good Point!
So please do not get hysterical, these are proposals for discussion and discourse!
Of course we all know that Backwards Compatibility is an essential feature of any reliable API,
thus there should not be anything to worry about in that respect.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yassin54 on February 09, 2016, 05:06:52 pm
Receveid message from this man https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=154667  :)

Is there a reason that nxt 1.0 cannot be grandfathered in to always 100% be included in a block? As opposed to these "childchains" who would not get this privelage.

If you can reply for this quetion,much apprecied!!   ;D
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: wolffang on February 09, 2016, 05:13:04 pm
I like the concept of sub-chains (do they have to be "child" chains?) but my initial thought is that a split between tokens to secure the main chain and tokens for the proposed Nxt sub-chain is a risky idea.  The economics of the whole system would change pretty drastically, but I do agree it is ultimately better to decouple the price of the forging token from assets/items/etc in the Nxt economy.  The forging NXT would need to have strong incentives for holding and a liquid market, but I'm concerned the free-market result would end up looking like NSC.

Thanks for your reply!
This is a bit the idea ( i have made an image but cannot find the upload option...):


 **********************************************************************************************************************
                                                                      Current NXT Chain
                                                                   Forging and all Features

***********************************************************************************************************************

       Extra Forge Power                                      Exchange Alt to NXT                                                      Lease NXT Chain
             If Needed                                                                                                                          Functionality + Security + Speed

         *****************                                        ***********************                                             ******************************
                  FPC 1                                                            ALTCoin Chain 1                                                                Business Chain 1
         *****************                                        ***********************                                             ******************************

         *****************                                        ***********************                                             ******************************
                  FPC 2                                                            ALTCoin Chain 2                                                                Business Chain 2
         *****************                                        ***********************                                             ******************************

  Forging Power Chain (FPC)

                 FPC3,
                 FPC4
                  etc.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: komputor on February 09, 2016, 05:17:17 pm
What i like about this idea (As Cassius mentioned before) is that it is a suitable adaptation of NXT to an emerging market of diverse and isolated blockchain based economies. The novelty of blockchain technology per se has worn off and now it is time to adapt and scale. If we need to adapt, we need to understand that diversity is at the core of our global economy and to think that one blockchain for all will emerge is a complete delusion imho. In a strange way this is akin to the part where evolution ended up stopping growing larger and larger species (Dinosaurs) and create smaller and more diverse species.. not the best of analogies but i like to think of Bitcoin as the dinosaur of crypto, extremely powerful in its original environment, but when the environment began to rapidly change, they perished.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 05:19:51 pm
I like the concept of sub-chains (do they have to be "child" chains?) but my initial thought is that a split between tokens to secure the main chain and tokens for the proposed Nxt sub-chain is a risky idea.  The economics of the whole system would change pretty drastically, but I do agree it is ultimately better to decouple the price of the forging token from assets/items/etc in the Nxt economy.  The forging NXT would need to have strong incentives for holding and a liquid market, but I'm concerned the free-market result would end up looking like NSC.

Thanks for your reply!
This is a bit the idea ( i have made an image but cannot find the upload option...):




I'm also quite new to this, but I don't think the forging power is the "problem".

First of all, the parent chain (upper in the hierarchy) will only do forging, for everyone, and nothing else.

The children are like NXT today in either full featured (like NXT now) or specified form for a purpose (pure money system, pure asset exchange etc).

They will validate transactions, but only the top parent chain can forge the blocks (as far as I understand).

The problem which is sought solved is the size of the blockchain and scalability. If a chain just grows and grows, it's possible to become too big at some point. And overloaded, like Bitcoin appears to be now.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: wolffang on February 09, 2016, 05:42:30 pm
If storage is the problem, why not change the forgingpower example to archiving. So you get chains that get the old block histories stored
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 05:44:06 pm
What i like about this idea (As Cassius mentioned before) is that it is a suitable adaptation of NXT to an emerging market of diverse and isolated blockchain based economies. The novelty of blockchain technology per se has worn off and now it is time to adapt and scale. If we need to adapt, we need to understand that diversity is at the core of our global economy and to think that one blockchain for all will emerge is a complete delusion imho. In a strange way this is akin to the part where evolution ended up stopping growing larger and larger species (Dinosaurs) and create smaller and more diverse species.. not the best of analogies but i like to think of Bitcoin as the dinosaur of crypto, extremely powerful in its original environment, but when the environment began to rapidly change, they perished.

+1440

A lot of bitcoiners, especially proponents of block size increase to 2-4-8M,G have this delusion for the bitcoin blockchain. Not gonna happen. Nope. Can't be. a) One blockchain is not scalable. b) Individuals and companies will always compete, it's human nature, they will want their own thing.

If NXT technology can unite many blockchains under one umbrella, it will generate more demand for both NXT and fNXT. The proposed design seems a good step in that direction. The devil is in the details, let's keep discussing these.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jetboy on February 09, 2016, 06:04:12 pm
If storage is the problem, why not change the forgingpower example to archiving. So you get chains that get the old block histories stored

Storage in a distributed system can translate to bandwidth challenges as well. Also bottom up operations can get very resource consuming. There are archives already storing everything. As I understand you, you suggest a classic event sourcing solution to this problem: Snapshots. Once you have reached a certain operational size, you snapshot the state and start all over with the snapshot at the bottom. The full shebang gets stored in archives. This is watering out the first generation blockchain concept, so if you go down that avenue, why on earth should any user application have the blockchain locally at it's host at all?

This implies a division where some participants take care of the blockchain and other participants only concern themselves with their specific transactions. The division proposed by core dev is a good step in this direction. Which I personally believe is needed.

Say what you want people, but storage and bandwidth in Africa (or anywhere else for that matter) for mobile devices don't support bloated blockchains.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 06:55:12 pm
This is looking a bit further ahead than the current discussion about fundamentals, but I wonder what sort of restrictions/criteria will be placed on creating a child chain? Would there be something in place to stop me from creating "neawanna's Spammy McSpammington System" chain which is designed to recirculate low value tokens at the cost of filling blocks for the rest of the ecosystem? If there are going to be restrictions on the types of child chains then I presume they should be automated, since having them vetted by a panel of experts would be a form of centralisation, yes?

I am sure devs know better but here is a flexible fee structure.

Model A: subchain creation fee - 5 million fNXT, standard tx fee - N x fNXT per kb.
Model B: subchain creation fee - 1 million fNXT, standard tx fee - 2N x fNXT per kb.
Model C: subchain creation fee - 100 000 fNXT, standard tx fee - 3N x fNXT per kb.

this should keep you in check :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: landomata on February 09, 2016, 07:05:31 pm
@ Jean Luc....3 questions:

1) Is there any timeframe in mind for when the 1st Nxt childchain (sub-chain) will be ready?

2) You mentioned childchain creators might be able to set block times to less than 1 minute....what is the shortest block time possible for the Nxt main chain?

3) In regards to scalability....would there be a transaction per second (TPS) ceiling for the whole Nxt/Childchain system once everything is up and running?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 09, 2016, 07:10:20 pm
I'd better start buying Nxt for the 1:1 swap then! :)

May they be legion who think like you :)

This vision statement from our captain was something I waited for, after the initial TF vision played less and less a role. Now NXT is back with a great vision to solve scalability. That gives me great confidence in NXT again.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 09, 2016, 07:14:01 pm
May they be legion who think like you :)

This vision statement from our captain was something I waited for, after the initial TF vision played less and less a role. Now NXT is back with a great vision to solve scalability. That gives me great confidence in NXT again.

I do agree that NXT 2.0 sounds more in line with the original BCNext plan.  I know economic clustering was supposed to be a big thing and the MS coins.  The MS coins never really took off though, and I feel that's in part because users of MS coins still need NXT to use them.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 09, 2016, 07:29:54 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price.

Agree ,but every assets buyer believed that exsisting nxt number wont be changed . And now we have it changed by 100% by issuing new coin (fnxt),which may become main coin in the future.Nxt was advertised as a platform so every nxt AE asset holder is loosing 50 % share of nxt platform he would have had  if he had not invested in the main feature of nxt "ASSET EXCHANGE".
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 09, 2016, 07:31:32 pm
I am not against changes , i am against new coin releases ,because its already imposible to distribute it fairly.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 09, 2016, 07:34:56 pm
I'm confused though fNXT can't be used for anything except paying fees, forging, and exchanging it between accounts.
There will still be the same amount of NXT which is the only token that is and will be used on the current AE
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 09, 2016, 07:57:59 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price.

Agree ,but every assets buyer believed that exsisting nxt number wont be changed . And now we have it changed by 100% by issuing new coin (fnxt),which may become main coin in the future.Nxt was advertised as a platform so every nxt AE asset holder is loosing 50 % share of nxt platform he would have had  if he had not invested in the main feature of nxt "ASSET EXCHANGE".

With the 2.0 design there is no difference to the case that NXT devs develop a killer feature, the holy grail of crypto for NXT while you are stuck in illiquid assets. That was the risk we had to accomodate with when we put our NXT tokens into assets.

I wouldn't see the new fNXT as inflation. The traditional concept of inflation as an increase of the money supply may fit, although it is two different tokens NXT and fNXT. But since you get an equal amount of fNXT as NXT hodler this "inflation" won't per se dilute your value.

blacky got it right, IMO:

"blackyblack
11:52 AM it is possible we will eventually have a child branch bigger than NXT itself
11:53
but do you think it is better to hoard NXTs waiting for it to prevail instead of attracting bigger players?
11:54
and bigger players will give fNXT bigger weight so cumulative value of fNXT + NXT will be bigger than before"
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 09, 2016, 08:04:36 pm
No. Every node must validate everything, and therefore have access to it, before it gets pruned. You cannot validate whether a hash is correct without having seen the data, and having verified that the data is correct based on the current child chain state. If only a selected handful of nodes have access to the data and others don't, the network will break.
OK. I had thought one of the goals of 2.0 was to help with compliance, but I am not seeing anything for that here. If, for example, my local government makes shuffling illegal, then it's not enough for me to be using a Nxt-lite child-chain that has shuffling switched off. If I'm running a full node, I'll be validating and (temporarily) storing shuffling transactions for the other chains, and that could put me the wrong side of local law.

However, it seems to me it should be possible to run a Lite node. This tracks the state of the Nxt-lite chain, and packages up Nxt-lite transactions into ChildchainBlocks, and broadcasts them to the network, but does not forge. Someone would have to pay fNXT for those blocks. That could be someone in a different jurisdiction who doesn't mind running a full node with shuffling. Maybe it would also be possible to buy fNXT online or something, without needing too much trust.

Does that sound like a reasonable thing to include, technically and ideologically?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 09, 2016, 08:12:41 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price.

Agree ,but every assets buyer believed that exsisting nxt number wont be changed . And now we have it changed by 100% by issuing new coin (fnxt),which may become main coin in the future.Nxt was advertised as a platform so every nxt AE asset holder is loosing 50 % share of nxt platform he would have had  if he had not invested in the main feature of nxt "ASSET EXCHANGE".
If two people both have 1000 NXT now, and one uses all theirs to buy assets, and then 2.0 happens... I'm not sure which person is better off. The one with the assets probably has less risk, since their assets will still be backed by whatever they were backed by before. The one with the NXT now has double the coins, but presumably they'd be worth half as much.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 09, 2016, 08:21:35 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price.

Agree ,but every assets buyer believed that exsisting nxt number wont be changed . And now we have it changed by 100% by issuing new coin (fnxt),which may become main coin in the future.Nxt was advertised as a platform so every nxt AE asset holder is loosing 50 % share of nxt platform he would have had  if he had not invested in the main feature of nxt "ASSET EXCHANGE".
If two people both have 1000 NXT now, and one uses all theirs to buy assets, and then 2.0 happens... I'm not sure which person is better off. The one with the assets probably has less risk, since their assets will still be backed by whatever they were backed by before. The one with the NXT now has double the coins, but presumably they'd be worth half as much.

Its not about who is better of ,it s a precedent that centralised authority can change money supply whenever they want .
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 09, 2016, 08:22:46 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price.

Agree ,but every assets buyer believed that exsisting nxt number wont be changed . And now we have it changed by 100% by issuing new coin (fnxt),which may become main coin in the future.Nxt was advertised as a platform so every nxt AE asset holder is loosing 50 % share of nxt platform he would have had  if he had not invested in the main feature of nxt "ASSET EXCHANGE".
If two people both have 1000 NXT now, and one uses all theirs to buy assets, and then 2.0 happens... I'm not sure which person is better off. The one with the assets probably has less risk, since their assets will still be backed by whatever they were backed by before. The one with the NXT now has double the coins, but presumably they'd be worth half as much.

Its not about who is better of ,it s a precedent that centralised authority can change money supply whenever they want .

Who is a centralized authority here?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 08:24:35 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price.

Agree ,but every assets buyer believed that exsisting nxt number wont be changed . And now we have it changed by 100% by issuing new coin (fnxt),which may become main coin in the future.Nxt was advertised as a platform so every nxt AE asset holder is loosing 50 % share of nxt platform he would have had  if he had not invested in the main feature of nxt "ASSET EXCHANGE".
If two people both have 1000 NXT now, and one uses all theirs to buy assets, and then 2.0 happens... I'm not sure which person is better off. The one with the assets probably has less risk, since their assets will still be backed by whatever they were backed by before. The one with the NXT now has double the coins, but presumably they'd be worth half as much.

Its not about who is better of ,it s a precedent that centralised authority can change money supply whenever they want .

That's not really what's going on. Firstly, you're not losing coins due to dilution. You'll still own the same % after the fork. And then your fNXT get paid by all the child chains that are added - which also will not dilute your share because they are their own thing, like a new cryptocoin that happens to be secured on Nxt.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 09, 2016, 08:34:33 pm
I'm wondering if fNXT will just be endlessly hoarded. If I have understood right, then fNXT will be like a vacuum for all the childchains, sucking up Tx fees in whatever currency is being dealt in each chain. Large hodlers of fNXT would just sell these on and continue to accumulate fNXT, which might not be a bad thing as fNXT would be highly desirable and give Nxt as a whole a good deal of exposure.

That's pretty much how I see it. fNXT won't be used for anything else, but they will (at last) be super used for forging.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 09, 2016, 08:40:05 pm
@sadface and Seccour: Exchanging NXT for assets always happened under the risk that the demand for NXT might rise in the future due to technical improvements of NXT. Higher demand leads to a higher price.

Agree ,but every assets buyer believed that exsisting nxt number wont be changed . And now we have it changed by 100% by issuing new coin (fnxt),which may become main coin in the future.Nxt was advertised as a platform so every nxt AE asset holder is loosing 50 % share of nxt platform he would have had  if he had not invested in the main feature of nxt "ASSET EXCHANGE".
If two people both have 1000 NXT now, and one uses all theirs to buy assets, and then 2.0 happens... I'm not sure which person is better off. The one with the assets probably has less risk, since their assets will still be backed by whatever they were backed by before. The one with the NXT now has double the coins, but presumably they'd be worth half as much.

Its not about who is better of ,it s a precedent that centralised authority can change money supply whenever they want .

That's not really what's going on. Firstly, you're not losing coins due to dilution. You'll still own the same % after the fork. And then your fNXT get paid by all the child chains that are added - which also will not dilute your share because they are their own thing, like a new cryptocoin that happens to be secured on Nxt.

you will loose your percentage of nxt ecosystem by not geting any fnxt if you have it all in nxt AE assets .
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 09, 2016, 08:41:35 pm
I'm wondering if fNXT will just be endlessly hoarded. If I have understood right, then fNXT will be like a vacuum for all the childchains, sucking up Tx fees in whatever currency is being dealt in each chain. Large hodlers of fNXT would just sell these on and continue to accumulate fNXT, which might not be a bad thing as fNXT would be highly desirable and give Nxt as a whole a good deal of exposure.

As I understand it, fNXT forgers don't get childchain tokens. They get fNXT that childchain block creators need to buy on the free market to pay for inclusion of their block as a prunable data in an fNXT block on the motherchain. But yeah, fNXT might become very desirable.

Can tx fees be lowered, if fNXT become too expensive? That would be a great problem to have :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 09, 2016, 09:02:12 pm
Ah. The picture is starting to slot together for me now.

If this happens (fNXT being hoarded) then at least we'll have huge incentive to forge.

If it would be feasible to adjust basetarget (again!) we could reduce time between blocks, so that we could claim Nxt is one of the fastest crypto's around. Then we could get more blocks/minute (Tx/s) provided that there is enough activity. This would be a technical matter, but since the devs say that Nxt 2.0 is conducive with reducing blockchain bloat then we might be able to crank the speed up further.

I believe JLP mentioned that fNXT can lead to hoarding/more centralization but this will help secure the network with more fNXT forging.

This would lead to some centralization, but also to a higher percentage of the (f)NXT stakeholders forging and thus securing the complete Nxt ecosystem.

I also believe tx fees will be lowered, once NXT (or fNXT) is worth a noticeable more than $0.008  :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 09, 2016, 09:25:09 pm
Since everyone here like this things i will have to follow or stay in my one man fork. Anyway :

Will you stop hardcode fees ? Will you let decide the forgers ( in the fNXT motherchain ) which transactions to include or not even with 0 fee ? If no why ? Since everyone speak about free market here.

Same for the childchain NXT. Everything will be prunable so are you going to let the market decide of the fees ? If no why ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 09, 2016, 09:25:43 pm
I'm wondering if fNXT will just be endlessly hoarded. If I have understood right, then fNXT will be like a vacuum for all the childchains, sucking up Tx fees in whatever currency is being dealt in each chain. Large hodlers of fNXT would just sell these on and continue to accumulate fNXT, which might not be a bad thing as fNXT would be highly desirable and give Nxt as a whole a good deal of exposure.

As I understand it, fNXT forgers don't get childchain tokens. They get fNXT that childchain block creators need to buy on the free market to pay for inclusion of their block as a prunable data in an fNXT block on the motherchain. But yeah, fNXT might become very desirable.
Or they might not. Most services will be in NXT; if I want to buy something in the marketplace, or an asset, I'll need a balance in NXT to do it. I also need NXT to pay to have my transactions included in ChildchainBlocks. FNXT are only needed (a) by people who produce the ChildchainBlocks; (b) by forgers, as their stake in the PoS system. It seems to me their utility is much lower than now. Most people don't need to bother keeping any of them. It's not like fNXT are more secure than NXT.

At the moment, if you have more than about 5000 NXT, you might as well lease them or forge directly. In 2.0, if you have 5000 NXT, you could use them to buy fNXT at some rate and then lease/forge, but if you later want to spend some of them you'll have to buy NXT back again. Each time you exchange you have a bit of risk, plus transaction fees. There's unlikely to be much benefit from forging revenue, so I imagine most people won't bother. If you have a lot of NXT, you may want to trade some for fNXT in order to forge and thus secure the network and help keep your NXT safe, but I doubt most normal people will care. I think we will see fewer forgers, at least in the short term.

Another reason to have fNXT and forge is to have some influence over network direction, if only by being able to decide which version of NRS to run on your forging node. Again, you'll need a lot for your influence to be worth anything.

At the moment the same token is used for trading and for forging. Splitting those functions may have deep consequences that I don't yet understand.

Which transaction types will be preserved on the forging chain?
Sending fNXT from one account to another, leasing, and trading fNXT to any of the native child chain tokens. These transactions will have higher fees compared to transactions on child chains, as they will need to be stored permanently. No messages, no assets, nothing else. That also means no phasing, no account control, no shuffling, etc.
What about voting? My intuition says that top-level community decisions should be vote-by-fNXT, so that they reflect the views of forgers.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 09, 2016, 09:32:51 pm
I have a question about this statement:
Quote
It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT
So does that mean there can be more or less than 1,000,000,000 NXT and/or fNXT?  So theoretically could all the fNXT be transferred to NXT and there is nothing left to pay tx fees with (even to trade NXT back to fNXT)?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 09, 2016, 09:36:26 pm
I have a question about this statement:
Quote
It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT
So does that mean there can be more or less than 1,000,000,000 NXT and/or fNXT?  So theoretically could all the fNXT be transferred to NXT and there is nothing left to pay tx fees with (even to trade NXT back to fNXT)?

You don't convert them. If someone sell 10 fNXT for 1 NXT, i give him 1 NXT and he give me 10 fNXT. Like in an exchange platform when you trade BTC for NXT
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 09, 2016, 10:00:51 pm
Since everyone here like this things i will have to follow or stay in my one man fork.
It's early days. Personally I find this proposed change terrifying, if only for the uncertainty. I'm trying to explore the consequences. I won't decide whether I like it for a while.

Quote
Will you stop hardcode fees ? Will you let decide the forgers ( in the fNXT motherchain ) which transactions to include or not even with 0 fee ? If no why ? Since everyone speak about free market here.
The usual arguments about low fees leading to spam still apply. All the more so since the fNXT motherchain cannot be pruned.

Quote
Same for the childchain NXT. Everything will be prunable so are you going to let the market decide of the fees ? If no why ?
Here the long-term cost of spam in terms of storage space should be less of a concern. Bandwidth still is, as is CPU time.

Bandwidth is potentially a bigger issue, because as I understand it there's no equivalent to Transparent Forging on the child chains, so we can't cut corners by sending transactions only to the next forger. "Anyone can create a ChildchainBlock transaction." But this is probably very much in the territory of details to be worked out. The answer may be different for different child chains.

CPU time matters because every full node has to verify every transaction of every child chain. This could be one of the major bottlenecks long-term. Especially if we have Turing Complete Automated Transactions. (Bitcoin has already had transactions that took 30 seconds to verify. One of the fears with increasing the block size limit is that it could enable transactions that take more than 10 minutes to verify. But that sounds like a design flaw which hopefully we'd avoid.)

That said, I would hope that fees could be much lower on child chains. From previous discussions it seems that something like this 2.0 proposal may be the best way to enable micro-transactions that are very cheap while still having the security of the main chain. That's potentially a huge win. Especially in third world countries. For me that's one of the ethical drivers for this proposal.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:14:58 pm
Receveid message from this man https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=154667  :)

Is there a reason that nxt 1.0 cannot be grandfathered in to always 100% be included in a block? As opposed to these "childchains" who would not get this privelage.
It is not possible to force a forger to include a transaction in a block. It is also not possible to force him to not include it, provided the transaction is valid. It would be up to the forgers then, if some want to always include Nxt transactions even if other child chains offer more fees for the same space in the block, they can do it.
 
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yassin54 on February 09, 2016, 10:19:12 pm
Receveid message from this man https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=154667  :)

Is there a reason that nxt 1.0 cannot be grandfathered in to always 100% be included in a block? As opposed to these "childchains" who would not get this privelage.
It is not possible to force a forger to include a transaction in a block. It is also not possible to force him to not include it, provided the transaction is valid. It would be up to the forgers then, if some want to always include Nxt transactions even if other child chains offer more fees for the same space in the block, they can do it.
Thanks!!  :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:20:32 pm
If storage is the problem, why not change the forgingpower example to archiving. So you get chains that get the old block histories stored
Storage is part of the problem, but also the fact that all those transactions need to be re-processed again by any node downloading the blockchain. If we can prune them, we save space, bandwith, and processing time, and the database being smaller will also be faster to query. And for archival storage of old transactions, we use the same archival nodes framework that we have now for prunable data, with more options which specific child chains such a node can offer to store.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:32:56 pm
1) Is there any timeframe in mind for when the 1st Nxt childchain (sub-chain) will be ready?
This is a lot of work to get there, it will take at least one year. And it can't be ready all at once, first release we would just have the NXT as a single child chain and the forging chain. The whole migration process from 1.0 to 2.0 will require a lot of planning, it will have to go through a snapshot at some block rather than hard fork switch like now.

Quote
2) You mentioned childchain creators might be able to set block times to less than 1 minute....what is the shortest block time possible for the Nxt main chain?

3) In regards to scalability....would there be a transaction per second (TPS) ceiling for the whole Nxt/Childchain system once everything is up and running?
I don't know yet. If we have fewer accounts eligible to forge, as a result of forging centralization tendency, it will be faster to go through all of them to calculate the predicted transparent forging order, therefore shortening block times by relying on this order becomes more feasible.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 09, 2016, 10:56:15 pm
There are several separate aspects of the 2.0 design, we should not really mix them when considering the pros and cons.

1. Are there technical issues with the design, such as security risks or new attack vectors we haven't thought of yet?

2. Will the resulting two-token system be economically stable, or can we get into a N@S type problem if forgers interests are not aligned with those of the child chains, or the forging token value drops too low?

3. Is there a risk that the NXT token value will drop as a result, and does it matter, if the value of fNXT rises a lot instead?

4. How to do the transition, or re-distribution, without causing damage to e.g. asset prices and other unexpected economic effects.


If the idea is technically sound, we must find a way to achieve it, while we have a head start. Otherwise someone else may come up with such a platform and beat us to it, if they don't need to worry about possible effects on existing economy and stakeholders as we do. The initial amounts of fNXT:NXT do not need to be 1:1 either, and we could also think of other distribution methods, for example allocate part of the newly created fNXT in an IPO style again? Or issue it as an asset, proportionately to everyone, ahead of the actual migration, then allow it to be traded so it gets some different distribution and establishes a market value even before the switch? Just thinking of possibilities here.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: rubenbc on February 09, 2016, 11:05:07 pm
IPO and money for development +1440

tapatalk user

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 09, 2016, 11:49:03 pm
-------------
Changed my mind, no longer support splitting nxt into 2 coins:
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg209945/#msg209945
and
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg209989/#msg209989

---------------

I like that it would be more attractive to launch your new coin on the NXT fNXT platform.  ;)

But I like it because I am not losing, I will have the same amount of fNxt than Nxt currently.  8)


Doing an ipo for fNxt though would mean taking crucial functionality away from my Nxt, the forging power, and letting me pay again for it to have it back.  :-\


In any case, super job Jean Luc! Riker and anyone else working on this.

You developers are pulling NXT forward like no one else.

Thank you so much.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 10, 2016, 12:00:11 am
for example allocate part of the newly created fNXT in an IPO style again?
NO IPO.
We invest money to all powered NXT ,but now just decide to change them to NXT with nothing,and do IPO for fNXT with forging power. :(
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Evan on February 10, 2016, 05:53:42 am
An asset should be possible to trade in NXT, or in SuperBTC, by submitting the ask/bid transaction on the corresponding child chain, unless the asset issuer or the child chain properties do not allow that. It is the transactions that need to belong to a specific child chain, in order to be possible to be able to prune them, and to have their fees in different tokens. But many entities such as assets will be global, since as I explained every node will need to be able to validate every child chain transactions, therefore needs the current state of every child chain. Which exactly objects will be global and which restricted to a child chain remains to be determined.

Global asset is interesting, but how will this be implemented? The main chain does not have the transaction types concerning asset, assets will have to be created on a specific child chain. Does cross child chain transaction help? Will the account itself be global?

Which transaction types will be preserved on the forging chain?
Sending fNXT from one account to another, leasing, and trading fNXT to any of the native child chain tokens. These transactions will have higher fees compared to transactions on child chains, as they will need to be stored permanently. No messages, no assets, nothing else. That also means no phasing, no account control, no shuffling, etc.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 10, 2016, 06:30:15 am
I have a compromiss solution for you guys.
Let's have an experiment with sidechains and all related stuff but do it on the main NXT blockchain without splitting it. We will have not so perfect prunning but everything else are only advantages:
- No chance to ruin the NXT economic system
- No problems with asset holder
- No chance to lower the network security with crashing fNXT price
- No need to create new illiquid market for new fNXT currency
- We will be able to test new setup without major changes in code and infrastructure.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Ludom on February 10, 2016, 08:59:12 am
This change is very risky for the Nxt ecosystem (but interesting, it's important to be on the top on innovation).

But I don't see so much advantages of this new design:
- The pruning system: the blockchain will be not big
- Possibility to trade coin to coin (childchain coins)
- Possibility to pay fees with childchain coins
- Division between forging tokens and fees tokens (but not totally)

I don't see much more advantages:
- But what about trading assets to assets (or trading between the childchain, excepted between currencies).

- The speed of validation don't grow. The tx/second ratio of Nxt will not change. The new forger have to validate every transactions of all the systems, mother and childchains.
If Nxt attracts some businesses with a childchainthat create a lot of transaction, the system can be flooded with two consequences: fees are growing and the less "profitable" childchain that can't pay so much fees will see his transactions not validated.
This design centralise the system or I'm missing something?

- The obligation of pruning on the childchain and the impossibility to have all the features on the motherchain can be problematic for some projects. How to have the guaranty to stock the information for ever in the blockchain.
I'm ok that if people want to have non-prunable informations on the blockchain, they have to pay the price (that can be high price). But here, no possibility to pay for such a service.

With that, I see a possible attack: the"peek-a-boo attack"
People can pay high fees during 1440 blocks (the time of the pruning of the childchains). The starker childchain will answer to grow their fees but there is always the problem of the little blockchains to survive.

(http://www.notre-planete.info/actualites/images/animaux/oisillons-grive-musicienne.jpg)
The childchains

(http://etlaterreenfanta.blog50.com/media/02/02/858197614.JPG)
The forger who give validation to the "peek-a-boo" bird

Last question:
This big change in the design of Nxt should be decided by the community. Do you let us vote on it?

I hope somebody will be answer to my interrogation. I don't read all the posts, if some answer are already here could you quote them for me, thanks.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Nxter on February 10, 2016, 09:06:50 am
I like this idea of nxt 2.0 very much. Congrats to the devs for these ideas.


-To the folks that say: this will kill nxt I say:

Nxt will become the most scalable worldwide crypto out there, “A true financial platform” I just invented the perfect slogan for 2.0   ;)


-To the folks that say: assets will be dumped for Forgies (fNXT) I say:

This argument is the same than saying: “people will dump BTC for NXT before Forgies are distributed!” 
If you think that Forgies are more valuable than some of your assets just sell them. Free market will kick in and assets will come back to normal original prices afterwards.
Or a solution to this is just issue and distribute fNXT as an asset ASAP to avoid asset dumping and let’s trade it while 2.0 is being developed.


-To the folks that say: this will lower the value of your NXT

Remember that you are getting free Forgies for the value of your NXT today. Some day this Forgies could be more valuable


-To the folks that say: NXT will get a lot of childchains competition I say:

Since when is this bad? Remember that all this competition of chilchains is going to happen all under our nxt 2.0 “A true financial platform”. And at the end there will be a true beneficiary of all this competition: the platform itself and fNXT (which you are getting for free today with your nowadays NXT).
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 10, 2016, 09:22:51 am
- The speed of validation don't grow. The tx/second ratio of Nxt will not change.
...
I don't read all the posts, if some answer are already here could you quote them for me, thanks.
-
... We can think about reducing the main chain block times in order to allow for some child chains to have more frequent blocks.
- I think it's not a bad idea to read at least JLP's posts.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 10, 2016, 09:31:58 am
Imagine a fantastic new asset is being launched. Or a very promising new feature to Nxt's core (AE, shuffling etc).
Money pours into NXT (the currency) from everywhere: BTC, assets, alts, fiat. Everything goes down a little bit as people secure a stake in NXT. A parallel is Ethereum sucking the oxygen out of alts and BTC back in Summer 2014.
Is this really so different?
The good news in this case is that the proposed changes - nothing is set in stone here as I understand it - have been telegraphed well in advance. No one should lose out if they like the idea. There is plenty of time to buy NXT, sell assets, whatever you want, before the fork.
I just don't see how this is so different to any other crypto or asset launch where investors' money flows into something they like from elements they deem less immediately profitable.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: HCLivess on February 10, 2016, 09:40:19 am
Shall we get a sidechain with contract programming?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: vytasz7 on February 10, 2016, 09:45:38 am
I have a compromiss solution for you guys.
Let's have an experiment with sidechains and all related stuff but do it on the main NXT blockchain without splitting it. We will have not so perfect prunning but everything else are only advantages:
- No chance to ruin the NXT economic system
- No problems with asset holder
- No chance to lower the network security with crashing fNXT price
- No need to create new illiquid market for new fNXT currency
- We will be able to test new setup without major changes in code and infrastructure.

Great safer idea
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: OutSL on February 10, 2016, 09:54:49 am
Hello World  :D
can you please add this sentence at the end of all your preceding comments, just to avoid people think that is a suicide  ;D

"This discussion is purely theoretical and this design and concept can be or not be implemented, don't panic, we are just talking ..."

Thank you all and @++
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Nxter on February 10, 2016, 10:16:19 am
I have a compromiss solution for you guys.
Let's have an experiment with sidechains and all related stuff but do it on the main NXT blockchain without splitting it. We will have not so perfect prunning but everything else are only advantages:
- No chance to ruin the NXT economic system
- No problems with asset holder
- No chance to lower the network security with crashing fNXT price
- No need to create new illiquid market for new fNXT currency
- We will be able to test new setup without major changes in code and infrastructure.

Great safer idea


But the biggest advantage of nxt2.0 as described by the devs is the light blockchain..

To put this into numbers. Can some dev estimate what would be the size of nxt 2.0 blockchain compared to 1.0 today?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 10, 2016, 10:19:23 am
i dont see anyone panicking, people are just voicing concerns. i don't know why you push those into the panic corner immediately.

im starting to like the ideas more and more. however i think i asked a legitimate question in my previous post, which has not been adressed by anyone. so again: it has been talked about full blocks. solving bloat alone doesn't solve scalability. given that this is all about solving scalability, i would like to hear ideas on how to solve TPS.
i think it makes sense to talk about it now, rather than to say lets solve it later. this is all about a vision isn't it?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: OutSL on February 10, 2016, 10:36:42 am
Hi  :D
i dont see anyone panicking, people are just voicing concerns. i don't know why you push those into the panic corner immediately.

im starting to like the ideas more and more. however i think i asked a legitimate question in my previous post, which has not been adressed by anyone. so again: it has been talked about full blocks. solving bloat alone doesn't solve scalability. given that this is all about solving scalability, i would like to hear ideas on how to solve TPS.
i think it makes sense to talk about it now, rather than to say lets solve it later. this is all about a vision isn't it?
i agree with you, and i find this idea and concept very interesting! and may lead to to other nice things like an centralized crypto-currency managment tool... by implementing the JSON-RPC in a way that you can controle a bitcoin & Co nodes from the NXT interface... like the shapeshift but in full remote controle... the sidechains can store the datas in relations to this coins... eg; per coin sidechain... you know better than me this things

for the panic, if only you take a look around how much projects cadavers left behind the last code change... and was not big change comparing to the 2.0... i read this panic in the exchanges graphs and not in words...

Quote
To put this into numbers. Can some dev estimate what would be the size of nxt 2.0 blockchain compared to 1.0 today?
the number is = NXT BC + fNXT BC + (n x sidechain) and is > 1.0

thank you all , i follow this because is nice to see the power of the speculation affecting the markets in real conditions  ;D
@++
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yiiy on February 10, 2016, 10:42:38 am
The problem (block data expansion, transaction speed limit, the focus is the first article); recommendations
First, improved incentives mechanism, mining awarded to all blocks of storage nodes, regardless of the number of its holdings of NXT, average distribution, in order to expand the number of users, believe that holding users welcomed the increase in the number of users.
Second, the ordinary client to retain the most recent period of block data.
Third, the expansion of the number of users need to improve: reduce the cost of the industry to a competitive level, the community to provide an example of voting and other functions.
Fourth, all nodes in the system as a whole, ten copies can be backed up, you do not need to keep a copy of each node.
Immature ideas for reference only.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 11:24:34 am
Global asset is interesting, but how will this be implemented? The main chain does not have the transaction types concerning asset, assets will have to be created on a specific child chain. Does cross child chain transaction help? Will the account itself be global?
The transaction that creates an asset will have to belong to a specific child chain, and this chain will become the default for transactions with this asset that do not have a value in native chain tokens. For example, asset transfer, or asset share deletion. Other transactions that have a meaning only in the context of some chain token will belong to the child chain of this token even if they refer to asset created on another chain, e.g. ask and bid orders, dividend payments.

It is the transactions that get pruned, plus all derived objects from chains that you don't care about and that no longer are needed for validation of future transactions. For example, trades executed on another chain. We could prune trades even now as nothing depends on them, but the main benefit will come from being able to prune the transactions. Because even though we can delete past ask and bid orders that have been filled, we can't delete the transactions that created them. And each node downloading the blockchain must re-live the creation, matching, and deletion of those orders again. We will bypass that by just being able to download the latest state of account and asset balances and open orders.

Accounts will also need to be global. Any account will be able to have fNXT balance, but will not need to. Things like account properties, I don't know yet.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 11:26:25 am
I have a compromiss solution for you guys.
Let's have an experiment with sidechains and all related stuff but do it on the main NXT blockchain without splitting it. We will have not so perfect prunning but everything else are only advantages:
- No chance to ruin the NXT economic system
- No problems with asset holder
- No chance to lower the network security with crashing fNXT price
- No need to create new illiquid market for new fNXT currency
- We will be able to test new setup without major changes in code and infrastructure.
So you expect me to spend one year on an experiment that may prove nothing, and if successful will take another year of rewriting the code to get it right?

If you can do it in less than an year, go ahead.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Ludom on February 10, 2016, 11:38:11 am
- The speed of validation don't grow. The tx/second ratio of Nxt will not change.
...
I don't read all the posts, if some answer are already here could you quote them for me, thanks.
-
... We can think about reducing the main chain block times in order to allow for some child chains to have more frequent blocks.
- I think it's not a bad idea to read at least JLP's posts.

Yes, I see it but is that the consequence of the new design of Nxt 2.0 ? We already can reduce the blockchain times if we want, no?

Firstly when I thought that the child chain idea was (but I was false):
- Each child chains are Nxt clones but with their OWN blockchain (right now, we have only the mother blockchain).
- Each child chains are secured by their own nodes but one node can secure more than one childchain (and the mother chain also). They stock the blockchain of each child they want.
- Forging power of the childchains is in his own token (like Nxt right now) and the fees are in this same token.

The role of the motherchain can be different:
- The motherchain is a middle man between the childchains.
- If you want to exchange a currency of a childchain to an other, you have to create a transaction on the motherchain. Fees are paid with the motherchain tokens.
- The motherchain as only to care about the balance of the fNXT and the childchain official tokens. They don't have to validate the other: messaging, assets balance, marketplace, voting and all this useful features.

To validate a transaction between two childchain, the forger should have the blockchain of both (to know the balance of the tokens).

In this configuration, the Forgers can forge in the same time :
- On the motherchain (obligation)
- On the childchains if they want and owns the right tokens

Technically I don't know if it's possible (I think that is what jl777 try to do with superNET) but I see a lot of advantages:
- You have the same advantages as the original Dev's proposition.
- Some chains can choose to don't prune his data, but the forgers can choose if they want to take care of it or not.
- A big part of the validation of the transaction of the childchain are independant. It grows radically the tx/second. The same node don't care of the same blockchains.

Forging become a business, because you have to wait the right forger to validate your transactions between blocks. The transaction between childchains are only possible if a forger take care of the good pair of token. The childchain "owners" have to motivate the forgers to download your blockchain.
Or if you want to be sure to make transaction between your blockchain and other childchain, you can buy fNXT and become a forger.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 11:55:02 am
What you are describing is a system of Nxt clones, that have no incentive to have anything to do with each other. Instead of depending on such artificially imposed need to depend on the mother chain for transactions between themselves (and having to download the other chain fully for that), they would either use centralized exchanges, or phasing with pay on secret reveal for cross-chain transactions. They would have no ability to be pruned, and must keep forging and running many nodes and accounts for security. And they have a lot of incentive to become incompatible with each other in order to add custom transaction types and features they need, without having to share this code with the others.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: OutSL on February 10, 2016, 12:01:12 pm
Hi again  :D
just an historical record for the panic room  ;D
(http://i64.tinypic.com/308if0z.png)
HD: http://i64.tinypic.com/308if0z.png

@JLP
please let us know about your plans for the other parts of the system... there is not only the forging and the child chains that will be optimized... no?
what about the marketplace? we will have something like ebay  ;D ?
and the AE? will have a front page with some professional (free) graphs...?
a bit of good news in this confusion will be nice  :D

Thank you all and @++
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 10, 2016, 12:08:05 pm
^^^ come on, that's a little simplistic. What about the way the crazy ETH spike is pulling money out of alts and BTC today, or just random variance and the innately unpredictable nature of low-volume crypto markets? Today's dump isn't about Nxt 2.0.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 10, 2016, 12:19:41 pm
I have a compromiss solution for you guys.
Let's have an experiment with sidechains and all related stuff but do it on the main NXT blockchain without splitting it. We will have not so perfect prunning but everything else are only advantages:
- No chance to ruin the NXT economic system
- No problems with asset holder
- No chance to lower the network security with crashing fNXT price
- No need to create new illiquid market for new fNXT currency
- We will be able to test new setup without major changes in code and infrastructure.
So you expect me to spend one year on an experiment that may prove nothing, and if successful will take another year of rewriting the code to get it right?

If you can do it in less than an year, go ahead.
Could you compare the "right" solution and my proposal? Let's see some number. How do you estimate the excessive disk usage or bandwith usage for "wrong" soultion compared to "right"?

This "wrong" solution has numerous advantages over the "right" solution so let's check what the "right" solution can give to the nexters.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 12:25:22 pm
I don't see any advantages in your solution, but as I said you are welcome to implement it yourself.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 10, 2016, 12:51:25 pm
@JLP
What's the real purpose to such changes,because of current NXT one Chain can not attract business/applications  or other reasons?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 01:19:00 pm
With the current transaction volume, the ability to attract other businesses to use Nxt as a platform is the main value proposition of 2.0. The scalability is important for the future.

Currently if a business wants a blockchain based on Nxt software, but not using NXT token and not dependent on the NXT economy, the only thing we can offer them is a clone. But there is no way to make this clone linked to the Nxt ecosystem and bring more value to NXT, other than the marketing and advertising effect.

If they can instead use a child chain, they get all Nxt features (with the ability to turn off some), security that does not depend on them running their own nodes and forgers, and scalability via pruning.

An overlooked benefit is also that they get maintenance, security bugfixes, new features and all updates for free, because all child chains share the same code. If the alternative is to create a standalone clone, it will start diverging and lagging behind from the main Nxt codebase, and the more different it becomes, the more work it will be to keep it up to date.

For those who do want a private, not visible to others blockchain, the solution would still be to create a clone. But they still get the benefit of a more scalable architecture, even though they will need to run their own nodes and do forging, on their private network.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 10, 2016, 01:43:30 pm
I have a compromiss solution for you guys.
Let's have an experiment with sidechains and all related stuff but do it on the main NXT blockchain without splitting it. We will have not so perfect prunning but everything else are only advantages:
...
- No chance to lower the network security with crashing fNXT price
- No need to create new illiquid market for new fNXT currency

...

Can't we just lift up the fNXT fees for NXT the ChildChain in case the fNXT price crashes? This would also make the market for fNXT more liquid.

P.S.: If there will be an IPO - even partially - for fNXT I might think about quitting NXT. I came into NXT because I can be user and owner at the same time. This principle would be hurt by an IPO. If I have to buy fNXT to keep my percentage of ownership in the future, I am not fully owning my percentage of the stake in NXT now. I think that many who are not so loud here think like that.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 10, 2016, 02:01:55 pm
Just two comments really quick:

1.) Don't forget we have a nice voting system we could use for something  :)
2.) I am not a fan of an IPO type system.  HOWEVER, I'm thinking maybe there should be some way to opt-in to getting your fNXT.  I'm not sure if that makes sense.  My worry is, what if there is an account with 500,000NXT but that user lost their password (which would really suck).  No one has access to that NXT and no one would have access to the future 500,000fNXT, so those tokens will still never be forging.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 10, 2016, 02:09:55 pm
With the current transaction volume, the ability to attract other businesses to use Nxt as a platform is the main value proposition of 2.0. The scalability is important for the future.

Currently if a business wants a blockchain based on Nxt software, but not using NXT token and not dependent on the NXT economy, the only thing we can offer them is a clone. But there is no way to make this clone linked to the Nxt ecosystem and bring more value to NXT, other than the marketing and advertising effect.

No. The ability to attract other businesses to use fNXT as a platform.

It will bring more value to fNXT not to NXT. Since NXT will simply become a childchain.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 10, 2016, 02:14:18 pm
Just two comments really quick:

1.) Don't forget we have a nice voting system we could use for something  :)
2.) I am not a fan of an IPO type system.  HOWEVER, I'm thinking maybe there should be some way to opt-in to getting your fNXT.  I'm not sure if that makes sense.  My worry is, what if there is an account with 500,000NXT but that user lost their password (which would really suck).  No one has access to that NXT and no one would have access to the future 500,000fNXT, so those tokens will still never be forging.

Ad 1.) Sure, we could vote on everything. But the devs are not obliged to create what the voters want. I think Voting System is good to have. But the most important thing is reasonable dialogue.
Ad 2.) Lost NXT are not a danger to security. And you can never know, if and which NXT are lost. I don't think one can make a strong point for an IPO out of this.

@Seccour: Bringing more value to fNXT is no problem for you as a NXT holder when you get fNXT 1:1.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 10, 2016, 02:16:38 pm
With the current transaction volume, the ability to attract other businesses to use Nxt as a platform is the main value proposition of 2.0. The scalability is important for the future.

Currently if a business wants a blockchain based on Nxt software, but not using NXT token and not dependent on the NXT economy, the only thing we can offer them is a clone. But there is no way to make this clone linked to the Nxt ecosystem and bring more value to NXT, other than the marketing and advertising effect.

No. The ability to attract other businesses to use fNXT as a platform.

It will bring more value to fNXT not to NXT. Since NXT will simply become a childchain.

The alternative is to allow/encourage the cloning of Nxt into many different independent chains that have no further connection with the original Nxt. This means that any economic activity on those clones is funneled back to current Nxters.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Ludom on February 10, 2016, 02:18:38 pm
What you are describing is a system of Nxt clones, that have no incentive to have anything to do with each other. Instead of depending on such artificially imposed need to depend on the mother chain for transactions between themselves (and having to download the other chain fully for that), they would either use centralized exchanges, or phasing with pay on secret reveal for cross-chain transactions. They would have no ability to be pruned, and must keep forging and running many nodes and accounts for security. And they have a lot of incentive to become incompatible with each other in order to add custom transaction types and features they need, without having to share this code with the others.

Yes, I describe a system of Nxt clones. The cloning is a fact in the crypto world. You can't stop it. But cloning is not the only fact: new systems are created as well. The system you propose is very restrictive for outside projects:
- No control on the fees (you depend on a competition with project that have nothing to do with the project you want to use blockchain)
- You can't stock the informations in a non-prunable blockchain.

In my proposition, you propose more flexibility to the business that want to use Nxt. If I propose a business of decentralised voting for exemple, it's possible I want:
- A pruning after a year (not after 24h)
- I can't compete with other business that can pay more than me for the fees.

You say that they would either centralized exchange or phasing. Yes but Nxt can propose a natively an crosschain exchange. It's a big advantage.

I see more business possibility in a system of Nxt clones as your proposition of Nxt 2.0.

With the control of the motherchain, you can help businesses :
- to choose the best blockchain solution
- to sell consulting for the
- to hire some public/trustful forgers to take care of the new childchain
- to buy/sell fNXT to the business that want to take care personaly on their possibility to use the motherblockchain for the crosschain transactions

In your proposition, there is a lot of unknown things that can disgust the outside business:
- The transaction fees don't depend of anyone.
- You can't give guaranty to the business that they can continue to use the blockchain if the fees goes to much high.

But if you say:
- We can help you to create your own nodes
- We already have some forgers that can secure your childchain if you want. You have only to propose good fees to them from your own "official token".
+ if you want, you can natively make crosschain transfers if you want. For that, you have to pay fees in fNXT.

I'm not a developer. I have a big respect for your work. I want to make more for Nxt but I can only give my feeling as "entrepreneur" and as "user".

And my feeling is that your proposition is not much attractive for businesses:
- No security about the cost of fees
- No security to have people to validate my transactions AND I can't care on it myself.
- No possibility to specify the characteristics of my childchain. To make it exactly as it's needed for my business

Quote
And they have a lot of incentive to become incompatible with each other in order to add custom transaction types and features they need, without having to share this code with the others.

You defined a licence for the Nxt code. What should it change? If the licence say: you have to share your code, they have to. If they don't do it, it's illegal, but they can already clone illegally Nxt if they want (and same of the future code).

My vision is that each childchain is like a country.
- their own rules (pruning or non pruning, private or public decentralisation of the nodes
- their own currency and own tax (fees)
- their own services (Clocks in Switzerland or Sea tourism in Greece -> Voting systems in one childchain or messaging in an other or paying some specifics services)

The only important thing to profit of this services is to make as simplest and most secure the exchange of the currencies. The childchains don't need to be fully compatible in their transaction type and features. Because there is the potential to create specific childchains for each type of businesses.
We need also to make it easy to adapt the code to the businesses.

And if you don't give the liberty or the security to the business to use with lot of liberty they'll go away of Nxt.
They'll create their own blockchain (cloning or creating from scratch) or they'll go to solution who give more liberty.

It's my feeling.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Ludom on February 10, 2016, 02:27:58 pm
Currently if a business wants a blockchain based on Nxt software, but not using NXT token and not dependent on the NXT economy, the only thing we can offer them is a clone. But there is no way to make this clone linked to the Nxt ecosystem and bring more value to NXT, other than the marketing and advertising effect.

Your intention are good but Nxt ecosystem have to take care of himself. If people want to use Nxt without using NXT token, it's legit. But what you propose to them is to use fNXT token instead of NXT token. Yes they'll pay with their own token but the forger have to accept it or they have to buy fNXT.

Give them their clone how they dream it. And give them the possibility natively to be connected to the Nxt Ecosystem via the motherblockchain, it's already HUGE for Nxt.

The full redesign of Nxt is not necessary. Think decentralised, the company will prefer federalised clones as a centralised motherchain that rule them all.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: mxxxxxx on February 10, 2016, 02:29:34 pm
Enabling company to run clean chain as child chain or with needed features, currencies or whatever should be the way, if some want to do it that`s good and can bring more good things to main, existing blockchain, this way you don`t care if 1 business or 100 like it or not later and will stop using it for example later. The more like it the better for existing ecosystem. Putting main blokchain on side and creating new main one without features can do more harm than good for sure.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 10, 2016, 02:38:44 pm
Just two comments really quick:

1.) Don't forget we have a nice voting system we could use for something  :)
2.) I am not a fan of an IPO type system.  HOWEVER, I'm thinking maybe there should be some way to opt-in to getting your fNXT.  I'm not sure if that makes sense.  My worry is, what if there is an account with 500,000NXT but that user lost their password (which would really suck).  No one has access to that NXT and no one would have access to the future 500,000fNXT, so those tokens will still never be forging.

Ad 1.) Sure, we could vote on everything. But the devs are not obliged to create what the voters want. I think Voting System is good to have. But the most important thing is reasonable dialogue.
Ad 2.) Lost NXT are not a danger to security. And you can never know, if and which NXT are lost. I don't think one can make a strong point for an IPO out of this.

@Seccour: Bringing more value to fNXT is no problem for you as a NXT holder when you get fNXT 1:1.

With the current transaction volume, the ability to attract other businesses to use Nxt as a platform is the main value proposition of 2.0. The scalability is important for the future.

Currently if a business wants a blockchain based on Nxt software, but not using NXT token and not dependent on the NXT economy, the only thing we can offer them is a clone. But there is no way to make this clone linked to the Nxt ecosystem and bring more value to NXT, other than the marketing and advertising effect.

No. The ability to attract other businesses to use fNXT as a platform.

It will bring more value to fNXT not to NXT. Since NXT will simply become a childchain.

The alternative is to allow/encourage the cloning of Nxt into many different independent chains that have no further connection with the original Nxt. This means that any economic activity on those clones is funneled back to current Nxters.

So i'm right. This update will not help to bring user to NXT. It will just allow current NXT holder to make money out of futur businesses childchain.

There is no way to know if NXT will benefits from it or not since NXT will simply become a childchain. We bring more risk to NXT, just for some people to make money out of fNXT ? This update disgusts me more and more.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 10, 2016, 02:52:02 pm
P.S.: If there will be an IPO - even partially - for fNXT I might think about quitting NXT. I came into NXT because I can be user and owner at the same time. This principle would be hurt by an IPO. If I have to buy fNXT to keep my percentage of ownership in the future, I am not fully owning my percentage of the stake in NXT now. I think that many who are not so loud here think like that.

Just two comments really quick:

1.) Don't forget we have a nice voting system we could use for something  :)


+1440
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 10, 2016, 02:55:01 pm
There is a growing silent majority on slack that are strongly opposed to 2.0. I hope the devs have the maturity to consider both sides as it is NOT a done deal to NXT investors.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 10, 2016, 02:57:15 pm
There is a growing silent majority on slack that are strongly opposed to 2.0. I hope the devs have the maturity to consider both sides as it is NOT a done deal to NXT investors.

How do you know they are a majority if they are silent? :) We have a voting system, let's use it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 10, 2016, 02:57:56 pm
I'm wondering what other people prefer.  Is the biggest issue splitting NXT between fNXT and NXT?

Edit: From my understanding one of the big advantages to splitting them is blockchain bloat and efficiency.  fNXT will be the permanent blockchain and we want to keep that to a minimal.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yiiy on February 10, 2016, 03:02:07 pm
As long as it is able to improve the efficiency and security of payment transactions, such improvements will enhance the value of the NXT system;
Several suggestions:
Reduce fees, increase market activity and participation;
Focus on a project like vote etc. to meet the requirements of the actual use and then carry out the next project.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 03:03:48 pm
You defined a licence for the Nxt code. What should it change? If the licence say: you have to share your code, they have to. If they don't do it, it's illegal, but they can already clone illegally Nxt if they want (and same of the future code).

What I mean is that even though such custom code will be open source and available, the fact that it is not included in other clones or in the main Nxt platform will lead to incompatible changes in each clone that will diverge more and more.

For the rest of what you are describing, I don't think such a system of clones can work, but more importantly I see no technical way to get there starting from what Nxt is now. What I am proposing is based on how our platform currently works, and is achievable.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 03:12:48 pm
Can't we just lift up the fNXT fees for NXT the ChildChain in case the fNXT price crashes? This would also make the market for fNXT more liquid.
Yes, forgers can vote to lift fees if the fNXT price drops. The fees would be the same for all child chains (when converted to fNXT). But of course a forger can always configure his node to give preference to NXT transactions (as long as they are at least the minimum) even if other childchains offer higher fees.

Quote
P.S.: If there will be an IPO - even partially - for fNXT I might think about quitting NXT. I came into NXT because I can be user and owner at the same time. This principle would be hurt by an IPO. If I have to buy fNXT to keep my percentage of ownership in the future, I am not fully owning my percentage of the stake in NXT now. I think that many who are not so loud here think like that.
I am not advocating IPO, I just mentioned it as a possibility to consider. I still think 1:1 fNXT:NXT conversion, based on NXT holding at time of the snapshot is the simplest and best solution.
But it is not something that needs to be decided now, such a decision can wait until the last moment, although to avoid market panic should better be made and committed to at least a few months in advance.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: komputor on February 10, 2016, 03:20:50 pm
So i'm right. This update will not help to bring user to NXT. It will just allow current NXT holder to make money out of futur businesses childchain.
There is no way to know if NXT will benefits from it or not since NXT will simply become a childchain. We bring more risk to NXT, just for some people to make money out of fNXT ? This update disgusts me more and more.

From what i understand of the design change, NXT still remains NXT and whatever current efforts are there to bring new users to NXT will remain unaffected. This change is just creating a meta-layer for new blockchain businesses to "hook" onto. I don't see that as detrimental to NXT at all since it is open source money and has been known for 2 years. NXT is not corporate sponsored and it will never be... but do you think that the technology behind NXT can be used by corporate sponsored businesses wanting to run their own blockchains (Majority of the worlds economy is driven by such businesses.. right?)? If your answer is yes, then do you think the community / network that supported and developed that system deserves to benefit from each system that decides to join as a side chain?

Yes, this design change allows new clones to suddenly gain the benefits of a 2 year old network infrastructure but that is the way of evolution. If we don't create something like this, someone else will and then your dream of NXT as this one crypto block-chain that wants to take over the world will die with it. What you are hoping for is a far-fetched dream of trying to convince every blockchain technology adopter to use NXT instead of a growing list of clones or using their own solution.

Another thing to learn from is Ethereum. They are driven by VC money purely because they have created a system to use their technology to develop **your own private or public solution using blockchains**. Ethereum does not associate itself with who or what uses it, it has just created a system to benefit both parties - the platform provider and the app creator. NXT needs to adapt to this way of selling a technology imho.

Does it not seem better to "license" NXT technology and to use this "license" you need to pay fnxt to the original community and supporters/builders of NXT technology.
This makes sense to me, both business wise and real-life adoption wise. We need to face the reality that just convincing people to use NXT is not going to work in today's world, creating a system where both parties benefit by using the underlying technology will only work and organically spawn adoption.

Take what i say with a grain of salt though.. these are just my opinions.
Community decides of course..
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: crumb-bum on February 10, 2016, 03:24:39 pm
Hi, Jean-Luc. I am worried about what would happen to somebody like me in this conversion scenario. Most of my NXT is tied up in assets, and most of those assets are illiquid. It seems to me that many asset holders would simply dump their assets in order to free up their NXT, which they could then convert into fNXT. This would devastate people like me. Please tell me if there is a way to protect asset holders in such a conversion.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Ludom on February 10, 2016, 03:33:41 pm
You defined a licence for the Nxt code. What should it change? If the licence say: you have to share your code, they have to. If they don't do it, it's illegal, but they can already clone illegally Nxt if they want (and same of the future code).

What I mean is that even though such custom code will be open source and available, the fact that it is not included in other clones or in the main Nxt platform will lead to incompatible changes in each clone that will diverge more and more.

For the rest of what you are describing, I don't think such a system of clones can work, but more importantly I see no technical way to get there starting from what Nxt is now. What I am proposing is based on how our platform currently works, and is achievable.

Thanks for your answer, if it's impossible, I go crying in my bathroom  :'( ;)

The problem of incompatible changes between the childchains are not really one. Each node validate separately each childchain, each childchain provide to the forgers his own version of the NRS.
Right now, it's possible to forge on Nxt and FIMK in the same time. A forger can have a node that forge on the mother chain + the sidechain he wants.

But stop talking of my idea, it's currently not a possible solution.

I have one important question about the design you propose.

The proposition is to make all the childchain fully prunable. The problem is that we need to have archival nodes, but nobody has interest to archive the prunable informations.
You understand that the biggest fear of this new design is the lost of the confidence in the original Nxt blockchain:
- How can we find the archive of the transactions
- What if the fees in fNXT are to high to do transactions on the original Nxt blockchain

Do you think it's possible to create a system to be sure that archival nodes will be sustainable and how to access to this transactions archives?
Can we find a system that integrate "archival fees" for the archival nodes?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 10, 2016, 03:34:22 pm
My concern is about what value NXT (main chain) has after 2.0. If every child chain can hold the features of NXT then what use is there to hold it? The idea of the network effect only really works if there is mass adoption straight away which I doubt will happen. 2.0 does not strengthen the main chain, it clearly weakens it. As a NXT holder, writing on the NXT forum, talking to other NXT holders... I find it odd there are so many people claiming its ok for NXT to die if that is it's fate. This is not ok. Can you seriously image what would happen if everyone sold their NXT because they realized it had no unique value over a child chain?

Turn of events --> Market cap goes down, businesses get scared, people sell fNXT as no income, NXT security compromised, game over.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 10, 2016, 03:39:51 pm
So i'm right. This update will not help to bring user to NXT. It will just allow current NXT holder to make money out of futur businesses childchain.
There is no way to know if NXT will benefits from it or not since NXT will simply become a childchain. We bring more risk to NXT, just for some people to make money out of fNXT ? This update disgusts me more and more.

From what i understand of the design change, NXT still remains NXT and whatever current efforts are there to bring new users to NXT will remain unaffected. This change is just creating a meta-layer for new blockchain businesses to "hook" onto. I don't see that as detrimental to NXT at all since it is open source money and has been known for 2 years. NXT is not corporate sponsored and it will never be... but do you think that the technology behind NXT can be used by corporate sponsored businesses wanting to run their own blockchains (Majority of the worlds economy is driven by such businesses.. right?)? If your answer is yes, then do you think the community / network that supported and developed that system deserves to benefit from each system that decides to join as a side chain?

Yes, this design change allows new clones to suddenly gain the benefits of a 2 year old network infrastructure but that is the way of evolution. If we don't create something like this, someone else will and then your dream of NXT as this one crypto block-chain that wants to take over the world will die with it. What you are hoping for is a far-fetched dream of trying to convince every blockchain technology adopter to use NXT instead of a growing list of clones or using their own solution.

Another thing to learn from is Ethereum. They are driven by VC money purely because they have created a system to use their technology to develop **your own private or public solution using blockchains**. Ethereum does not associate itself with who or what uses it, it has just created a system to benefit both parties - the platform provider and the app creator. NXT needs to adapt to this way of selling a technology imho.

Does it not seem better to "license" NXT technology and to use this "license" you need to pay fnxt to the original community and supporters/builders of NXT technology.
This makes sense to me, both business wise and real-life adoption wise. We need to face the reality that just convincing people to use NXT is not going to work in today's world, creating a system where both parties benefit by using the underlying technology will only work and organically spawn adoption.

Take what i say with a grain of salt though.. these are just my opinions.
Community decides of course..

So i'm still right. Reason that Jean-Luc give are just false and lie :

With the current transaction volume, the ability to attract other businesses to use Nxt as a platform is the main value proposition of 2.0. The scalability is important for the future.

Currently if a business wants a blockchain based on Nxt software, but not using NXT token and not dependent on the NXT economy, the only thing we can offer them is a clone. But there is no way to make this clone linked to the Nxt ecosystem and bring more value to NXT, other than the marketing and advertising effect.

This update will not improve NXT. But is just here for current NXT bag holder to make money with fNXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: komputor on February 10, 2016, 03:46:00 pm
My concern is about what value NXT (main chain) has after 2.0. If every child chain can hold the features of NXT then what use is there to hold it? The idea of the network effect only really works if there is mass adoption straight away which I doubt will happen. 2.0 does not strengthen the main chain, it clearly weakens it. As a NXT holder, writing on the NXT forum, talking to other NXT holders... I find it odd there are so many people claiming its ok for NXT to die if that is it's fate. This is not ok. Can you seriously image what would happen if everyone sold their NXT because they realized it had no unique value? Turn off events --> Market cap goes down, businesses get scared, people sell fNXT as no income, NXT security compromised, game over.

THe main chain's value is no longer dictated by the novelty of blockchain technology itself. Any of these side chains will have no real "value" over the other chains other than the community that is behind it. It is the same as a clone of NXT, why would NXTers go to a clone and support it? Because they no longer feel their interests are aligned with the community that runs NXT. So this threat remains the same with or without NXT 2.0.

It is my personal opinion that blockchain technology evolution will no longer be fueled by technology itself but will now start to form pockets that mimic real world economic and communal groups. These groups are diverse and may not want to have anything to do with other groups and would choose to use solutions that cater to their own communities and market it to like minded people. Nation states, cities, suburbs, businesses, clubs, etc. all have their own unique communities and to bucket them all under one technology with one community makes no sense. How can this be realistic? Look at bitcoin, it is a perfect example that a one world community is not possible and is very counter-productive to evolution.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Ludom on February 10, 2016, 03:49:48 pm
My concern is about what value NXT (main chain) has after 2.0. If every child chain can hold the features of NXT then what use is there to hold it? The idea of the network effect only really works if there is mass adoption straight away which I doubt will happen. 2.0 does not strengthen the main chain, it clearly weakens it. As a NXT holder, writing on the NXT forum, talking to other NXT holders... I find it odd there are so many people claiming its ok for NXT to die if that is it's fate. This is not ok. Can you seriously image what would happen if everyone sold their NXT because they realized it had no unique value? Turn off events --> Market cap goes down, businesses get scared, people sell fNXT as no income, NXT security compromised, game over.

THe main chain's value is no longer dictated by the novelty of blockchain technology itself. Any of these side chains will have no real "value" over the other chains other than the community that is behind it. It is the same as a clone of NXT, why would NXTers go to a clone and support it? Because they no longer feel their interests are aligned with the community that runs NXT. So this threat remains the same with or without NXT 2.0.

It is my personal opinion that blockchain technology evolution will no longer be fueled by technology itself but will now start to form pockets that mimic real world economic and communal groups. These groups are diverse and may not want to have anything to do with other groups and would choose to use solutions that cater to their own communities and market it to like minded people. Nation states, cities, suburbs, businesses, clubs, etc. all have their own unique communities and to bucket them all under one technology with one community makes no sense. How can this be realistic? Look at bitcoin, it is a perfect example that a one world community is not possible and is very counter-productive to evolution.

+1440 (without pruning  :D)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 10, 2016, 03:51:12 pm
I sure as hell am not going to be holding NXT if a child chain has all the same features of NXT plus dishing out dividends.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: SkyNxt on February 10, 2016, 03:51:41 pm
My thought, If the child chain runs the same code as the main chain and child chain cannot process special transactions, the terminology used should be "clone" chain rather than child chain?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 10, 2016, 03:52:56 pm
So i'm still right. Reason that Jean-Luc give are just false and lie :

@Seccour, we won't tolerate this type of language. Consider yourself warned.
You are not in position to question the integrity of Jean-Luc, please keep this discussion on topic.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 10, 2016, 03:55:20 pm
I sure as hell am not going to be holding NXT if a child chain has all the same features of NXT plus dishing out dividends.

NAS has (or had) all the features of NXT and they gave it up for free, when did you last use NAS ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 10, 2016, 03:57:01 pm
The problem of incompatible changes between the childchains are not really one. Each node validate separately each childchain, each childchain provide to the forgers his own version of the NRS.
Right now, it's possible to forge on Nxt and FIMK in the same time. A forger can have a node that forge on the mother chain + the sidechain he wants.
But this does not create any coupling between the Nxt and FIMK blockchains. If an user wants to do atomic cross blockchain transactions between the two, he still needs to use some pay on reveal secret mechanism. Unless all nodes are required to run all blockchains and the platform is modified to do such cross chain transactions. Which in your proposal does not scale as blockchains are not prunable, and I explained that to achieve prunability a separation between forging and transaction token is needed.

Quote
The proposition is to make all the childchain fully prunable. The problem is that we need to have archival nodes, but nobody has interest to archive the prunable informations.
You understand that the biggest fear of this new design is the lost of the confidence in the original Nxt blockchain:
- How can we find the archive of the transactions
- What if the fees in fNXT are to high to do transactions on the original Nxt blockchain

Well, if nobody has an interest to archive historical transaction, maybe they are not that important? Why preserve them, does anyone keep a permanent archive of all mailing lists, newsgroups, blogs, forums (other than the NSA)?

Businesses will have a legal requirement to keep records for the last 7 years or whatever it is. They will make sure to run archival nodes for their child chains, preserving those records.

Quote
Do you think it's possible to create a system to be sure that archival nodes will be sustainable and how to access to this transactions archives?
Can we find a system that integrate "archival fees" for the archival nodes?
This is something that can be added later, I don't see why not.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 10, 2016, 03:57:38 pm
My thought, If the child chain runs the same code as the main chain and child chain cannot process special transactions, the terminology used should be "clone" chain rather than child chain?

The word "clone" has negative connotations in the blockchain world, besides, these child chains are not cloned from any other chains they are different chains which rely on the same protocol rules and the source code is not cloned it's the same source code.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 10, 2016, 04:03:47 pm
I also think there's a misunderstanding at the root of the 'NXT will be worthless' criticism.

There are several clones/forks of Nxt (FIMK, NAS, NHZ) and various other platforms that offer some 2.0 functionality (Counterparty, Bitshares, Qora). You cannot stop more of these platforms from being created. Nxt has already provided the material - its own codebase - for its own competitors. This is simply unavoidable where code is open source. Moreover, none of these Nxt-based or non-Nxt-based platforms have out-competed Nxt.

This proposal recognises the fact that platforms offering similar functionality will arise, and it doesn't seek to achieve the impossible of stopping them. Instead, it monetises them.

There is still the question of how those revenues are distributed (the NXT vs assets question). But in principle, I don't see the logic that 1) offering similar functionality makes Nxt worthless, or 2) you can prevent that happening within or outside of Nxt.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jose on February 10, 2016, 04:08:22 pm
- It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT, so small stakeholders not interested in forging may decide to sell their fNXT to large stakeholders running forging nodes. This would lead to some centralization, but also to a higher percentage of the (f)NXT stakeholders forging and thus securing the complete Nxt ecosystem.

I don't think I like this. We'd need to increase decentralization a lot to make the network more secure.
The THOR network has about 7000 nodes. [And some people believe that some institution with big resources broke it's security by DDos-ing those nodes and/or making new fake ones]
Bitcoin has about 5000 nodes.
DASH has about 3000 nodes.
Nxt has just 240 public nodes (750 considering all the peers)

For the security it's more important to increase the number of nodes/forgers, not the amount of f(NXT) a node uses to forge.
The network would be much resilient when having 5 forgers with 10000Nxt each than 1 forger with 50000Nxt.

Does anybody remember this?:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.6980

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: komputor on February 10, 2016, 04:13:24 pm
I sure as hell am not going to be holding NXT if a child chain has all the same features of NXT plus dishing out dividends.

Then i'm afraid that you may find it hard to hold a bag of anything in the future when blockchains will be dime a dozen and open source codes will enable anyone to create NXT like systems.
The only thing that will retain people to a community is a shared vision. In that sense, to have one blockchain technology with network effect that takes over the world seems unrealistic because it does not take into account the diversity of human nature and the fact that blockchain technology is freely available to clone. This whole one technology for all comes from a world that i thought the nxt community would be opposed to - the world of proprietary tech like facebook, skype, whatsapp, google and other monolithic corps that want to take over everything. I think i read in one of the issues of core magazine itself that the future values would be decentralization, demonetization and dematerialization -- think about this, can the fb/whatspp / one network for all -effect work with such a shift in values?

We need to think in terms of a platform to fuel diverse and varied ecosystems that have nothing to do with the NXT community but find the technology that this community is developing to be very beneficial to their individual requirements.

Anyways, i really am going off-topic now. This should be a design discussion :).
My apologies.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 10, 2016, 04:25:50 pm
All those clones are only clones of NXT at a particular point in time, there is no guarantee they will be kept up to date with all the new updates of NXT. Second, some of those clones have completely different visions from NXT.

Every feature NXT gets the child chain gets too, at the same time, every time.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 10, 2016, 04:29:57 pm
This update will not improve NXT. But is just here for current NXT bag holder to make money with fNXT.

My concern is about what value NXT (main chain) has after 2.0. If every child chain can hold the features of NXT then what use is there to hold it? The idea of the network effect only really works if there is mass adoption straight away which I doubt will happen. 2.0 does not strengthen the main chain, it clearly weakens it. As a NXT holder, writing on the NXT forum, talking to other NXT holders... I find it odd there are so many people claiming its ok for NXT to die if that is it's fate. This is not ok. Can you seriously image what would happen if everyone sold their NXT because they realized it had no unique value over a child chain?

Turn of events --> Market cap goes down, businesses get scared, people sell fNXT as no income, NXT security compromised, game over.

These concerns contradict each other. Either you can make money with selling fNXT or your fNXT become worthless. I don't have these concerns because: If the value of fNXT and NXT combined will be higher, good for us. If market cap of fNXT goes down and is on the point of being a security risk, we simply lift fees.

@3rdStryker:
First of all: Mass adoption is not a prerequisite for network effect. NXT has nice distribution and network already, which is a great advantage over every new childchain. Secondly: It is OK, that NXT the childchain can theoretically die. Why? Because the NXT you own now will partially still be alive as stake in fNXT. And because NXT as a childchain dying implicates high usage of other childchains which would be very profitable for fNXT holders resp. former NXT 1.0 holders.

Now we know our captain much better. He gave us his vision: Trying to attract businesses by what some call "MS done right", solving scalability in advance and showing that decentralized NXT is mighty enough to solve scalability by pruning its own tx history via the split. Due to the 1:1 ratio the vision is economically sound and fair too. I really like that vision. And I think it is a great chance to become a bigger player.

@crum-bum: It is tough for you personally. But you have a year to liquidate.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: komputor on February 10, 2016, 04:35:21 pm
All those clones are only clones of NXT at a particular point in time, there is no guarantee they will be kept up to date with all the new updates of NXT. Second, some of those clones have completely different visions from NXT.

Every feature NXT gets the child chain gets too, at the same time, every time.

There are two snooker tables at a joint and you always go to the one on the left because it is far away from a radio that plays pop music that you hate. Both snooker tables get a new carpet and better cue sticks at the same time. Would you choose to go to the other one under any of these circumstances?

You should consider that open sourcing technology eventually leads to communities forming around it based on shared ideas. Look at linux distros, same thing. NXT wants to be open source, non-corporate money right? THen lets create such a system for the entire diverse, multilingual and multicultural world.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: SkyNxt on February 10, 2016, 04:37:52 pm
My thought, If the child chain runs the same code as the main chain and child chain cannot process special transactions, the terminology used should be "clone" chain rather than child chain?

The word "clone" has negative connotations in the blockchain world, besides, these child chains are not cloned from any other chains they are different chains which rely on the same protocol rules and the source code is not cloned it's the same source code.

My intention was not to convey negativity, but based on real world, where child can have special intelligence apart from what is inherited and is not tightly coupled
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: bob_ggg on February 10, 2016, 05:04:18 pm

- Child chains will all run the same code, but each one can be configured to have only a subset of the all possible features if needed.

- All transactions from all chains must be processed by all nodes. All nodes will carry all child chains for the last 1440 blocks at least.

A central point of the proposal is summarized by the above sentences.
While the proposed system is strongly interconnected, it could also suffer of reduced scalability due to these requirements. I understand that "clones" have been already discussed in other posts without receiving support for various reasons.
I think that between the two extremes represented by the current proposal and a federation of clones, there is room for flexible solutions.
For instance, a child chain could skip point 2) (e.g. all transactions processed by all nodes) but require just a "notarization" of its evolution. In this case forging would be local, but a snapshot of the forged block would be stored in the fNXT chain for future memory.
Another child block chain could opt to have accounts that are private while another could need to have shared ones.
These options could enhance the application of the NXT platform, adding transactions and demand of fNXT tokens.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 10, 2016, 07:55:45 pm
I have a quick suggestion:

It's become obvious to me, and to a lot of other people, that scalablity is possibly the biggest challenge faced by crypto-currency/blockchain technology: simply put, no current crypto/BC will be able to scale to a global level and maintain usability, decentralisation and transaction speeds/volume.

The only solution to the scalability issue that I can see is in creating an eco-system of interlinked multiple blockchains. This could either be as lots of seperate blockchains from multiple projects, on different protocols evolving into a linked system (we are seeing the first steps towards this: AE, MGW, ShapeShift, cross-chain transactions) or it could be as JLP proposes: a master blockchain supporting an eco-system of prunable child chains using the same protocol. (Hey, we'll probably see both at some stage.)

So, just to wrap this up...I propose that we allow JLP the time to work this out further, preferably all the way to getting a crude version running on a TestNet. If it works, and can scale, then we've cracked one of the barriers to global crypto adoption. ;D

(And; we've got plenty of time to figure this out. Don't get bogged down into taking up positions yet. This is day 2 of what could be a months long discussion)

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: landomata on February 10, 2016, 08:00:33 pm
I have a quick suggestion:

It's become obvious to me, and to a lot of other people, that scalablity is possibly the biggest challenge faced by crypto-currency/blockchain technology: simply put, no current crypto/BC will be able to scale to a global level and maintain usability, decentralisation and transaction speeds/volume.

The only solution to the scalability issue that I can see is in creating an eco-system of interlinked multiple blockchains. This could either be as lots of seperate blockchains from multiple projects, on different protocols evolving into a linked system (we are seeing the first steps towards this: AE, MGW, ShapeShift, cross-chain transactions) or it could be as JLP proposes: a master blockchain supporting an eco-system of prunable child chains using the same protocol. (Hey, we'll probably see both at some stage.)

So, just to wrap this up...I propose that we allow JLP the time to work this out further, preferably all the way to getting a crude version running on a TestNet. If it works, and can scale, then we've cracked one of the barriers to global crypto adoption. ;D

(And; we've got plenty of time to figure this out. Don't get bogged down into taking up positions yet. This is day 2 of what could be a months long discussion)

I agree...
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 10, 2016, 08:04:58 pm
I have a quick suggestion:

It's become obvious to me, and to a lot of other people, that scalablity is possibly the biggest challenge faced by crypto-currency/blockchain technology: simply put, no current crypto/BC will be able to scale to a global level and maintain usability, decentralisation and transaction speeds/volume.

The only solution to the scalability issue that I can see is in creating an eco-system of interlinked multiple blockchains. This could either be as lots of seperate blockchains from multiple projects, on different protocols evolving into a linked system (we are seeing the first steps towards this: AE, MGW, ShapeShift, cross-chain transactions) or it could be as JLP proposes: a master blockchain supporting an eco-system of prunable child chains using the same protocol. (Hey, we'll probably see both at some stage.)

So, just to wrap this up...I propose that we allow JLP the time to work this out further, preferably all the way to getting a crude version running on a TestNet. If it works, and can scale, then we've cracked one of the barriers to global crypto adoption. ;D

(And; we've got plenty of time to figure this out. Don't get bogged down into taking up positions yet. This is day 2 of what could be a months long discussion)

And visual diagram would help a lot to understand this concept :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: remix on February 10, 2016, 08:39:43 pm
So, just to wrap this up...I propose that we allow JLP the time to work this out further, preferably all the way to getting a crude version running on a TestNet. If it works, and can scale, then we've cracked one of the barriers to global crypto adoption. ;D

Bitcoin's Lightning Network is a fairly simple design, so it will almost certainly work and scale well when it is implemented, but I don't know how quickly Bitcoin can implement it.

I agree that scalability is the most important problem in crypto.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 10, 2016, 08:56:49 pm
All those clones are only clones of NXT at a particular point in time, there is no guarantee they will be kept up to date with all the new updates of NXT. Second, some of those clones have completely different visions from NXT.

Every feature NXT gets the child chain gets too, at the same time, every time.
Well, that's not yet clear to me. Part of the point of child chains is that they don't have to have all the features. They might choose to be created without the shuffling feature, for example. When a new feature is added after they've been created, what happens? Are they forced to take it, or not allowed to take it, or can they choose to opt out, or choose to opt in? If they have a choice, who actually makes that choice? Is it a vote (in which case, are they required to have the voting feature?)? Is there some master account that decides? Does each child chain get a kind of constitution in which the answers to these questions are written? How is the constitution changed?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 10, 2016, 09:01:52 pm
https://lightning.network/

and

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Interesting reading....

Quote
The payment network Visa achieved 47,000 peak transactions per second (tps) on its network during the 2013 holidays,
and currently averages hundreds of millions per day.
Currently, Bitcoin supports less than 7 transactions per second with a 1 megabyte block limit.
If we use an average of 300 bytes per bitcoin transaction and assumed unlimited block sizes, an equivalent capacity to peak Visa transaction volume of 47,000/tps would be nearly 8 gigabytes per Bitcoin block, every ten minutes on average.
Continuously,that would be over 400 terabytes of data per year.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 10, 2016, 09:16:40 pm
Might be good to have fees on child blockchain in relation with the number of features they have.

I would also propose that fees on the official Nxt childchain to be a bit lower than other full sets child chain. This would promote the usage of the Nxt childchain.

In fact, alowing other to create other child chain should be view as a convinience and there should be a cost associate with that.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: apenzl on February 11, 2016, 12:28:02 am
Just a few words...

I propose that we start making user friendly UI’s and apps for the groundbreaking features we already have inside the Nxt core. Noone can say we don’t have the first-mover advantage. Adoption would promote the usage of the Nxt childchain, IMHO.

The scalability issue. Might be solved with pruning, to a certain degree.

And then. We want to attract businesses. Because businesses means users.

Let's say businesses, coders (or even local communities) want to customise their creation, and Nxt 1.x just can't give them what they want.

We can send them to Vitalik or we can help them create a customised childchain. 

Nxt IS being cloned already. And I'm not talking about https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423647.0.  :)

But for example, what is Jetcoin? Oh, it's not on CMC. It wasn't big on BCT, then it doesn't exist. Well, it does. Does Jetcoin compete with Nxt? Nope. Does it give anything back to Nxt? Nope (not unless you scroll to the bottom of https://jetcoininstitute.com and think that the pleasure of seeing the Nxt logo is enough). But it could. fNxt could become the backbone of a network of customised "Nxt" business blockchains, of "coins" with access to the full feature set - but why would they want to compete with the Nxt childchain on all features?

IMHO, J-L’s / the cores devs’ proposal makes a lot of sense.

Need lower fees? Childchain. Faster block times? Childchain. Upload of larger files, a distributed storage blockchain to host websites? Childchain.
This has been discussed since early 2014, btw. Slave chains, Parallel Chains: http://www.nxttechnologytree.com.
Or should we just stop here, because some part of the community (including me, btw) invested their NXT's on AE and are afraid not to get shitloads of fNXT?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: 3rdStryker on February 11, 2016, 01:36:23 am
Might be good to have fees on child blockchain in relation with the number of features they have.

I would also propose that fees on the official Nxt childchain to be a bit lower than other full sets child chain. This would promote the usage of the Nxt childchain.

In fact, alowing other to create other child chain should be view as a convinience and there should be a cost associate with that.

This is a great idea! Also, what if child chains also had to buy features with their NXT?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: coretechs on February 11, 2016, 02:22:46 am
What if the new forging tokens were created by blocks, say 1000 per block for 1M blocks to create 1B new forging tokens.  Once the millionth block is forged, hard fork so NXT are no longer able to forge.  This way new forging tokens are created by existing forgers/stakeholders, and a market for them will develop right away.  Anyone wanting to participate in the NXT 2.0 start can either buy NXT and start forging or buy them directly for market value.  The tokens can start forging right away (+1440) so they would immediately begin to diminish the effective forging power of NXT which would encourage a gradual shift to the new forging tokens.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 11, 2016, 02:30:55 am
What if the new forging tokens were created by blocks, say 1000 per block for 1M blocks to create 1B new forging tokens.  Once the millionth block is forged, hard fork so NXT are no longer able to forge.  This way new forging tokens are created by existing forgers/stakeholders, and a market for them will develop right away.  Anyone wanting to participate in the NXT 2.0 start can either buy NXT and start forging or buy them directly for market value.  The tokens can start forging right away (+1440) so they would immediately begin to diminish the effective forging power of NXT which would encourage a gradual shift to the new forging tokens.

I'm not sure about the technical aspects of this, but it is interesting and creative
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 11, 2016, 03:09:59 am

- Transactions on the child chains will be pruned completely after 1440 blocks on nodes not configured to archive them longer.
This means nxt actually do not solve the bloat problem,but just transfer the problem to archive node,right?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 11, 2016, 11:34:53 am
What if the new forging tokens were created by blocks, say 1000 per block for 1M blocks to create 1B new forging tokens.  Once the millionth block is forged, hard fork so NXT are no longer able to forge.  This way new forging tokens are created by existing forgers/stakeholders, and a market for them will develop right away.  Anyone wanting to participate in the NXT 2.0 start can either buy NXT and start forging or buy them directly for market value.  The tokens can start forging right away (+1440) so they would immediately begin to diminish the effective forging power of NXT which would encourage a gradual shift to the new forging tokens.
This is more work, not a lot but enough to delay us another 6 months as it would require at least one or two more hard forks. Other than as a way of distributing the fNXT to forgers, what would it achieve? At the end, fees will still continue to have to be paid in NXT, while forging ability will depend on fNXT balance, a system that is neither 1.x nor 2.x. It may also be less secure, since fNXT balances will not change that much after the distribution is over, and will not change as a result of earning fees, the order of forging accounts will be more predictable.

But a similar idea for fNXT initial distribution could be achieved without changing the core code, we already have the NSC (asset, and MS currency) that has been distributed all this time to users running hallmarked nodes, and before that to forgers too. Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 11, 2016, 11:40:51 am

- Transactions on the child chains will be pruned completely after 1440 blocks on nodes not configured to archive them longer.
This means nxt actually do not solve the bloat problem,but just transfer the problem to archive node,right?
No, those archived transactions are not needed except as a historical record. A node downloading the blockchain will not request or process them, unless the user wants to have some transaction history available longer than the default.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 11, 2016, 11:49:43 am
Might be good to have fees on child blockchain in relation with the number of features they have.

I would also propose that fees on the official Nxt childchain to be a bit lower than other full sets child chain. This would promote the usage of the Nxt childchain.

In fact, alowing other to create other child chain should be view as a convinience and there should be a cost associate with that.

Dynamically creating child chains and managing their properties without hard forks will be after 2.0, if really needed. At first, we would launch either with the single NXT child chain, or with also a few hardcoded child chains requested by established businesses or communities, for example superBTC or NAUT. For some time, adding a new child chain or changing the properties of existing one, will be done manually, at the next scheduled hard fork. Automating the lifecycle of child chain creation and feature modification will be the next step.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 12:00:59 pm
Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 11, 2016, 12:06:06 pm
Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.

Perhaps there could be a percentage that could be allocated, and hallmarked nodes could 'mine' it over the course of a year to incentivise long-term behaviour.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: mxxxxxx on February 11, 2016, 12:06:43 pm
Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.

Sounds better as you are starting thinking about whole ecosystem

Enabling company to run clean chain as child chain or with needed features, currencies or whatever should be the way, if some want to do it that`s good and can bring more good things to main, existing blockchain, this way you don`t care if 1 business or 100 like it or not later and will stop using it for example later. The more like it the better for existing ecosystem. Putting main blokchain on side and creating new main one without features can do more harm than good for sure.

Still, why need of flipping whole ecosystem with all features upside down and creating additional fNXT ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 11, 2016, 12:08:56 pm
Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.

I think this is a bad idea, current market of NSC is really overvalued (because of the 8 decimals of the NSC asset). NSC do not worth as much as they are selling now. Imho, I never took this asset seriously because of that.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 12:12:54 pm
Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.

I think this is a bad idea, current market of NSC is really overvalued (because of the 8 decimals of the NSC asset). NSC do not worth as much as they are selling now. Imho, I never took this asset seriously because of that.

Not NSC asset, it had been abandoned, forgers received their reward in fees.

The NSC MS currency that only hallmarked nodes receive. It has 4 decimals.

hallmarked nodes could 'mine' it over the course of a year to incentivise long-term behaviour.

That's what they do, NSC is distributed to them on a weekly basis.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 11, 2016, 12:19:18 pm

hallmarked nodes could 'mine' it over the course of a year to incentivise long-term behaviour.

That's what they do, NSC is distributed to them on a weekly basis.

Yes :) But I would like to look to the future as well as the past.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 11, 2016, 12:23:41 pm

- Transactions on the child chains will be pruned completely after 1440 blocks on nodes not configured to archive them longer.
This means nxt actually do not solve the bloat problem,but just transfer the problem to archive node,right?
No, those archived transactions are not needed except as a historical record. A node downloading the blockchain will not request or process them, unless the user wants to have some transaction history available longer than the default.
Thanks.

Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.

I think this is a bad idea, current market of NSC is really overvalued (because of the 8 decimals of the NSC asset). NSC do not worth as much as they are selling now. Imho, I never took this asset seriously because of that.
I also thinks this is not a good idea.

Change to 2.0,fNXT will be decreased due to distribution to NSC.
Another,anyone can issue NSC2,and distributed to forgers, do not we also need to distribute fNXT to NSC2 owners?

And most importantly,NSC is not a serious solution,just a worthless asset tokens.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 11, 2016, 12:25:03 pm
The NSC MS currency that only hallmarked nodes receive. It has 4 decimals.

That's what they do, NSC is distributed to them on a weekly basis.

Ho wow, never knew this actually exist! What the currency ID? If buy order dept is nearly empty, it mean they are overvalued. But, this is actually a bit more serious that the NSC asset  :D

I think that 1:1 conversion is the best case scenario.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 12:25:36 pm

hallmarked nodes could 'mine' it over the course of a year to incentivise long-term behaviour.

That's what they do, NSC is distributed to them on a weekly basis.

Yes :) But I would like to look to the future as well as the past.

You mean introducing inflation to the supply of fNXT after the hard fork split to (NXT) 1:1 (fNXT)?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 12:26:59 pm
The NSC MS currency that only hallmarked nodes receive. It has 4 decimals.

That's what they do, NSC is distributed to them on a weekly basis.

Ho wow, never knew this actually exist! What the currency ID? If buy order dept is nearly empty, it mean they are overvalued. But, this is actually a bit more serious that the NSC asset  :D

I think that 1:1 conversion is the best case scenario.

currency id 1294380573514520412

If NSC is exchanged for some fNXT in the future, the buy orders will be added I am sure ;)

We can all agree that having more hallmarked nodes is good?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 11, 2016, 12:32:44 pm
We can all agree that having more hallmarked nodes is good?
I do not agree.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 12:33:47 pm
We can all agree that having more hallmarked nodes is good?
I do not agree.

Explain please why having more hallmarked nodes is not good?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 11, 2016, 01:04:02 pm
Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.

I don't like the idea, because I bought NXT under the assumption that I am user and owner whether I forge/set up a hallmarked node or not. If only forgers during a certain time frame get their part of some of the fNXT, then, with my NXT, I am not the full real owner anymore. This is an IPO where you pay by forging or setting up a hallmarked node. Even though this is proposed for only a part of fNXT distribution, I am against it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: GLEFU the Overlord on February 11, 2016, 01:04:32 pm
Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?
It's a brilliant idea. If they are to receive fNXT for NSC, more users will hallmark their nodes.
Yes, I like it too, as I have bought a lot of NSC from my Nxt supporters!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: VanBreuk on February 11, 2016, 01:11:52 pm
I'm still undecided about the NXT/fNXT decoupling, but if it turns out to be like that, I'd go for a hybrid 1:1 / IPO distribution. Give 1 fNXT / 2 NXT, and distribute the other half proportionally according to received IPO funds in non-NXT currencies, and allocating IPO funds for development. If the forgers in 2016 receive extra fNXT we're just concentrating forging power even further, losing a good opportunity to improve distribution and involve new parties. Just my 2c.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 01:23:20 pm
It's not possible to make everyone happy with any proposed solution. This is subject to a series of polls to remove the stumbling blocks of fNXT distribution, possible fNXT inflation, et cetera.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 11, 2016, 01:24:02 pm
I'm still undecided about the NXT/fNXT decoupling, but if it turns out to be like that, I'd go for a hybrid 1:1 / IPO distribution. Give 1 fNXT / 2 NXT, and distribute the other half proportionally according to received IPO funds in non-NXT currencies, and allocating IPO funds for development. If the forgers in 2016 receive extra fNXT we're just concentrating forging power even further, losing a good opportunity to improve distribution and involve new parties. Just my 2c.

Hmm...I know a lot of people have an issue with IPOs.  It makes me uneasy too, but being able to raise some funds for devs and marketing would be great and very much needed.  Currently, I would have no issue with this idea.  I'm not sure if it is the best, but it does attempt to solve the issue of a lack of funds while still rewarding current NXT holders.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: galeki on February 11, 2016, 01:29:16 pm
The NXT distribution 'problem' was well denounced so maybe this is the chance to make fNXT a little better looking?  ::)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 11, 2016, 01:32:15 pm
I'm still undecided about the NXT/fNXT decoupling, but if it turns out to be like that, I'd go for a hybrid 1:1 / IPO distribution. Give 1 fNXT / 2 NXT, and distribute the other half proportionally according to received IPO funds in non-NXT currencies, and allocating IPO funds for development. If the forgers in 2016 receive extra fNXT we're just concentrating forging power even further, losing a good opportunity to improve distribution and involve new parties. Just my 2c.

Hmm...I know a lot of people have an issue with IPOs.  It makes me uneasy too, but being able to raise some funds for devs and marketing would be great and very much needed.  Currently, I would have no issue with this idea.  I'm not sure if it is the best, but it does attempt to solve the issue of a lack of funds while still rewarding current NXT holders.

A new IPO is like doing again a IPO for Nxt. This has been done in the past and BCNext did not want to raise a lot of money, from my understanding. In fact, it would be like buying again the NXTs, that I have already bought over the course of the last two years. I don't like to buy again my forging power. I would see it like a stealing of wealth somehow.

A 1:1 exchange is what is the more fair, imo, as currently the holder of the NXTs are mainly the one that support the platform, otherwise, they would have sell them already their NXT.

And yeah, IPO are easy to cheat if people are not properly register.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 11, 2016, 01:39:33 pm
The NXT distribution 'problem' was well denounced so maybe this is the chance to make fNXT a little better looking?  ::)
- how about this plan? -
Initial distribution was "not fair" intentionally. ... After we decide that bootstrapping is over, we (active Nxt community) will simply create a subcurrency, lock our NXTs and start promoting the new "coin". Sleeping whales will be left with less valuable coins. At some point we may need to create yet another coin to absorb even bigger part of newcomers and so on. This process will end only after every person uses Nxt-based currency.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 11, 2016, 01:54:15 pm
The NXT distribution 'problem' was well denounced so maybe this is the chance to make fNXT a little better looking?  ::)
- how about this plan? -
Initial distribution was "not fair" intentionally. ... After we decide that bootstrapping is over, we (active Nxt community) will simply create a subcurrency, lock our NXTs and start promoting the new "coin". Sleeping whales will be left with less valuable coins. At some point we may need to create yet another coin to absorb even bigger part of newcomers and so on. This process will end only after every person uses Nxt-based currency.

Difficult to define "active".
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: coretechs on February 11, 2016, 02:01:27 pm
What if the new forging tokens were created by blocks, say 1000 per block for 1M blocks to create 1B new forging tokens.  Once the millionth block is forged, hard fork so NXT are no longer able to forge.  This way new forging tokens are created by existing forgers/stakeholders, and a market for them will develop right away.  Anyone wanting to participate in the NXT 2.0 start can either buy NXT and start forging or buy them directly for market value.  The tokens can start forging right away (+1440) so they would immediately begin to diminish the effective forging power of NXT which would encourage a gradual shift to the new forging tokens.

This is more work, not a lot but enough to delay us another 6 months as it would require at least one or two more hard forks. Other than as a way of distributing the fNXT to forgers, what would it achieve? At the end, fees will still continue to have to be paid in NXT, while forging ability will depend on fNXT balance, a system that is neither 1.x nor 2.x. It may also be less secure, since fNXT balances will not change that much after the distribution is over, and will not change as a result of earning fees, the order of forging accounts will be more predictable.

But a similar idea for fNXT initial distribution could be achieved without changing the core code, we already have the NSC (asset, and MS currency) that has been distributed all this time to users running hallmarked nodes, and before that to forgers too. Why not allocate some percentage of the fNXT to be distributed based on NSC holdings?

I was suggesting this as an alternative to doing a 1:1 of fNXT:NXT all at once.  At the end of the process it would be the same as your proposal, but instead it would happen gradually over time, giving the market and users time to adjust and determine a value of fNXT before it is completely relied on for securing the network.  At the hard fork, NXT would simply become the first childchain and NXT tokens would no longer be used for forging.  I'm not sure why you think the fNXT balances won't change much after distribution is over, I expect fNXT will still be traded and exchanged to NXT and other childchain tokens.

I also think that this type of distribution would potentially be more secure.  A new distribution of fNXT through a schedule of future blocks would ensure that all fNXT is fairly created by existing forgers and stakeholders; those who have invested in NXT and are securing the network today in spite of the market valuation.  We wouldn't have the problem of a handful of whales who never forge and just dump their coins, which we now know was harmful to Nxt security as right now only about %38 of NXT is forging and an unknown amount of NXT is lost or inactive.  On that note, if existing accounts simply get an equal amount of fNXT, won't a lot of it be lost/inactive right from the start?  We want the largest possible % of fNXT to be actively forging.

From a marketing standpoint, a long running distribution that is open to anyone would be very helpful to Nxt image.  No massive windfalls, no whales dumping Nxt, no asset scams sucking fNXT away from forging/security.  Users would exchange fNXT for NXT to invest in assets, and fNXT is only used for forging so only speculators/forgers should buy it.  It would give new users an opportunity to be involved in NXT 2.0 from the start.

One potential criticism is that the active forgers today (%38 NXT) could end up with 90%+ of the fNXT forging tokens, unless a bunch of inactive NXT suddenly became active again as users start earning fNXT.  This is arguably good from the standpoint that existing forgers have the strongest incentives to support Nxt, but might be seen as a negative / centralizing.  A hybrid approach could be used where some % of fNXT is created via forging block rewards and the remainder is created via proof-of-work.  As an initial fair distribution method this has been shown to work (e.g. Ethereum) and gives people the opportunity to participate without buying tokens.

Regarding the changes to code, perhaps fNXT could be initially implemented as an MS token that users can redeem for fNXT before the hard fork event.  This is similar to NSC approach as you suggested, but unless the code is modified to issue the tokens, the users would have to trust the issuer and the redemption process and that always gets messy.  I think there is a lot of benefit with a gradual transition to the new forging tokens, as it would allow us to monitor and mitigate some of the economic uncertainty of an abrupt transition.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 11, 2016, 02:02:04 pm
The NXT distribution 'problem' was well denounced so maybe this is the chance to make fNXT a little better looking?  ::)
- how about this plan? -
Initial distribution was "not fair" intentionally. ... After we decide that bootstrapping is over, we (active Nxt community) will simply create a subcurrency, lock our NXTs and start promoting the new "coin". Sleeping whales will be left with less valuable coins. At some point we may need to create yet another coin to absorb even bigger part of newcomers and so on. This process will end only after every person uses Nxt-based currency.

Difficult to define "active".
Why do you still obey to a fully unactive member of nxt community,he is left with his iota.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 11, 2016, 02:10:12 pm
At the hard fork block, each NXT owner will have his NXT converted to both tokens in 1:1 ratio, and all other holdings migrated to the NXT child chain.
Again,I only support 1:1 for fNXT and NXT conversion.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 11, 2016, 02:17:31 pm
Let's say I have 100 NXT and 900 NXT invested in assets. During the fork I'll receive 100 fNXT. Day after I sell assets and receive 500 NXT. Will I receive additional fNXT (500) or I'll have to buy them? Do I miss something in this logic?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 11, 2016, 02:24:13 pm

hallmarked nodes could 'mine' it over the course of a year to incentivise long-term behaviour.

That's what they do, NSC is distributed to them on a weekly basis.

Yes :) But I would like to look to the future as well as the past.

You mean introducing inflation to the supply of fNXT after the hard fork split to (NXT) 1:1 (fNXT)?

No, I mean earmarking a proportion of fNXT and distributing it to forgers over time, whilst the rest is distributed to current NXT holders - perhaps 0.5:1 basis. No overall inflation, no more than 1bn fNXT ultimately. But I'm not convinced about it; I think it would be best to announce the decision well in advance and let people adjust their NXT/asset holdings over time if they want to pick up more fNXT on a 1:1 basis with NXT.
I don't like the idea of an IPO for the same reasons other people have mentioned. This is a Nxt initiative, it should be dealt with by Nxt.
Realistically, there's no ideal solution that will please everyone. We clearly need some way of addressing the scalability issue or, in the best circumstances, in a few years we'll be like bitcoin is now.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 11, 2016, 03:57:35 pm
I was suggesting this as an alternative to doing a 1:1 of fNXT:NXT all at once.  At the end of the process it would be the same as your proposal, but instead it would happen gradually over time, giving the market and users time to adjust and determine a value of fNXT before it is completely relied on for securing the network.  At the hard fork, NXT would simply become the first childchain and NXT tokens would no longer be used for forging.

It is not feasible to do the switch from 1.0 to 2.0 with a simple hard fork, the same code being able to run both 1.0 and 2.0 and make the switch at some hardcoded block height like we have done it so far. It is way too drastic change. I will have a better understanding what is possible once I have some code written, but for now we should assume that the transition will have to be done with a snapshot taken of the Nxt 1.0 blockchain at some height, all that state imported into a database compatible with Nxt 2.0 code using some tool we have to write for the job, and the 2.0 release starting its own blockchain from this new genesis block, which however in addition to account balances will contain a lot more information.

With this in mind, any such custom code added for the purpose of fNXT distribution to the core is really throwaway code which will not make it into the 2.0 codebase, but will still require at least one hard fork to push into 1.0, with all overhead of organizing a hard fork release. We cannot do that just for the purpose of fNXT distribution, whatever method we devise must not require changes to the 1.7.x code, at least not such that require a hard fork.

If we bias the fNXT distribution based on who actually forged a block, to reward active forgers more, this information can be extracted from the blockchain at any time, it is not difficult. If we want to keep track of who was running a (hallmarked) node, this is not in the blockchain, for that something like the NSC distribution method is needed, but still doesn't need core code changes.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 11, 2016, 04:05:41 pm
Let's say I have 100 NXT and 900 NXT invested in assets. During the fork I'll receive 100 fNXT. Day after I sell assets and receive 500 NXT. Will I receive additional fNXT (500) or I'll have to buy them? Do I miss something in this logic?
You will not receive additional fNXT, you will have to buy them.

Replace "assets" with "BTC" in your question and see if it still makes sense. Why should assets be treated differently, just because they are on the Nxt blockchain? If someone has an investment in Jinn, why should he be entitled to fNXT? We had assets that represented a stake in another coin, such as NEM and Sia, and may well happen to have such at the time of the snapshot. Those who hold them clearly wanted to invest in something other then NXT, which is fine of course as this is what the platform is about, but why should they get fNXT? We now have assets that pay dividends in superBTC, and want to be traded in BTC to not be exposed to the financial risk of holding NXT. Then they should also not have a right to potential financial gain from holding NXT. Who would get to decide which assets should be entitled to fNXT and at what value?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 11, 2016, 04:10:09 pm
I was suggesting this as an alternative to doing a 1:1 of fNXT:NXT all at once.  At the end of the process it would be the same as your proposal, but instead it would happen gradually over time, giving the market and users time to adjust and determine a value of fNXT before it is completely relied on for securing the network.  At the hard fork, NXT would simply become the first childchain and NXT tokens would no longer be used for forging.

It is not feasible to do the switch from 1.0 to 2.0 with a simple hard fork, the same code being able to run both 1.0 and 2.0 and make the switch at some hardcoded block height like we have done it so far. It is way too drastic change. I will have a better understanding what is possible once I have some code written, but for now we should assume that the transition will have to be done with a snapshot taken of the Nxt 1.0 blockchain at some height, all that state imported into a database compatible with Nxt 2.0 code using some tool we have to write for the job, and the 2.0 release starting its own blockchain from this new genesis block, which however in addition to account balances will contain a lot more information.

With this in mind, any such custom code added for the purpose of fNXT distribution to the core is really throwaway code which will not make it into the 2.0 codebase, but will still require at least one hard fork to push into 1.0, with all overhead of organizing a hard fork release. We cannot do that just for the purpose of fNXT distribution, whatever method we devise must not require changes to the 1.7.x code, at least not such that require a hard fork.

If we bias the fNXT distribution based on who actually forged a block, to reward active forgers more, this information can be extracted from the blockchain at any time, it is not difficult. If we want to keep track of who was running a (hallmarked) node, this is not in the blockchain, for that something like the NSC distribution method is needed, but still doesn't need core code changes.

I still think that 1:1 distribution is best, but if actually forger are to be reward a little more, I think this idea would be better than the one based distribution on the NSC. It is true that all this info is already written on the blockhain.

I think NSC market value will not actually be fair. Without any doubt, this market will most probably be pump before fork I think this might not be responsible.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 11, 2016, 04:13:53 pm
I still think that 1:1 distribution is best, but if actually forger are to be reward a little more, I think this idea would be better than the one based distribution on the NSC. It is true that all this info is already written on the blockhain.

Those who bother to forge will be rewarded more over time.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 04:20:34 pm
I still think that 1:1 distribution is best, but if actually forger are to be reward a little more, I think this idea would be better than the one based distribution on the NSC. It is true that all this info is already written on the blockhain.

I think NSC market value will not actually be fair. Without any doubt, this market will most probably be pump before fork I think this might not be responsible.

If NSC market is pumped, it's good for nodes, good for Nxt.

How about this distribution.

5% of fNXT can be exchanged for NSC MS coin at some fixed rate. Nxt foundation could hold the 5% fNXT and set up an exchange.
5% goes to active forgers of the last 100 000 blocks before snap shot is taken.
90% goes equally to everyone according to their NXT balance.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 04:41:22 pm
Won't a lot of people who've already earned NSC through forging have already sold them on MS? It doesn't seem fair to base fNXT on NSC holdings. I kept the 50 or so that I have earned thus far but I expect quite a few have sold.

No. NSC is not earned from forging any more. It was an asset exchange thing and it's been abandoned.

These days NSC is a MS currency and it's earned only by running a hallmarked node. I suggest we only allow this for distribution of 5% fNXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 11, 2016, 04:41:41 pm
We can all agree that having more hallmarked nodes is good?
I do not agree.

Explain please why having more hallmarked nodes is not good?
I can explain why more hallmarked nodes is not good but it is not the case. You cannot just redistribute wealth from one people to another. People has bought NXT coins with the promise of forging power. Now you want to give away that value from them to hallmarked nodes or NSC holders or active forgers. In Soviet Russia we are calling it "expropriation". If someone wants to reward NSC holder they are free to send them spare NXT coins without the need for expropriation.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 11, 2016, 04:44:31 pm
I still think that 1:1 distribution is best, but if actually forger are to be reward a little more, I think this idea would be better than the one based distribution on the NSC. It is true that all this info is already written on the blockhain.

I think NSC market value will not actually be fair. Without any doubt, this market will most probably be pump before fork I think this might not be responsible.

If NSC market is pumped, it's good for nodes, good for Nxt.

How about this distribution.

5% of fNXT can be exchanged for NSC MS coin at some fixed rate. Nxt foundation could hold the 5% fNXT and set up an exchange.
5% goes to active forgers of the last 100 000 blocks before snap shot is taken.
90% goes equally to everyone according to their NXT balance.

Let's wait until everybody fully understands the 2.0 proposal and than vote on diverse distribution models with 1 NXT = 1 vote. I can't think of a fairer way to do it. But why should NXT holders vote for getting less fNXT themselves? The dev team has to be fine with the possible outcomes of the voting though, because if they don't want to implement it, it won't happen. Good to see that JL is open to several possibilites besides his original 1:1 idea. If 1:1 succeeds, you can still donate to hallmarked nodes or active forgers.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 04:47:51 pm
We can all agree that having more hallmarked nodes is good?
I do not agree.

Explain please why having more hallmarked nodes is not good?
I can explain why more hallmarked nodes is not good but it is not the case. You cannot just redistribute wealth from one people to another. People has bought NXT coins with the promise of forging power. Now you want to give away that value from them to hallmarked nodes or NSC holders or active forgers. In Soviet Russia we are calling it "expropriation". If someone wants to reward NSC holder they are free to send them spare NXT coins without the need for expropriation.

If someone is a sleeping whale and doesn't do any useful work, doesn't forge, doesn't run a node, he is a free rider. Free riding is a form of theft, you're stealing from everyone. Everyone is 'taxed' through having to do all the work and free riders enjoy the fruits of that labor. This is a form of socialism. I understand you would like to protect property rights. But encouraging socialism and free riding is not right. Some sort of redistribution has to happen to adjust for this imbalance. I feel my property rights are hurt by sleeping whales who don't help. 60% of the stake is not forging, that's free riders, why should active users work for them?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 04:50:55 pm
Let's wait until everybody fully understands the 2.0 proposal and than vote on diverse distribution models with 1 NXT = 1 vote. I can't think of a fairer way to do it. But why should NXT holders vote for getting less fNXT themselves? The dev team has to be fine with the possible outcomes of the voting though, because if they don't want to implement it, it won't happen. Good to see that JL is open to several possibilites besides his original 1:1 idea. If 1:1 succeeds, you can still donate to hallmarked nodes or active forgers.

I'll be fine with 1:1 outcome of the vote. I just want to lay out other options for consideration. I too hope the devs will go with what the community decides, democracy by voting is far from perfect, but tyranny is simply not acceptable.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: galeki on February 11, 2016, 05:42:06 pm
Is there a possible we distribute fNXT chunk by chunk and through Shuffle system so no one knows the exactly distribution? ::)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: RocketBunny on February 11, 2016, 09:19:43 pm
fNXT/NXT absolutely bad idea for current moment. This idea will be very hard to explain to people outside this forum. Make working sidechains on NXT basis and then we all will have more clear vision about implementations.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 11, 2016, 09:36:42 pm
I think this is a bad idea, current market of NSC is really overvalued (because of the 8 decimals of the NSC asset). NSC do not worth as much as they are selling now. Imho, I never took this asset seriously because of that.
I don't know what that means. As I understand it, people buy the NSC asset and currency as a way to reward forgers and hallmarkers. It's an altruistic thing. They don't buy it to make a profit, but to help keep the network secure. It was never supposed to pay a dividend. So talk of its true worth doesn't make sense to me. Its value is supposed to be artificially high.

Won't a lot of people who've already earned NSC through forging have already sold them on MS? It doesn't seem fair to base fNXT on NSC holdings. I kept the 50 or so that I have earned thus far but I expect quite a few have sold.
NSC are to reward forgers and hallmarkers for their effort even if they get no fees. If they sold their NSC in the past, they got their reward (in NXT) then. The person who bought them deserves something for their support.

I also hold onto mine. If they turn out to be worth something, that would be a (small) windfall. I can't say I care much, though. It won't bother me if using the existing asset/currency is too controversial to do.

I can explain why more hallmarked nodes is not good but it is not the case. You cannot just redistribute wealth from one people to another. People has bought NXT coins with the promise of forging power. Now you want to give away that value from them to hallmarked nodes or NSC holders or active forgers. In Soviet Russia we are calling it "expropriation". If someone wants to reward NSC holder they are free to send them spare NXT coins without the need for expropriation.
I hope you mean, having more hallmarked nodes is good, but this is not a good way to get more. Hallmarked nodes help make the network more resilient against Sybil attacks. It's a shame so many people who forge don't also hallmark. That said, I understand what you say about expropriation.

At the moment Nxt 2.0 is feeling like a change to the social contract. Not so much an evolution of Nxt as a new alt coin. Taking the opportunity to redistribute wealth adds to that feeling.

I'd love to get rid of "inactive" or lost NXT that don't forge, but doing so is such a can of worms I'm not sure it's worth it. Likewise IPO-like schemes and gradual, pre-fork schemes. Do we really want to create a speculation bubble? 1:1 fNXT:NXT is so much easier. Although maybe it should be 1:10 or 1:100, so we can say that fNXT is gold and NXT is silver.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 11, 2016, 09:44:52 pm
Just two questions to make sure I understand it right:

1) The transactions within a child chain are verified by nodes via the last snapshot (which they can create themselves, if they are up to date) of that chain and via the transaction history of that chain since the last snapshot, right?

2) The child chain's snapshot and transaction history since the last snapshot are prunable data attachements in the main chain, right?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 11, 2016, 10:15:45 pm
im starting to like the ideas more and more. however i think i asked a legitimate question in my previous post, which has not been adressed by anyone. so again: it has been talked about full blocks. solving bloat alone doesn't solve scalability. given that this is all about solving scalability, i would like to hear ideas on how to solve TPS.
I'd like to have an overview of this, too.

My impression is that storage bloat is in fact the main bottle-neck for TPS. In concrete terms, if fear of bloat is the main reason to keep fees high, and pruneable child-chains take one hundredth of the storage, might we be looking at transaction fees 1% of their current level?

That's surely naive, so sophisticate me. I can see that high-fee transactions will have to remain high-fee (eg, ones creating new assets and currencies). I imagine accounts will remain heavy-weight, especially if they are universally shared across all child chains. If sending 0.001 NXT to a non-existent account creates a permanent record for the new account, does that mean the fee for sending NXT cannot be low? Am I wrong to think that efficiency and scaleability should translate into lower fees?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 11, 2016, 10:28:14 pm
I'd love to get rid of "inactive" or lost NXT that don't forge, but doing so is such a can of worms I'm not sure it's worth it. Likewise IPO-like schemes and gradual, pre-fork schemes. Do we really want to create a speculation bubble? 1:1 fNXT:NXT is so much easier.

Any way you cut this pie, someone will not be happy.
1:1 fNXT:NXT is much easier indeed and lets devs focus on bigger issues.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: fsb4000 on February 11, 2016, 10:41:13 pm
bad idea split nxt in two currency.
This is loss for ordinary nxt users because nxt price down and user doen't get fnxt for his asset, so price of an asset will fall in real money
And because mining will be more centralized is the danger of increasing the transfer fee in the case of collusion.
Now because of the small miners such collusion is impossible.

I have a compromiss solution for you guys.
Let's have an experiment with sidechains and all related stuff but do it on the main NXT blockchain without splitting it. We will have not so perfect prunning but everything else are only advantages:
- No chance to ruin the NXT economic system
- No problems with asset holder
- No chance to lower the network security with crashing fNXT price
- No need to create new illiquid market for new fNXT currency
- We will be able to test new setup without major changes in code and infrastructure.
+1

With the current transaction volume, the ability to attract other businesses to use Nxt as a platform is the main value proposition of 2.0. The scalability is important for the future.

Currently if a business wants a blockchain based on Nxt software, but not using NXT token and not dependent on the NXT economy, the only thing we can offer them is a clone. But there is no way to make this clone linked to the Nxt ecosystem and bring more value to NXT, other than the marketing and advertising effect.

No. The ability to attract other businesses to use fNXT as a platform.

It will bring more value to fNXT not to NXT. Since NXT will simply become a childchain.
+1
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 12, 2016, 01:07:03 am
Here's an evil suggestion: why don't we halve the NXT supply by converting 50% of everyones current holdings to fNXT ?

 ;D



 
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Tosch110 on February 12, 2016, 01:10:21 am
Here's an evil suggestion: why don't we halve the NXT supply by converting 50% of everyones current holdings to fNXT ?

 ;D

We could also offer the possibility to redeem NXT to fNXT 1:1. The NXT to fNXT will get burned. All the not claimed fNXT (1 Billion total) will be sold in an IPO for development fundings.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 12, 2016, 05:50:25 am
I get the impression that Dave was joking. If he was, it's one of those jokes that has more substance to it the second time you think about it. Halving supply of NXT (in its current form) could have profound psychological advantage: we'd be using 0.5 NXT for fees and this might help the market price.
Dave proposal is equal to original propose of 1:1 splitting. It just looks more evil.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 12, 2016, 07:07:36 am
If someone is a sleeping whale and doesn't do any useful work, doesn't forge, doesn't run a node, he is a free rider. Free riding is a form of theft, you're stealing from everyone. Everyone is 'taxed' through having to do all the work and free riders enjoy the fruits of that labor. This is a form of socialism. I understand you would like to protect property rights. But encouraging socialism and free riding is not right. Some sort of redistribution has to happen to adjust for this imbalance. I feel my property rights are hurt by sleeping whales who don't help. 60% of the stake is not forging, that's free riders, why should active users work for them?

Love your posts but with this I strongly disagree.

Whale or no whale, the dynamics are the same. If someone just holds nxt he is giving it value. If he sells it he lowers the value.

Just by holding you do something useful.

A shareholder in a company does not need to do anything. Same with currencies. Those that want to build actively the company/currency can get payed or can ask for funds to shareholders.


Proposing to take a property of the shares, for example it's voting power, away from all shareholders and give it to just some people, for example those who voted in the past, is theft.

Same goes for forging power with coins.


I think this proposal is very bullish for nxt, it gives more value to nxt coin. But then seeing that some of these proposals to also dilute/inflate/steal forging power from current nxt holders are taken seriously, is very bearish.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 07:52:42 am
Marc,

I myself don't like my proposal, because yes, you're right, it stinks of robbery. In the same manner, not doing useful work just holding expecting others to do it and gaining a profit at the expense of others who a) do useful work and b) just hold too it is not the right attitude, it is not fair to those who do useful work, and as I explained above, it's a parasitical living which is another definition for theft. I'd like you to look at what I am saying at this angle, from the viewpoint of an active user who has to do double work while some sleeping whales (60% of the stake to be exact) procrastinate. It's almost like we have two classes: peasants and royal blood. You know how it can end.

I don't like the word 'fairness', there is little fairness in the real world, but there is a difference here. In crypto consensus is more important than other things. In PoS consensus is formed by forgers. Forgers can hard fork the wealth of sleeping whales if these don't take part in the ecosystem, don't forge, don't even vote, don't protect their stake and the ecosystem. This is how crypto is different from real world companies. In real world property rights are protected by laws and guns, in crypto property rights are protected by your own actions that add to consensus weight. In crypto, consensus could split in two hard forks (we might be seeing this in Bitcoin soon, but their situation is worse because they depend on miners), and there is no authority to complain to. Legally there is no theft if there is a hard fork that takes wealth from sleeping whales, all their wealth is left on an old fork and they can keep using the old fork, there will be two ecosystems. Nxt needs active participation from everyone. I hope this discussion can make sleeping whales think and use more of their stake for the good of the ecosystem, especially at this critical juncture of Nxt existence.

If someone sells because of these opinions, let them sell, Nxt doesn't need parasites or weak hands. The coins will be picked up by active users who care and come out stronger after this selling.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 12, 2016, 08:28:31 am
There is a practical problem with using the distribution of NSC to make any decision about the distribution of fNXT.
Account NXT-WKDG-E8R6-BUBL-BCNSC currently holds 99.97% of all the supply, this is a form of centralization. Surely we are not going to give fNXT based on the proportional stake in NSC including this account. But if we exclude this account how can we trust this account owner not to distribute these NSC coins to accounts under his control and not according to the hallmark nodes rule ?

I have another suggestion to reward those who care, regardless if they are forging or not. I mean if you paid 1M NXT to TNSSE but are not forging, aren't you helping NXT ?

The suggestion is that each account, in order to receive fNXT according to his proportional NXT stake would have to register a specific "Keep Alive" property on his account. By this the account owner proves that he poses the passphrase for this account and that the she cares enough about NXT in order to register this property.
The distribution code will iterate over all accounts, filter out those who did not register the property, then distribute fNXT proportionally based on the NXT stake of the accounts that did register the property.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 08:32:04 am
The suggestion is that each account, in order to receive fNXT according to his proportional NXT stake would have to register a specific "Keep Alive" property on his account. By this the account owner proves that he poses the passphrase for this account and that the she cares enough about NXT in order to register this property.
The distribution code will iterate over all accounts, filter out those who did not register the property, then distribute fNXT proportionally based on the NXT stake of the accounts that did register the property.

+1440
This again will probably be called theft :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 12, 2016, 09:02:57 am
The suggestion is that each account, in order to receive fNXT according to his proportional NXT stake would have to register a specific "Keep Alive" property on his account. By this the account owner proves that he poses the passphrase for this account and that the she cares enough about NXT in order to register this property.
The distribution code will iterate over all accounts, filter out those who did not register the property, then distribute fNXT proportionally based on the NXT stake of the accounts that did register the property.

+1440
This again will probably be called theft :)

I do not like the idea of expropriation, which after all goes against just about everything in crypto.
The 'keep alive' variation could work well, so long as it never expired. So people would always have a chance to claim their fNXT. Forging would only distribute fees to claimed fNXT, so those who claim get proportionally more. I suppose it would have to be a claim based on account holdings at a particular point in time.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: mxxxxxx on February 12, 2016, 09:19:31 am
I encourage developers to take a look again, you are digging in something, delaying, complicating things unnecessarily, instead of pushing forward.

"Eris makes it easy to:

run nodes for established blockchains
run middleware which hooks into established blockchins
instantiate new (permissioned) blockchains
build, test, and deploy smart contract packages
work easily with IPFS"

https://docs.erisindustries.com/
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 09:22:15 am
The 'keep alive' variation could work well, so long as it never expired. So people would always have a chance to claim their fNXT.

The problem with this approach is the unclaimed fNXT has to be stored in a centralized place. If the unclaimed fNXT make half of the total supply, this is a huge threat to the system. If the devs could code a decentralized solution to this, it will surely require a special type of transaction, making the system more complicated to implement and this means bugs and headache for everyone. If the devs give 6-12 months to claim fNXT before the snapshot, this is simple and enough time for everyone to act, unless the user is dead. In the latter case the user probably doesn't need fNXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 12, 2016, 09:25:05 am
... The suggestion is that each account, in order to receive fNXT according to his proportional NXT stake would have to register a specific "Keep Alive" property on his account. By this the account owner proves that he poses the passphrase for this account and that he cares enough about NXT in order to register this property.
The distribution code will iterate over all accounts, filter out those who did not register the property, then distribute fNXT proportionally based on the NXT stake of the accounts that did register the property.
- great way to get rid of sleeping whales!  Or we can start the voting "Shall we get rid of sleeping whales?" and if succeeded then those accounts which said "yes" will receive fNXT according to their proportional NXT stake. If failed then all accounts will receive fNXT on 1:1 basis.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 12, 2016, 09:29:51 am
lurker10, I strongly disagree. There is nothing parasitic about just holding a coin or stock and not doing anything more. When you buy bitcoin, tesla or nxt, you are not buying an obligation to work for it or promote it. You are free to just hold it and are adding value already by just holding.

Please stop calling these people parasitic, nor are they sleeping, they are passive investors.

Passive investors are as important as active users, chasing them away would make value of nxt go even lower with many more active users leaving the scene.


If you are actively promoting nxt but feel bad about others not doing as much promotion why don't you ask for donations or support?

Nxt holders have proven to be extremely generous to people launching assets/initiatives.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 12, 2016, 09:39:59 am
The 'keep alive' variation could work well, so long as it never expired. So people would always have a chance to claim their fNXT.

The problem with this approach is the unclaimed fNXT has to be stored in a centralized place. If the unclaimed fNXT make half of the total supply, this is a huge threat to the system. If the devs could code a decentralized solution to this, it will surely require a special type of transaction, making the system more complicated to implement and this means bugs and headache for everyone. If the devs give 6-12 months to claim fNXT before the snapshot, this is simple and enough time for everyone to act, unless the user is dead. In the latter case the user probably doesn't need fNXT.

J-L, Riker - do you have thoughts on this? How easy would it be to do something like this in a safe, decentralised way?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 12, 2016, 09:50:21 am
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 12, 2016, 09:51:46 am
The 'keep alive' variation could work well, so long as it never expired. So people would always have a chance to claim their fNXT.
- how this differ from simple 1:1 case? In both cases a sleeping whale can wake up and dump 50'000'000 fNXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 09:53:01 am
Marc,

it can be summed up that we disagree on whether crypto is different from other kinds of property. I believe crypto requires more active participation from users than other types of property, because other types of property are protected by other means. Crypto is protected by active participation (forging is one example in the case of PoS).

I don't like to ask for support, it's against my nature :) I'd like to think that people are responsible to decide and act on their own, sometimes they need to be prodded to move in the right direction. Protecting their property by active participation is the right direction, don't you agree? If it takes calling them parasitic for their inaction, I will call them that. Remember, it's often the active minority that brings change to the world. By the way, disagreement is good, from my experience disagreement often leads to better understanding and peace in the long run. It's better to disagree earlier and compromise than disagree later and break up. Everyone will never be perfectly happy, we need to compromise and meet half way somewhere. If it doesn't happen, we shall be divided and conquered.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 12, 2016, 10:04:19 am
... I believe crypto requires more active participation from users than other types of property, because other types of property are protected by other means. Crypto is protected by active participation (forging is one example in the case of PoS).
- agree 100%.   As well as CfB (BCNext?): "we (active Nxt community) will simply create a subcurrency, lock our NXTs and start promoting the new "coin". Sleeping whales will be left with less valuable coins".
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 12, 2016, 10:25:40 am
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.

I suppose that 'dead' fNXT would never forge anyway, so it's locked away. Sleeping whales' fNXT, I'm happy to let lie. It would be nice to incentivise them to use it, but the idea of expropriation is scary.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Acura360 on February 12, 2016, 10:36:56 am

Sorry for the following question if she ever has been:

Will all my assets become worthless with Nxt2.0?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 12, 2016, 10:51:10 am

Sorry for the following question if she ever has been:

Will all my assets become worthless with Nxt2.0?
Why do you think that holding your assets in one of the most scalable and innovative blockhains in the world would make them worthless?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Acura360 on February 12, 2016, 10:53:38 am

Sorry for the following question if she ever has been:

Will all my assets become worthless with Nxt2.0?
Why do you think that holding your assets in one of the most scalable and innovative blockhains in the world would make them worthless?

Because i don't know the future about NXT 2.0 and which changes will come...
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 12, 2016, 10:53:45 am

Sorry for the following question if she ever has been:

Will all my assets become worthless with Nxt2.0?

No. The assets you hold all represent something, so they will retain their value, no matter what form Nxt 2.0 eventually becomes.
People have started to panic about this, as a result of the discussion about how to organise the changeover to Nxt 2.0
I'm sure that some things will change with Nxt 2, but the value of genuinely good Assets shouldn't be affected, (except maybe in a good way  ;D )
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: mxxxxxx on February 12, 2016, 11:06:12 am
Asset holders have nothing to worry about after they are moved to BTC chain, NXT as for its plan have then a lot to worry about


Initial distribution was "not fair" intentionally. 1/3th of my life I lived in "Communism" and I know that "fair" economic systems don't evolve, they degrade or stall in the best case, so I can say that Nxt distribution was the best for bootstrapping phase. After we decide that bootstrapping is over, we (active Nxt community) will simply create a subcurrency, lock our NXTs and start promoting the new "coin". Sleeping whales will be left with less valuable coins. At some point we may need to create yet another coin to absorb even bigger part of newcomers and so on. This process will end only after every person uses Nxt-based currency.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 12, 2016, 11:08:31 am
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.

I suppose that 'dead' fNXT would never forge anyway, so it's locked away. Sleeping whales' fNXT, I'm happy to let lie. It would be nice to incentivise them to use it, but the idea of expropriation is scary.

It is not scary it is suicidal.

Like all of you really think that an non 1:1 distribution is a fair distribution ? It will expropriation that will make NXT AND fNXT dead. Since you are all agreed to this update that will kill NXT, do not do it quickly with other than 1:1 distribution. Because a precedent of expropriation in a crypto it's like signed his own death warrant.

My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.

How to steal people money nice. The more time passes the more I really feel that this update is made to kill NXT. Thanks for this great futur update. I hope you will make a lot of money with all your fNXT and businesses childchain :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 12, 2016, 11:09:13 am
I get the impression that Dave was joking. If he was, it's one of those jokes that has more substance to it the second time you think about it. Halving supply of NXT (in its current form) could have profound psychological advantage: we'd be using 0.5 NXT for fees and this might help the market price.

I was partially  ;) joking. It was one of those late night ideas that I felt like sharing and getting people thinking about.

lurker10, I strongly disagree. There is nothing parasitic about just holding a coin or stock and not doing anything more. When you buy bitcoin, tesla or nxt, you are not buying an obligation to work for it or promote it. You are free to just hold it and are adding value already by just holding.

Please stop calling these people parasitic, nor are they sleeping, they are passive investors.

Passive investors are as important as active users, chasing them away would make value of nxt go even lower with many more active users leaving the scene.
If you are actively promoting nxt but feel bad about others not doing as much promotion why don't you ask for donations or support?
Nxt holders have proven to be extremely generous to people launching assets/initiatives.

On this I'm not going to joke: no-one, even if their account has never shown any signs of life or usefulness (or even if they are a known thief, like TheSir  >:( ) should have any of their assets/NXT/rights to fNXT/whatever taken away.
It's simply not right. I can understand some peoples frustration at having major NXT holders doing apparently nothing to help out the cause....but, hey, it's their choice to make, and we have to respect that. 

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 12, 2016, 11:10:02 am

Sorry for the following question if she ever has been:

Will all my assets become worthless with Nxt2.0?

Just like if you print a normal IOU on paper and then print a new version on plastic or even digital, it's not the MEDIUM that is important, but what it represents.

So your assets will be just as valuable, as long as the company/asset/commodity it represents is just as valuable.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 12, 2016, 11:17:43 am
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.

I am very against this.

A one time exchange is NOT how we should treat long time holders/investors.

If it's complex to code: tough! We cannot just push ALL responsibility to the users. That needs to be shared and one thing that is absolutely necessary is a grace period.

We can haggle over the length of the grace period (or even decide to extend it indefinitely) but NOT having one is a bad idea and I really see no way to defend it in any reasonable way.

You cannot use the "they should pay attention" routine, as that again just says "you are an idiot" and that is the last thing we should do to people who have supported Nxt up till now.

tl;dr: I think this is a very bad idea. ;)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 11:21:40 am
On this I'm not going to joke: no-one, even if their account has never shown any signs of life or usefulness (or even if they are a known thief, like TheSir  >:( ) should have any of their assets/NXT/rights to fNXT/whatever taken away.
It's simply not right. I can understand some peoples frustration at having major NXT holders doing apparently nothing to help out the cause....but, hey, it's their choice to make, and we have to respect that. 

With all due respect, the best tech of NXT lagging behind inferior technologies market caps owes in no small part to passive sleeping whales. Sure, we can respect their choices and keep lagging behind in the race.

Let's just go with the initial proposal of JL and give 1:1 to all holders and be done with it. This is the least evil solution out of all the others. Can the Nxt foundation please set up an 'official' poll on the 1:1 proposal?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 12, 2016, 11:24:04 am
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.

I am very against this.

A one time exchange is NOT how we should treat long time holders/investors.

If it's complex to code: tough! We cannot just push ALL responsibility to the users. That needs to be shared and one thing that is absolutely necessary is a grace period.

We can haggle over the length of the grace period (or even decide to extend it indefinitely) but NOT having one is a bad idea and I really see no way to defend it in any reasonable way.

You cannot use the "they should pay attention" routine, as that again just says "you are an idiot" and that is the last thing we should do to people who have supported Nxt up till now.

tl;dr: I think this is a very bad idea. ;)

I don't think this is what is meant. I think Riker means the 1:1 exchange will happen based on account balances at a given time. Everyone will own their fNXT at that point - they will be stored in accounts with the same private key as the matching 1:1 account.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 12, 2016, 11:31:30 am
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 12, 2016, 11:44:48 am
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.

I am very against this.

A one time exchange is NOT how we should treat long time holders/investors.

If it's complex to code: tough! We cannot just push ALL responsibility to the users. That needs to be shared and one thing that is absolutely necessary is a grace period.

We can haggle over the length of the grace period (or even decide to extend it indefinitely) but NOT having one is a bad idea and I really see no way to defend it in any reasonable way.

You cannot use the "they should pay attention" routine, as that again just says "you are an idiot" and that is the last thing we should do to people who have supported Nxt up till now.

tl;dr: I think this is a very bad idea. ;)

I don't think this is what is meant. I think Riker means the 1:1 exchange will happen based on account balances at a given time. Everyone will own their fNXT at that point - they will be stored in accounts with the same private key as the matching 1:1 account.

Ah, if that is the case, never mind :)

The main point is nothing is taken and all ownership  respected.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 12, 2016, 12:04:16 pm
The so-called 'split' of NXT into fNXT and NXT is proving most controversial. Is there no way of securing child chains on the current Nxt chain whilst enabling scalability?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 12, 2016, 12:10:12 pm
The so-called 'split' of NXT into fNXT and NXT is proving most controversial. Is there no way of securing child chains on the current Nxt chain whilst enabling scalability?

I believe so.

on the other hand- I seem to remember that it was BCNEXTs original vision that the NXT be used solely as a token to stabilize the network, not as a coin in itself, and all else should be run as an MS coin

so NXT should be fNXT, meaning there already ​is fNXT, and it is called 'NXT'
certainly a hardfork is needed to get to a 2.0 level thing but there is no technical reason at all to split NXT

But a very fundamental reason to not split Nxt, and that is called 'forced reallocation is a no-go'

But maybe I am simply not understanding it correctly, and it does not equate to 'forced reallocation'?

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 12:11:31 pm
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.
One good reason to use such a property or some other way of confirming the account is still in use would be to prevent giving fNXT to accounts without public keys announced. Since those could be mined in the future, potentially by an attacker who would then get forging power in addition to the NXT. Many of those accounts have NXT because of user error, e.g. somebody sending to account 123 or similar, when sending to numeric account ids was still allowed in the client. Or somebody could have done that in order to burn NXT, instead of the normal way of sending them to genesis.
There is also the case of forgotten passwords, for accounts that do have public keys. It is not feasible for an attacker to get those (unless the password was weak, but then they would have been stolen already), so even if such accounts do get fNXT, they can never forge with it, but neither can a potential attacker.

Nothing in the 2.0 implementation depends on how exactly the fNXT was distributed, if we do use a keepAlive property the deadline for setting it would be just before the snapshot is taken. It is also too early to do polls about it, a lot may change in the Nxt ecosystem and user base until the time for that decision comes. At least wait until we have some proof of concept 2.0 implementation running on testnet, then we would still be at least 6 months away from putting it in production.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 12:13:00 pm
certainly a hardfork is needed to get to a 2.0 level thing but there is no technical reason at all to split NXT
Explain how pruning would work without splitting.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 12:13:45 pm
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?
No, it is not.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 12, 2016, 12:26:09 pm
With all due respect, the best tech of NXT lagging behind inferior technologies market caps owes in no small part to passive sleeping whales. Sure, we can respect their choices and keep lagging behind in the race.

This is not true. Passive investors are giving value to nxt simply by being invested. It is those that sold their nxt that have lowered the value.


If we want nxt to be money and valued as money in the future, it means you can buy it, save it, forget about it, come back a few years later and sell it, without having lost voting or forging rights in the meantime.

Dilution or inflation of shares/coins or stripping them from rights, if they don't do this or that, is a sure way to lose the race to become a valuable currency.


Who is responsible for NXT lagging behind inferior technologies is a big discussion but it surely are not our investors, active or passive!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 12:32:36 pm
1) The transactions within a child chain are verified by nodes via the last snapshot (which they can create themselves, if they are up to date) of that chain and via the transaction history of that chain since the last snapshot, right?
Yes, transactions are verified based on the state of the childchain (e.g. account balances, assets ownership, open ask/bid orders, alias ownership and all that). This state is constructed starting from the last snapshot and applying all transactions that occurred after it (and are therefore not yet pruned).

For that reason, as "state" we must define anything that is needed in order to be able to verify and process a transaction. For example, asset dividend payments depend on the account asset balance at the dividend payment height which may be up to 1440 blocks behind current height. Therefore, the state must include asset balance history up to 1440 blocks back, to be able to execute such dividend payment.

Nothing depends on arbitrary messages, therefore they will not be part of the state. Even the permanent ones. But if your node is configured to follow a specific child chain without pruning it, it will have those messages. There will really be one or two more degrees of pruning than the one that we currently have which affects prunable data only.

Aliases are part of the state, because being able to reserve an alias, or change or sell an existing one, depends on whether it has already be taken and who owns it. So aliases cannot be pruned. (But the transactions that did the setting or changing the alias can and will be pruned, as you only need the last alias value, not all previous ones).

One more thing I realized, we don't really need per-child-chain snapshots. We just need snapshots taken of the full system state, as defined above. What would be child chain specific and configurable is how far back behind this state one can go for each childchain.
 
Quote
2) The child chain's snapshot and transaction history since the last snapshot are prunable data attachements in the main chain, right?
The transaction history will be contained in the prunable attachments of those ChildchainBlock transactions. Nodes that are set as archival for a specific child chain will not prune those, and other nodes who are interested in obtaining those will retrieve them similar to how prunable data can be retrieved from archival nodes now, verifying their hashes.

The snapshot will not be an attachment. Only its hash will be contained in the transaction that defines it. How exactly the snapshot gets downloaded by nodes who do not yet have it remains to be decided, it will be too big to download as a single piece of data from a single node, some torrent-like distributed download will need to be implemented.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 12, 2016, 12:33:10 pm
There is a practical problem with using the distribution of NSC to make any decision about the distribution of fNXT.
Account NXT-WKDG-E8R6-BUBL-BCNSC currently holds 99.97% of all the supply, this is a form of centralization. Surely we are not going to give fNXT based on the proportional stake in NSC including this account. But if we exclude this account how can we trust this account owner not to distribute these NSC coins to accounts under his control and not according to the hallmark nodes rule ?

I have another suggestion to reward those who care, regardless if they are forging or not. I mean if you paid 1M NXT to TNSSE but are not forging, aren't you helping NXT ?

The suggestion is that each account, in order to receive fNXT according to his proportional NXT stake would have to register a specific "Keep Alive" property on his account. By this the account owner proves that he poses the passphrase for this account and that the she cares enough about NXT in order to register this property.
The distribution code will iterate over all accounts, filter out those who did not register the property, then distribute fNXT proportionally based on the NXT stake of the accounts that did register the property.
I dont think this is a good solution.
This solution is just grab NXT from others who hold NXT but not active.

fNXT and NXT =1:1 is the best solution,whether these NXT holders are active or not IMO.
The fact they hold NXT has given value to Nxt.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 12, 2016, 12:34:50 pm
The 'keep alive' variation could work well, so long as it never expired. So people would always have a chance to claim their fNXT.
- how this differ from simple 1:1 case? In both cases a sleeping whale can wake up and dump 50'000'000 fNXT.
Do not try to solve the problem of whale,this is nothing business with NXT2.0,RIGHT?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: SkyNxt on February 12, 2016, 12:38:48 pm
How is NXT 2.0 different from mini blockchain cryptonite.info apart from NXT would have POS and child chains?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 12, 2016, 12:46:02 pm
My intention was to use the account property only for the initial distribution of fNXT. If you missed this one time event youll have to purchase fNXT on the open market. Allowing accounts to possibly claim their fNXT later is complex to implement and would mean that initially only small proportion of the fNXT stake will actually forge.
Many of those accounts have NXT because of user error, e.g. s
So how to prove this is error but not the real sending?

fNXT:NXT=1:1,PLEASE.Whether they are active or not,error or real sending.

From what talked,I feel NXT2.0 is much focus on solving the whales problem rather than tech.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 12, 2016, 12:46:22 pm
The 'keep alive' variation could work well, so long as it never expired. So people would always have a chance to claim their fNXT.
- how this differ from simple 1:1 case? In both cases a sleeping whale can wake up and dump 50'000'000 fNXT.
Do not try to solve the problem of whale,this is nothing business with NXT2.0,RIGHT?

Correct. If the "whale problem" is a problem at all.
That probably depends on your outlook on life and philosophy, which is a different kettle of fish altogether :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 12, 2016, 12:48:30 pm
I am glad that nxt is evolving but as a criticism I feel the need to share my concerns evolving it this way...

Some disadvantages I see in this design:

From the moment their are no more offers, offering fNXT for the childchain currency, it is no longer possible to forge and excecute transactions on the childchain.
The fee in the childchain would also be floating depending on the latest fNXT offer.

- To be able to still do pruning, we need a snapshot transaction, which takes a snapshot of the current child chain state only, without any history that led to this state.

Scaling by using snapshots causes all transaction history to be unsaved.
Even though nodes could still have that data, they have no incentive to share that date.
This would mean that I open my nxt account and I can't see my previous transactions, messages, trades, etc.
I think scaling would be more feacable by lowering the duplicity of all this data, not by deleting it all together, as that results in the loss of availability of all that data.


fNXT transactions will have higher fees compared to transactions on child chains, as they will need to be stored permanently.
That also means no phasing, no account control, no shuffling, etc.

No account control for the token that needs security the most, as it controls the security of all childchains?

The initial cost of creating a child chain should be very high, to protect against abuse.

Unfortunatly that will result into low usage as well.




I would beg to consider this alternative implementation of childchains or alternative nxt 2.0, undoing all previously mentioned disadvantages...
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/ (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 01:05:22 pm
If we want nxt to be money and valued as money in the future, it means you can buy it, save it, forget about it, come back a few years later and sell it, without having lost voting or forging rights in the meantime.

Dilution or inflation of shares/coins or stripping them from rights, if they don't do this or that, is a sure way to lose the race to become a valuable currency.

Various forms of money are valued for different properties. Crypto is a new form of money, better than others in special use cases. For instance, you can transfer your wealth across the border in your brain without asking anyone's permission, no other form of money can do that.

Unfortunately, crypto is not perfect, you can't use it without internet or electricity. This is a clear example of limitation.

The initial design can change, this is both a limitation and a powerful potential to open new horizons. You shouldn't treat it like other forms of money, it's different. Its potential to change design doesn't make it less valuable. What is important is consensus. If the consensus of forgers (PoS) is to change the initial design in a certain way, it will happen.

What you talk about is the store of value function. I don't think crypto is particularly good at this function, it hasn't been proven, not even the longest running example, Bitcoin. Crypto excels at other functions. Wishing for the ideal solution is futile, it's less unnerving to enjoy and embrace what it can do rather than wish for what it can't or is not known to. For store of value function gold is probably the best known to humanity. Crypto? Not so much.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Vyazhan on February 12, 2016, 01:07:03 pm
I can't really dig through all of this, but just from a feeling, I feel it's gonna get a lot of people even more disinterested in NXT, as it's always complicated compared to many other cryptos and introducing this will remove more casual NXT users for sure :)

my 2 cts...
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 01:13:50 pm
From the moment their are no more offers, offering fNXT for the childchain currency, it is no longer possible to forge and excecute transactions on the childchain.
The fee in the childchain would also be floating depending on the latest fNXT offer.
This is intentional and I don't see it as a disadvantage. If a child chain wants to run on the Nxt platform, it must pay market rate fees. If the tokens of that child chain have no value, i.e. no one is willing to exchange fNXT for them, the child chain should stop growing.
Quote
Scaling by using snapshots causes all transaction history to be unsaved.
Even though nodes could still have that data, they have no incentive to share that date.
We can think about adding incentive, if needed, when it becomes needed.
Quote
This would mean that I open my nxt account and I can't see my previous transactions, messages, trades, etc.
Yes, if you have been offline for more than the default pruning period. But then your node will catch up from archival nodes for that blockchain, as it does now with prunable data.
Quote
I think scaling would be more feacable by lowering the duplicity of all this data, not by deleting it all together, as that results in the loss of availability of all that data.
Where do you see duplicity? Please be specific.

Quote
No account control for the token that needs security the most, as it controls the security of all childchains?
Account control provides, well, control. Not security.

Quote
The initial cost of creating a child chain should be very high, to protect against abuse.
Unfortunatly that will result into low usage as well.
And that's fine, we don't want anyone and their brother creating a child chain just to see how it works and then abandoning it. To create a child chain, you must be an established business and the token you are going to use for your child chain must have market value. If not, use the Monetary System.
But as I said, at first creating child chains and changing their properties will be a manual process, in which case if there is any fee it would be to cover the development efforts for it. Until the system is working smoothly enough to think about automating it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: SkyNxt on February 12, 2016, 01:21:54 pm
Another question, will NXT 2.0 enable developers to create applications/games like decentralized toss, or execute arbitrary code on blockchain? Currently, I don't see a way to do simple game like decentralized toss on NXT
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 01:22:10 pm
I can't really dig through all of this, but just from a feeling, I feel it's gonna get a lot of people even more disinterested in NXT, as it's always complicated compared to many other cryptos and introducing this will remove more casual NXT users for sure :)
The casual user will hardly see any difference. When you download and start the NRS client, you will see the NXT child chain the way you see the current blockchain now, and all transactions will happen on that NXT child chain. The end user will not even be aware that there is a forging chain, unless he becomes interested in how to forge.

How exactly the other child chains will be accessible, which of them if any will be possible to switch to from the default NRS client, this is all a matter of UI. Some child chain creators may want custom clients, with which only their child chain is visible. For commonly used child chains, for example if SuperBTC becomes such a child chain, there may be a way to switch to it from the default client. Or even do transactions on another child chain without the user realizing it, for example if placing an asset ask order and the user wants to place it in SuperBTC, the client submits the transaction on that child chain without the user having to be aware of how it works. How it is presented in the UI is a whole different story, it does not need to reflect how the server part works.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 01:22:59 pm
Another question, will NXT 2.0 enable developers to create applications/games like decentralized toss, or execute arbitrary code on blockchain? Currently, I don't see a way to do simple game like decentralized toss on NXT
No. The scope of 2.0 is already ambitious enough.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: SkyNxt on February 12, 2016, 01:31:52 pm
Another question, will NXT 2.0 enable developers to create applications/games like decentralized toss, or execute arbitrary code on blockchain? Currently, I don't see a way to do simple game like decentralized toss on NXT
No. The scope of 2.0 is already ambitious enough.
I am more interested in what's there in the plate for developers who are interested to implement dApps on NXT
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 12, 2016, 01:51:27 pm
From the moment their are no more offers, offering fNXT for the childchain currency, it is no longer possible to forge and excecute transactions on the childchain.
The fee in the childchain would also be floating depending on the latest fNXT offer.
This is intentional and I don't see it as a disadvantage. If a child chain wants to run on the Nxt platform, it must pay market rate fees. If the tokens of that child chain have no value, i.e. no one is willing to exchange fNXT for them, the child chain should stop growing.
I understand this is intentional and required from an economic perspective in your design. One flaw for nxt is that the nxt blockchain keeps getting bloated with death childchains snapshots while not getting rewarded for keeping this snapshot alive.
Quote
Quote
Scaling by using snapshots causes all transaction history to be unsaved.
Even though nodes could still have that data, they have no incentive to share that date.
We can think about adding incentive, if needed, when it becomes needed.
The current way of working, being complete transaction blockchains, already solved that incentive problem. Taking the solution away in order to scale better is not a good scaling solution
Quote
Quote
This would mean that I open my nxt account and I can't see my previous transactions, messages, trades, etc.
Yes, if you have been offline for more than the default pruning period. But then your node will catch up from archival nodes for that blockchain, as it does now with prunable data.
Quote
I think scaling would be more feasible by lowering the duplicity of all this data, not by deleting it all together, as that results in the loss of availability of all that data.
Where do you see duplicity? Please be specific.
Duplicity being that every nxt node has a copy of every childchain, or in your case only snapshot.
It is better to not have every nxt node/forger having to process every childchain and keep every childchain.
Someone trying out a childchain doesn't need as much copies of its childblockchain as nxt has (archival) nodes. This duplicity all costs money.
Quote
Quote
No account control for the token that needs security the most, as it controls the security of all childchains?
Account control provides, well, control. Not security.

Quote
The initial cost of creating a child chain should be very high, to protect against abuse.
Unfortunatly that will result into low usage as well.
And that's fine, we don't want anyone and their brother creating a child chain just to see how it works and then abandoning it. To create a child chain, you must be an established business and the token you are going to use for your child chain must have market value. If not, use the Monetary System.
But as I said, at first creating child chains and changing their properties will be a manual process, in which case if there is any fee it would be to cover the development efforts for it. Until the system is working smoothly enough to think about automating it.
I think it would be better if that would be possible that everyone can just try to create his coin. Test it around, notice that their coin is only being supported by the last 2 nxt nodes for the last 200 blocks and realise they need to start giving value to their coins if they want it to survive it to survive longer time they create one. This all without any nxt blockchain bloat.

Just like in my proposal.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/ (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/)

I would love to explain this proposal to you verbally, if you are open to it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 12, 2016, 02:06:39 pm
I'm not sure if the following works, and if so, how. Perhaps a few people could comment.

You have a parent chain that does all the forging. Its balance isn't created 1:1 or any other way; it simply reflects what's going on in the NXT chain, like a kind of shadow balance. No split or dilution of any kind. This shadow NXT (sNXT) forges and provides security for the NXT chain and any others that are added. Actual functionality on the sNXT chain may be low since its job is just to secure everything else.

This leaves questions like how cross-currency fees are collected and distributed, but that is something that needs doing anyway.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 12, 2016, 02:10:12 pm
Will I sign my child chain transactions and main chain transactions with the same private key? Can I use one and the same account for signing txs on all sorts of chains?

If an account has created and signed a ChildChain tx but not yet any main chain txs and if that account holds no fNXT, will that account's pubkey appear in the main chain only as attachement (as part of the snapshot and/or the not yet pruned tx history)?

I think the logical answer to these questions is YES. But I don't feel completely certain about that.

People in a German thread asked me whether separate clients for child chains are necessary. I believe, all sorts of lite clients specified for easy child chain use are possible, but it is still one whole blockchain and one system of privkey-pubkey-pairs for all chains, so no separate clients are necessary, right?

Hope these questions make any sense. Still tryin to wrap my head around 2.0.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 02:13:14 pm
I understand this is intentional and required from an economic perspective in your design. One flaw for nxt is that the nxt blockchain keeps getting bloated with death childchains snapshots while not getting rewarded for keeping this snapshot alive.
The cost of keeping that state has already been paid by transaction fees for that child chain, because the larger the state, the more transactions have been processed and fees paid. Having to keep the final state of a dead chain, expressed as accounts balances, is much less than having to keep all transactions that led to this state. And if we really becomes a problem, we could think about defining some conditions under which such state can be dropped and the child chain deleted for good. No need to plan for this now.
Quote
The current way of working, being complete transaction blockchains, already solved that incentive problem. Taking the solution away in order to scale better is not a good scaling solution
Scalability is way more important than this hypothetical problem.

Quote
Duplicity being that every nxt node has a copy of every childchain, or in your case only snapshot.
It is better to not have every nxt node/forger having to process every childchain and keep every childchain.
Someone trying out a childchain doesn't need as much copies of its childblockchain as nxt has (archival) nodes. This duplicity all costs money.
It is not possible to establish consensus without every node having the full current state of all chains. Your proposal contains a desire to achieve that, but I don't see an explanation how it could be achieved.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 02:20:39 pm
Will I sign my child chain transactions and main chain transactions with the same private key? Can I use one and the same account for signing txs on all sorts of chains?

If an account has created and signed a ChildChain tx but not yet any main chain txs and if that account holds no fNXT, will that account's pubkey appear in the main chain only as attachement (as part of the snapshot and/or the not yet pruned tx history)?

I think the logical answer to these questions is YES. But I don't feel completely certain about that.
Yes, the public_key table which defines which account numbers have been reserved and with what public keys, will be global and shared by all chains. This table will have to be a part of the state that a new node must download, i.e. the snapshot.

Quote
People in a German thread asked me whether separate clients for child chains are necessary. I believe, all sorts of lite clients specified for easy child chain use are possible, but it is still one whole blockchain and one system of privkey-pubkey-pairs for all chains, so no separate clients are necessary, right?
It is indeed one whole system, the server code will be the same. The UI may be configurable which child chain to show by default, and lite clients giving access to only a specific child chain can be developed. But every node will run the same java code, possibly configured differently to prune or not different child chains.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: petko on February 12, 2016, 02:38:03 pm
I started a new thread about the pegged tokens opportunity - https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-child-chain-tokens-pegged-to-fnxt/

(Since I don't see anyone replaying to my post - not that I read all 14 pages since then)

I think it is worth to be discussed first instead of arguing about the fNXT/nNXT distribution
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: petko on February 12, 2016, 03:00:42 pm
How is NXT 2.0 different from mini blockchain cryptonite.info apart from NXT would have POS and child chains?
Yes, a child chains in Nxt 2.0 is something like the cryptonite chain, while fNXT is the POW. Ethereum is a more popular adopter of this approach (https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper#blockchain-and-mining)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: petko on February 12, 2016, 03:17:42 pm
i dont see anyone panicking, people are just voicing concerns. i don't know why you push those into the panic corner immediately.

im starting to like the ideas more and more. however i think i asked a legitimate question in my previous post, which has not been adressed by anyone. so again: it has been talked about full blocks. solving bloat alone doesn't solve scalability. given that this is all about solving scalability, i would like to hear ideas on how to solve TPS.
i think it makes sense to talk about it now, rather than to say lets solve it later. this is all about a vision isn't it?

Currently the TPS is limited mostly because of the blockchain bloat. Apart from the TPS limit, we have another limit - the minimal fees - again aiming to handle the blockchain bloat.

And speaking about the future, I think we can build a sub-sub-chain that uses a child chain stake in its Proof-of-stake
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: peddycb on February 12, 2016, 03:23:35 pm
NXT and (f)NXT  you take drugs
this idea is Fuck...
should this happen I'll deduct my money by nxt


 >:(
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 03:28:49 pm
NXT and (f)NXT  you take drugs
this idea is Fuck...
should this happen I'll deduct my money by nxt


 >:(

You can stay on the ossified NXT 1.x fork, it'll still work :)
Better yet, wait for the hard fork, sell your NXT 2.0 coins exchange them to NXT 1.x, and you will have double NXT 1.x coins, profit!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 12, 2016, 04:43:28 pm
i dont see anyone panicking, people are just voicing concerns. i don't know why you push those into the panic corner immediately.

im starting to like the ideas more and more. however i think i asked a legitimate question in my previous post, which has not been adressed by anyone. so again: it has been talked about full blocks. solving bloat alone doesn't solve scalability. given that this is all about solving scalability, i would like to hear ideas on how to solve TPS.
i think it makes sense to talk about it now, rather than to say lets solve it later. this is all about a vision isn't it?

Currently the TPS is limited mostly because of the blockchain bloat. Apart from the TPS limit, we have another limit - the minimal fees - again aiming to handle the blockchain bloat.

And speaking about the future, I think we can build a sub-sub-chain that uses a child chain stake in its Proof-of-stake

how is tps limited by bloat? what does pruning do for tps? what i read from your post is solving tps will be aproached when and if it becomes a problem.

the last sentence i don't fully understand.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: websioux on February 12, 2016, 05:38:38 pm
how is tps limited by bloat? what does pruning do for tps?

Currently : increasing Transactions per seconds increases blockchain size. To limit the growing speed you have to prune regularly.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 12, 2016, 06:17:51 pm
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?
No, it is not.
This is wrong. It is possible to have all sidechain stuff without splitting to NXT and fNXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: petko on February 12, 2016, 06:28:23 pm
how is tps limited by bloat? what does pruning do for tps? what i read from your post is solving tps will be aproached when and if it becomes a problem.

the last sentence i don't fully understand.

tps limitted because of the bloat. I mean that the reason for the limit is the bloat. If we solve the bloat, we could increase the limit and reduce the minimal fees.

the last sentence: i'll explain later
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 12, 2016, 06:41:50 pm
but there is no pruning on the mother chain. it sounds very vague without any numbers to go with it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: petko on February 12, 2016, 07:10:39 pm
but there is no pruning on the mother chain. it sounds very vague without any numbers to go with it.
tps on the mother chain will not be increased (or may even be decreased). Transaction throughput of the whole system will
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 12, 2016, 07:24:31 pm
thanks for the answers so far, however this is taking more posts than it should :)
you must have some numbers in mind. its such a big design change, there really should some detail on what to expect. if we go from e.g. 7 tps to 10 or 20, then a legitimate question would be: 'why even bother?'.
if you cant outline a very rough estimate, then its a total shot in the dark.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 07:40:08 pm
For the last two years, we have 1880996 transactions, which makes approximately 1.8 transactions per MINUTE.

The database size is 1.5 GB, takes 2 h to download on a fast machine, 24 h on a slow one.

If we had 200 transactions per minute instead for the last 2 years, the database size would have been X GB, and it would take Y hours to download even on a fast machine.

Calculate X and Y and see if the 255 transactions per block is really the limiting factor we should worry about.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 12, 2016, 07:56:17 pm
For the last two years, we have 1880996 transactions, which makes approximately 1.8 transactions per MINUTE.

The database size is 1.5 GB, takes 2 h to download on a fast machine, 24 h on a slow one.

If we had 200 transactions per minute instead for the last 2 years, the database size would have been X GB, and it would take Y hours to download even on a fast machine.

Calculate X and Y and see if the 255 transactions per block is really the limiting factor we should worry about.

42 kb * 1440 * 365 = 21 GB a year. Most people download the blockchain from peerexplorer, I think. It's not the size of the blockchain per se, I believe, it's how efficient the database H2 is in selecting and updating in millions of rows?

One blockchain is not scalable, we need sidechains before it becomes a problem. Luckily we have JL who knows what to do :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 12, 2016, 07:58:16 pm
For the last two years, we have 1880996 transactions, which makes approximately 1.8 transactions per MINUTE.

The database size is 1.5 GB, takes 2 h to download on a fast machine, 24 h on a slow one.

If we had 200 transactions per minute instead for the last 2 years, the database size would have been X GB, and it would take Y hours to download even on a fast machine.

Calculate X and Y and see if the 255 transactions per block is really the limiting factor we should worry about.

thats one way to answer it. i have to ask these questions to put the design proposal into perspective and i am surprised nobody else is asking. i find the outlining in the original post insufficient to form an opinion.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: coinomat on February 12, 2016, 08:16:43 pm
Don't know what to say guys.
LOL.
I wish you all the best.
after all you're the devs. do whatever the fuck you please :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 12, 2016, 08:18:54 pm
I have a question that hopefully won't lead to another tangent.  I understand how the child chains will help with bloat and thus tps limits.  I think it's great to start thinking about this now if NXT is to have a future, otherwise it might be too late like what bitcoin is dealing with in their block limit.
Would anything in NXT 2.0 help with transaction speeds though?  I believe right now it is still recommended to wait for 10 confirmations of a tx (which is about 10 minutes), while I'm sure people would love to hear about instant transactions  ;D
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 12, 2016, 08:24:51 pm
Transaction confirmation speed will not change.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 12, 2016, 08:30:11 pm
The suggestion is that each account, in order to receive fNXT according to his proportional NXT stake would have to register a specific "Keep Alive" property on his account. By this the account owner proves that he poses the passphrase for this account and that the she cares enough about NXT in order to register this property.
The distribution code will iterate over all accounts, filter out those who did not register the property, then distribute fNXT proportionally based on the NXT stake of the accounts that did register the property.
If we were going this route, I'd be more generous. I'd give the fNXT to any account that had any out-going activity in the 2 years prior to the fork. Such activity would prove the owner still knew the private key. Forging would count as an activity. (If they are forging on the main fork, they must have updated their node, and that shows activity.) This means a sleeping whale could wake up, make any trivial 1 NXT transaction, and go to sleep again, and that would be fine with me. It'd also mean that someone who was using Nxt, but not paying attention to the forum, would not miss out.

One good reason to use such a property or some other way of confirming the account is still in use would be to prevent giving fNXT to accounts without public keys announced.
Well, we could simple give fNXT to every account that has a public key. That would solve that issue.

How many NXT, without public keys, are there currently? Is it a significant threat?

If we want nxt to be money and valued as money in the future, it means you can buy it, save it, forget about it, come back a few years later and sell it, without having lost voting or forging rights in the meantime.
Mostly I agree with this. If we don't treat property rights as sacred, we set a bad precedent. It undermines faith in the system. I'm not sure any of the benefits of these schemes are worth compromising this.

There is an argument that what they own now is NXT and what they'd own in 2.0 would still be NXT. They'd miss out on fNXT but that is a new and different thing. I don't think this argument is really valid.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 12, 2016, 08:44:18 pm
Scaling by using snapshots causes all transaction history to be unsaved.
Even though nodes could still have that data, they have no incentive to share that date.
This would mean that I open my nxt account and I can't see my previous transactions, messages, trades, etc.
Just because it can be pruned doesn't mean it has to be. It means you can control what to keep. So you could keep all transactions involving your own account on your local machine, for example. (We already have the nxt.ledgerAccounts config setting as a kind of precedent for this.) Or you could keep all NXT and fNXT transactions and prune the child-chains that you weren't interested in.

No account control for the token that needs security the most, as it controls the security of all childchains?
Account control provides, well, control. Not security.
But surely we need that control? A corporate account might need 2 or more signatures to dispose of fNXT. And as I wrote a few days ago, we surely also need vote-by-fNXT to decide community issues. (Or will vote-by-fNXT be possible on the NXT child-chain?)

Would it not be possible to allow such transactions, but make them so expensive that they rarely get used and hence don't contribute much bloat? If you're right and they aren't needed, they won't be used at all.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 12, 2016, 09:05:05 pm
I understand this is intentional and required from an economic perspective in your design. One flaw for nxt is that the nxt blockchain keeps getting bloated with death childchains snapshots while not getting rewarded for keeping this snapshot alive.
The cost of keeping that state has already been paid by transaction fees for that child chain, because the larger the state, the more transactions have been processed and fees paid.
You cannot pay an infinite service with a one time payment, sooner or later the service cannot be maintained. The service is keeping the (long death) childchain snapshot available on the fNXT blockchain.
Having to keep the final state of a dead chain, expressed as accounts balances, is much less than having to keep all transactions that led to this state.
True, the only problem is the loss of date....
Which can be solved with archival nodes, which should receive a financial incentive for doing that, otherwise that system wont be economically viable in the long term.
And if we really becomes a problem, we could think about defining some conditions under which such state can be dropped and the child chain deleted for good. No need to plan for this now.
A symptom of a bad system is the constant need for new rules and changing them constantly.
Quote from: TheCoinWizard
The current way of working, being complete transaction blockchains, already solved that incentive problem. Taking the solution away in order to scale better is not a good scaling solution
Scalability is way more important than this hypothetical problem.

I am glad you are taking it upon yourself to try to improve scalability, understand how your design improves upon that and am thankful. Using snapshots is indeed a way to improve upon that, but also creates new problems. You can improve scalability by having only a subselectons of nxt forgers supporting different childchains.
Quote from: TheCoinWizard
Duplicity being that every nxt node has a copy of every childchain, or in your case only snapshot.
It is better to not have every nxt node/forger having to process every childchain and keep every childchain.
Someone trying out a childchain doesn't need as much copies of its childblockchain as nxt has (archival) nodes. This duplicity all costs money.
It is not possible to establish consensus without every node having the full current state of all chains. Your proposal contains a desire to achieve that, but I don't see an explanation how it could be achieved.
It basicly is offering an interface that lets you create a nxt clone that uses the pos of nxt forger.
On top of that enabling nxt forgers to select which of these chains they want to forge upon, and how long they want to support new childchains for the purpose of bootstrapping.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Benzedi on February 12, 2016, 11:45:57 pm
The distribution of fNXT should be 1:1 and nothing else.

Anything else would build resentment from people who own NXT but haven't kept up with the community or simply want to trade it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Vyazhan on February 13, 2016, 10:43:40 am
I can't really dig through all of this, but just from a feeling, I feel it's gonna get a lot of people even more disinterested in NXT, as it's always complicated compared to many other cryptos and introducing this will remove more casual NXT users for sure :)
The casual user will hardly see any difference. When you download and start the NRS client, you will see the NXT child chain the way you see the current blockchain now, and all transactions will happen on that NXT child chain. The end user will not even be aware that there is a forging chain, unless he becomes interested in how to forge.

How exactly the other child chains will be accessible, which of them if any will be possible to switch to from the default NRS client, this is all a matter of UI. Some child chain creators may want custom clients, with which only their child chain is visible. For commonly used child chains, for example if SuperBTC becomes such a child chain, there may be a way to switch to it from the default client. Or even do transactions on another child chain without the user realizing it, for example if placing an asset ask order and the user wants to place it in SuperBTC, the client submits the transaction on that child chain without the user having to be aware of how it works. How it is presented in the UI is a whole different story, it does not need to reflect how the server part works.

I see, thanks a lot for clearing this up and for providing a great explanation, I get this much better now!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 14, 2016, 01:34:20 pm
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?

Actually, when jean-luc introduced this plan to me, that was the first thing I asked too. I mean why would you have to go into all this trouble and risk of separating fNXT from NXT just in order to get child chains ?
The reason is, that if we keep using the same token for financial transactions (NXT) and forging (fNXT) we won't be able to prune the main NXT blockchain which represents most of the blockchain bloat. Since scalability is the most important design goal of this feature, this defeats the whole purpose.
By separating the chains, we can prune the NXT chain so that the blockchain only stores the current state + last 1440 blocks. This is obviously much smaller than keeping the whole NXT blockchain as is. Probably by a factor of 1:100 perhaps 1:1000.

I mean, take a look at the current transactions on the NXT blockchains, block 653136, 3 message related to ATM operator and 1 asset bid, block 653134 message transaction by ATM operator. block 653133 message related to NXTPricer.
Do we really need to keep these transactions in the blockchain forever ?

All other blockchains including first and foremost Bitcoin, has this problem. We can solve it. This is a huge competitive advantage.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: OutSL on February 14, 2016, 02:52:40 pm
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?
...
I mean, take a look at the current transactions on the NXT blockchains, block 653136, 3 message related to ATM operator and 1 asset bid, block 653134 message transaction by ATM operator. block 653133 message related to NXTPricer.
Do we really need to keep these transactions in the blockchain forever ?
do you think the solution you are looking for below will solve the problem of NXT ecosystem economic recession mentioned above?
All other blockchains including first and foremost Bitcoin, has this problem. We can solve it. This is a huge competitive advantage.

I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?
for me and any business man or economist = inflation;
in the actual state of the NXT economy this will be the end of the road...

dear DEVs, you don't need to proof something to the blockchain industry or the crypto-currency world because you have already something! you have made an innovative all-in-one concept really unique and i am sure that under the wood there is a wonder as code and software architecture but that is not what the user sees, uses and needs ...
if only you invest the same effort to create this childchains architecture in rewriting the marketplace it will restart the economic dynamics... and bring a bit of life to this ecosystem...

Thank you and @++
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 14, 2016, 03:22:30 pm
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?

Actually, when jean-luc introduced this plan to me, that was the first thing I asked too. I mean why would you have to go into all this trouble and risk of separating fNXT from NXT just in order to get child chains ?
The reason is, that if we keep using the same token for financial transactions (NXT) and forging (fNXT) we won't be able to prune the main NXT blockchain which represents most of the blockchain bloat. Since scalability is the most important design goal of this feature, this defeats the whole purpose.
By separating the chains, we can prune the NXT chain so that the blockchain only stores the current state + last 1440 blocks. This is obviously much smaller than keeping the whole NXT blockchain as is. Probably by a factor of 1:100 perhaps 1:1000.

I mean, take a look at the current transactions on the NXT blockchains, block 653136, 3 message related to ATM operator and 1 asset bid, block 653134 message transaction by ATM operator. block 653133 message related to NXTPricer.
Do we really need to keep these transactions in the blockchain forever ?

All other blockchains including first and foremost Bitcoin, has this problem. We can solve it. This is a huge competitive advantage.
Finally we got some numbers. So you are implying we will have a 10 Mb blockchain instead of 1 Gb. Not bad. Although it is arguable that 990 Mb cut is worth experimenting with NXT splitting I think there are other options to achieve similar result without coin splitting.
Eg we could make payments and AE unprunnable and move everything else to sidechains. Or maybe even make bids and asks prunnable and assets permanent (if possible).
Also it looks like the prunning effect was never calculated properly (100x or 1000x is a big difference). We hardly can evaluate different options without better calculation of the effect on blockchain bloat.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 14, 2016, 04:08:18 pm
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?

Actually, when jean-luc introduced this plan to me, that was the first thing I asked too. I mean why would you have to go into all this trouble and risk of separating fNXT from NXT just in order to get child chains ?
The reason is, that if we keep using the same token for financial transactions (NXT) and forging (fNXT) we won't be able to prune the main NXT blockchain which represents most of the blockchain bloat. Since scalability is the most important design goal of this feature, this defeats the whole purpose.
By separating the chains, we can prune the NXT chain so that the blockchain only stores the current state + last 1440 blocks. This is obviously much smaller than keeping the whole NXT blockchain as is. Probably by a factor of 1:100 perhaps 1:1000.

I mean, take a look at the current transactions on the NXT blockchains, block 653136, 3 message related to ATM operator and 1 asset bid, block 653134 message transaction by ATM operator. block 653133 message related to NXTPricer.
Do we really need to keep these transactions in the blockchain forever ?

All other blockchains including first and foremost Bitcoin, has this problem. We can solve it. This is a huge competitive advantage.

Thank you for explanation, now it is clear why this split is needed. Also, Blackyblack1 suggestion above seems good for thinking about.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 14, 2016, 04:56:23 pm
What about a system where NXT is burned to create fNXT? Has that been explored yet?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 14, 2016, 05:02:05 pm
What about a system where NXT is burned to create fNXT? Has that been explored yet?

I like the idea. Get 1 NXT fused into 1 fNXT.

Someone will complain again and find reasons it's not fair or whatever.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 14, 2016, 05:22:30 pm
I have a straight question: is it possible to have all sidechain stuff without these fNXT and other NXT stuff?

Actually, when jean-luc introduced this plan to me, that was the first thing I asked too. I mean why would you have to go into all this trouble and risk of separating fNXT from NXT just in order to get child chains ?
The reason is, that if we keep using the same token for financial transactions (NXT) and forging (fNXT) we won't be able to prune the main NXT blockchain which represents most of the blockchain bloat. Since scalability is the most important design goal of this feature, this defeats the whole purpose.
By separating the chains, we can prune the NXT chain so that the blockchain only stores the current state + last 1440 blocks. This is obviously much smaller than keeping the whole NXT blockchain as is. Probably by a factor of 1:100 perhaps 1:1000.

I mean, take a look at the current transactions on the NXT blockchains, block 653136, 3 message related to ATM operator and 1 asset bid, block 653134 message transaction by ATM operator. block 653133 message related to NXTPricer.
Do we really need to keep these transactions in the blockchain forever ?

All other blockchains including first and foremost Bitcoin, has this problem. We can solve it. This is a huge competitive advantage.
Finally we got some numbers. So you are implying we will have a 10 Mb blockchain instead of 1 Gb. Not bad. Although it is arguable that 990 Mb cut is worth experimenting with NXT splitting I think there are other options to achieve similar result without coin splitting.
Eg we could make payments and AE unprunnable and move everything else to sidechains. Or maybe even make bids and asks prunnable and assets permanent (if possible).
The idea is that everything that effects forging balance needs to be unprunable. Since every transaction has a fee, they all effect balance. They can maybe be made smaller, but there needs to be some record of them kept.

Quote
Also it looks like the prunning effect was never calculated properly (100x or 1000x is a big difference). We hardly can evaluate different options without better calculation of the effect on blockchain bloat.
Well, the issue is not so much the sizes today, but how they grow. It may be 100x when we hard fork, and 1000x five years later. The benefit of child-chains increases over time.



I think another option is to keep using the NXT chain as the main chain, and introduce a new child-chain which I'll call pNXT. Over time, move activity from NXT to pNXT. The transaction fees for NXT would be raised to extortionate levels, until the only affordable transactions are the ones that would still be allowed in Jean-Luc's proposal. The transaction fees for pNXT would be reduced to 1% of current levels. Thus my NXT evolves into Jean-Luc's fNXT and my pNXT evolves into Jean-Luc's NXT.

With this approach we'd be stuck with the current gigabyte block-chain indefinitely, but its growth would slow and virtually stop as people switched. We could eliminate it eventually with a hard fork that effectively had a new genesis block based on a snapshot of the state just before the fork.

In some ways this is less risky, in that if the whole child-chain thing doesn't work out we still have NXT more or less unchanged. (Because I suspect that after a year to 18-months work, we may discover we can't reduce the transaction fees to 1% after all. I've asked about prospective fee levels a few times, without getting a response.)

How the initial pNXT distribution would be arranged I don't know. One option would be to start from scratch with an IPO, and then trade. Another would be for pNXT to copy the distribution of NXT in the block before the hard fork. A third would be to allow NXT => pNXT conversion, possibly one way only. That might be best because it would be gradual, and only people with faith in the pNXT child-chain need opt into using it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Brangdon on February 14, 2016, 05:25:05 pm
What about a system where NXT is burned to create fNXT? Has that been explored yet?
It sounds like what petko suggested here (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-child-chain-tokens-pegged-to-fnxt/).
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 14, 2016, 05:34:08 pm
What about a system where NXT is burned to create fNXT? Has that been explored yet?
It sounds like what petko suggested here (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-child-chain-tokens-pegged-to-fnxt/).

Similar but different. Burning is permanent, and any amount of burned NXT would create the 1 bn fNXT. One of J-L's objections was that the forging balance could be low and quite variable. People who burn NXT are clearly committed to forging.
It's also a lot simpler and therefore safer.
Edit: economically, this makes fNXT something more like an MS coin, even if it serves the same purpose in terms of security.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 14, 2016, 05:40:41 pm
Well, the issue is not so much the sizes today, but how they grow. It may be 100x when we hard fork, and 1000x five years later. The benefit of child-chains increases over time.
This is very true. But fNXT chain will be growing linearly for undefined period of time either so it is still not an ultimate scalability solution. We should estimate growth to make a right decision. I still not convinced that any amount of bloat is worth experimenting with economical system of the NXT and dramatical decline in network security.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 14, 2016, 08:29:43 pm
Instead of keepAlive, I suggest a keepDead, or better keepZombie property. When taking the 2.0 snapshot, accounts who have elected to remain on 1.7 and have set keepZombie get excluded from the fNXT and NXT2 distribution. In return, the zombies take over the still moving 1.0 blockchain and do a hard fork, disallowing any account that was created before the snapshot block but does not have the keepZombie property set from being able to make further transactions or forging. There will be no dilution, as accounts who have chosen to stay on 1.7 do not get 2.0 tokens, and those on 2.0 get banned from 1.7. Then 1.7.x continues running in the afterlife.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 14, 2016, 08:54:04 pm
Instead of keepAlive, I suggest a keepDead, or better keepZombie property. When taking the 2.0 snapshot, accounts who have elected to remain on 1.7 and have set keepZombie get excluded from the fNXT and NXT2 distribution. In return, the zombies take over the still moving 1.0 blockchain and do a hard fork, disallowing any account that was created before the snapshot block but does not have the keepZombie property set from being able to make further transactions or forging. There will be no dilution, as accounts who have chosen to stay on 1.7 do not get 2.0 tokens, and those on 2.0 get banned from 1.7. Then 1.7.x continues running in the afterlife.
I guess they will choose to stay on both 1.7 and 2.0 chains instead of being a zombie.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: bidji29 on February 14, 2016, 11:15:06 pm
Instead of keepAlive, I suggest a keepDead, or better keepZombie property. When taking the 2.0 snapshot, accounts who have elected to remain on 1.7 and have set keepZombie get excluded from the fNXT and NXT2 distribution. In return, the zombies take over the still moving 1.0 blockchain and do a hard fork, disallowing any account that was created before the snapshot block but does not have the keepZombie property set from being able to make further transactions or forging. There will be no dilution, as accounts who have chosen to stay on 1.7 do not get 2.0 tokens, and those on 2.0 get banned from 1.7. Then 1.7.x continues running in the afterlife.
I guess they will choose to stay on both 1.7 and 2.0 chains instead of being a zombie.

Seems like what J-L says is they can't be on both with the KeepZombie property.

But i think no such "official" solution should exist. It could create confusion about what is a real NXT (Which will be already existing between fNXT and NXT2)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: danisapfirov on February 15, 2016, 06:57:30 am
Guys you should care about projects and businesses based on Nxt. Enough damage has been done to SuperNet projects and sites like nxtreporting. The cost to scalability should me minimized. NXT should be preserved as currency. There some basic things about money and one of them is the ability to be used as comparison and reporting business results. Too much changes will create chaos in assets and NXT economy.

Please consider an asset for forging. Let's name it FOUNDATION. It can be issued by NXT foundation and be burned by forging but could give dividents in NXT. This also means elastic money supply for NXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: NxtSwe on February 15, 2016, 08:24:40 pm
Howdy, I'm a bit late to this party and still trying to wrap my head around the basics.
Could you please let me know if I misunderstood anything in my sample below.

Lifespan of a sample transaction in NXT 2.0:

1)   Node1 transmits a SendMoney tx on the SuperBTC child chain to the network. Paying 0.001 SuperBTC as fee.
2)   The transactions is propagated to the network and considered valid by the other nodes. The transaction ends up in the nodes unconfirmed transaction pool.
3)   Node2, acting as a "transaction bundler", decides that the fee of the tx (0.001 SuperBTC) is worth more than 1 fNXT, and creates a ChildchainBlock tx on the main chain, where all data about the original SendMoney tx is included as prunable data.
4)   This ChildchainBlock tx is the propagated to the network and validated.
5)   Node3, acting as a main chain forger creates the next block, receiving 1 fNXT for including the ChildchainBlock tx in the next block on the main chain.
6)   1440 blocks later the content of the block is pruned, leaving only the hash of the content. Except if you have configured otherwise.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yassin54 on February 16, 2016, 09:02:13 am
Posted in from BTT, By "JohnnyBTCSeed"

Source : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg13899386#msg13899386

To those just tunning in, there is a raging debate over at the nxt forum about nxt 2.0


Nobody has made this suggestion yet. I wanted to add it to the correct thread over there but whomever is the mod over there won't authorize my account for login. (sigh)


So here is the problem and here is a solution.

As proposed, NXT 2.0 would use another token fNXT to secure the network. All tech questions aside, distribution of fNXT has been suggested by the captain to be a 1-1 with NXT.

The Problem with this is, logically people with NXT assets will sell to NXT in order to aquire fNXT. Now unfortunately this 1-1 plan  seemingly throws supporters of the NXT ecosystem UNDER the bus. (Which is a damn shame).

The Solution In addition to the fNxt-NXT 1-1 distribution, there needs to be a 1-1 distribution of NXT assets to fNXT
      (maybe this means the community votes on which assets qualify, something like the 10 best)
      (maybe this means that there is a fNXT asset that is distributed to NXT asset owners, and later redeemed for fNXT?)
      (Maybe assets get a different ratio of fNXT to NXT then 1-1?)


What this solves is, it prevents the NXT AE system from crashing.


TLDR. Give NXT asset holders a piece of fNXT so the NXT AE doesn't crash in value.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Roiman on February 16, 2016, 10:05:16 am
Good to see this proactive approach being discussed, keep up all the great work.

I'm a little concerned with fNXT. if fNXT is required for certain transactions and can be forged makes a possibility that fNXT will be centralised and so the price can be controlled by the whales. This would be fine if fNXT wasn't needed for anything other than forging but seems it is, I feel as though problems could occur sometime in the future.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 16, 2016, 10:07:38 am
Good to see this proactive approach being discussed, keep up all the great work.

I'm a little concerned with fNXT. if fNXT is required for certain transactions and can be forged makes a possibility that fNXT will be centralised and so the price can be controlled by the whales. This would be fine if fNXT wasn't needed for anything other than forging but seems it is, I feel as though problems could occur sometime in the future.

I thought that fNXT would only be used for forging. Of course, there is nothing to stop people using fNXT as money, since it will be freely tradeable, but that's inevitable.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Roiman on February 16, 2016, 10:08:57 am
Good to see this proactive approach being discussed, keep up all the great work.

I'm a little concerned with fNXT. if fNXT is required for certain transactions and can be forged makes a possibility that fNXT will be centralised and so the price can be controlled by the whales. This would be fine if fNXT wasn't needed for anything other than forging but seems it is, I feel as though problems could occur sometime in the future.

I thought that fNXT would only be used for forging. Of course, there is nothing to stop people using fNXT as money, since it will be freely tradeable, but that's inevitable.

I'm sure i read that certain transactions would require fNXT such as creating a new child chain
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 16, 2016, 10:15:44 am
Good to see this proactive approach being discussed, keep up all the great work.

I'm a little concerned with fNXT. if fNXT is required for certain transactions and can be forged makes a possibility that fNXT will be centralised and so the price can be controlled by the whales. This would be fine if fNXT wasn't needed for anything other than forging but seems it is, I feel as though problems could occur sometime in the future.

I thought that fNXT would only be used for forging. Of course, there is nothing to stop people using fNXT as money, since it will be freely tradeable, but that's inevitable.

I'm sure i read that certain transactions would require fNXT such as creating a new child chain

Yes, that's probably correct. Wouldn't make sense to use anything else.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Roiman on February 16, 2016, 10:22:21 am
Good to see this proactive approach being discussed, keep up all the great work.

I'm a little concerned with fNXT. if fNXT is required for certain transactions and can be forged makes a possibility that fNXT will be centralised and so the price can be controlled by the whales. This would be fine if fNXT wasn't needed for anything other than forging but seems it is, I feel as though problems could occur sometime in the future.

I thought that fNXT would only be used for forging. Of course, there is nothing to stop people using fNXT as money, since it will be freely tradeable, but that's inevitable.

I'm sure i read that certain transactions would require fNXT such as creating a new child chain

Yes, that's probably correct. Wouldn't make sense to use anything else.
Yes, I agree.
So I think it has the potential to give a lot of control to the forgers if they become centralised enough in the future, but maybe i am thinking about it wrong and market forces will determine the price
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 16, 2016, 10:30:27 am
Posted in from BTT, By "JohnnyBTCSeed"

Source : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg13899386#msg13899386

To those just tunning in, there is a raging debate over at the nxt forum about nxt 2.0


Nobody has made this suggestion yet. I wanted to add it to the correct thread over there but whomever is the mod over there won't authorize my account for login. (sigh)


So here is the problem and here is a solution.

As proposed, NXT 2.0 would use another token fNXT to secure the network. All tech questions aside, distribution of fNXT has been suggested by the captain to be a 1-1 with NXT.

The Problem with this is, logically people with NXT assets will sell to NXT in order to aquire fNXT. Now unfortunately this 1-1 plan  seemingly throws supporters of the NXT ecosystem UNDER the bus. (Which is a damn shame).

The Solution In addition to the fNxt-NXT 1-1 distribution, there needs to be a 1-1 distribution of NXT assets to fNXT
      (maybe this means the community votes on which assets qualify, something like the 10 best)
      (maybe this means that there is a fNXT asset that is distributed to NXT asset owners, and later redeemed for fNXT?)
      (Maybe assets get a different ratio of fNXT to NXT then 1-1?)


What this solves is, it prevents the NXT AE system from crashing.


TLDR. Give NXT asset holders a piece of fNXT so the NXT AE doesn't crash in value.
Hahaha  :D
That's about the stupiest thing I've read in a long time
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 16, 2016, 10:40:05 am
Hahaha  :D
That's about the stupiest thing I've read in a long time

If you follow global economic news, this sort of socialist proposals are voiced all the time, coming from all countries. Give money to this group, bail out that group. Privatizing profits from assets, socializing losses by taxing everyone to share their fNXT.

The next one will be to print more NXT to prop the AE market as they do with stock markets everywhere :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yassin54 on February 16, 2016, 10:47:36 am
Hahaha  :D
That's about the stupiest thing I've read in a long time

If you follow global economic news, this sort of socialist proposals are voiced all the time, coming from all countries. Give money to this group, bail out that group. Privatizing profits from assets, socializing losses by taxing everyone to share their fNXT.

The next one will be to print more NXT to prop the AE market as they do with stock markets everywhere :)
sorry more technical for me, just help this man  :) , i hope  ::)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 16, 2016, 10:54:47 am
To those who say that AE will die if asset holders are not rewarded fNXT.

Crashes are healthy. Crashes are a feature of the free market, they help purge poorly performing assets from the system. Printing more money and bailing out dead companies is exactly what has pushed the world to the abyss of economic collapse.

No, AE will not be dead if some users decide to dump some of the assets. The assets that are already dead will be purged, the healthy assets will stay and carry on, some will be re-priced. Keeping false hopes for assets that are already dead is childish and weakens the economy of NXT.

sorry more technical for me, just help this man  :) , i hope  ::)

No problem, I was just explaining why his proposal is unsound.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: yassin54 on February 16, 2016, 11:02:51 am
No problem, I was just explaining why his proposal is unsound.
Thanks!!   :-*
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 16, 2016, 11:10:26 am
The possibility of asset sales to increase NXT balances ahead of fNXT creation is not so different to what happens when NXT is in an uptrend, or when a shiny new asset launches and people liquidate their existing holdings to fund its purchase.

For various reasons it seems best to make the allocation process flexible and as voluntary as possible. You don't want people suddenly dumping their fNXT because they never valued the idea in the first place and want to grab a quick profit. You do want the most motivated-to-forge people owning fNXT. So I think it's right there should be a cost to owning fNXT, because it represents the ability to profit from the long-term success of Nxt.

Edit: to clarify I think that cost should be met by burning NXT, rather than by a separate ICO.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 16, 2016, 05:05:49 pm
Edit: to clarify I think that cost should be met by burning NXT, rather than by a separate ICO.

So you will steal people right to forge ? NXT already have the "initial distribution problem" in his history ( a lot of people still think NXT is a scam because of this ), do you really want to add to this " how the forging right of NXTer was stolen by forcing them to burn their NXT if they want to forge " ? NXT / fNXT at a 1:1 ratio is the least worst idea since after the fork people will eventually rebuy assets ( that would be cheap ) so actually the risk for the AE isn't that high when we think about it. ( I'm still against this NXT 2.0 thing btw )
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 16, 2016, 05:39:05 pm
Edit: to clarify I think that cost should be met by burning NXT, rather than by a separate ICO.

So you will steal people right to forge ? NXT already have the "initial distribution problem" in his history ( a lot of people still think NXT is a scam because of this ), do you really want to add to this " how the forging right of NXTer was stolen by forcing them to burn their NXT if they want to forge " ? NXT / fNXT at a 1:1 ratio is the least worst idea since after the fork people will eventually rebuy assets ( that would be cheap ) so actually the risk for the AE isn't that high when we think about it. ( I'm still against this NXT 2.0 thing btw )

I'm not fully convinced of the benefit of going down the fNXT/NXT route. I can see why it would help scalability, but is doing it really worth the space saved? That's not really something I can answer. If it was down to me I'd stick with mainchain as the host and play it safe.
IF we go down that route, though, I'd be wary of 1:1 as it will inevitably lead to a dump of fNXT (and assets - though this may be mitigated somewhat by announcing plans far ahead), and questions about dilution. People don't forge for the profits right now, in any case.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 16, 2016, 08:20:41 pm
Would be great if in Nxt 2.0, there would actually some rewards or incensitive to run archieved node.

I say that, because every child blockchain seems to be pruned after 1440 blocks in the current 2.0 design.

Are there any plan on that?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 09:24:08 am
So this thread began by saying that this was the best solution.

Can we know about the OTHER potential solutions that you don't think are as good?

Its easy for people to say "it doesn't matter if Asset values get destroyed." Except I have invested over $200k of money into assets.

Poor me? Maybe.

But updates that crush long term supporters and investors can't be good for the eco-system, can they?

I felt by investing in Assets I was investing in the development of the NXT eco system, instead of just investing and holding Nxt. Now, I could be severely punished for that.

I didn't really sign up for major overhauls like this one.

If it doesn't effect Assets then fine. But if it does, as it potentially can, and I lose $200k, I won't be coming back.

I love capitalism. I am willing to be a victim of it. That doesn't mean I will continue to be a part of a community that would disregard some people in such a way. There is "risk" and then there is stupidity. I invest in developers more than projects. Nxt felt like a project I could trust. Lose my trust, lose me. And probably other people like me.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: NxtSwe on February 17, 2016, 09:34:30 am
So this thread began by saying that this was the best solution.

Can we know about the OTHER potential solutions that you don't think are as good?

Its easy for people to say "it doesn't matter if Asset values get destroyed." Except I have invested over $200k of money into assets.

Poor me? Maybe.

But updates that crush long term supporters and investors can't be good for the eco-system, can they?

I felt by investing in Assets I was investing in the development of the NXT eco system, instead of just investing and holding Nxt. Now, I could be severely punished for that.

I didn't really sign up for major overhauls like this one.

If it doesn't effect Assets then fine. But if it does, as it potentially can, and I lose $200k, I won't be coming back.

I love capitalism. I am willing to be a victim of it. That doesn't mean I will continue to be a part of a community that would disregard some people in such a way. There is "risk" and then there is stupidity. I invest in developers more than projects. Nxt felt like a project I could trust. Lose my trust, lose me. And probably other people like me.

Why would NXT 2.0 destroy assets?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 09:38:16 am
So this thread began by saying that this was the best solution.

Can we know about the OTHER potential solutions that you don't think are as good?

Its easy for people to say "it doesn't matter if Asset values get destroyed." Except I have invested over $200k of money into assets.

Poor me? Maybe.

But updates that crush long term supporters and investors can't be good for the eco-system, can they?

I felt by investing in Assets I was investing in the development of the NXT eco system, instead of just investing and holding Nxt. Now, I could be severely punished for that.

I didn't really sign up for major overhauls like this one.

If it doesn't effect Assets then fine. But if it does, as it potentially can, and I lose $200k, I won't be coming back.

I love capitalism. I am willing to be a victim of it. That doesn't mean I will continue to be a part of a community that would disregard some people in such a way. There is "risk" and then there is stupidity. I invest in developers more than projects. Nxt felt like a project I could trust. Lose my trust, lose me. And probably other people like me.

Why would NXT 2.0 destroy assets?

Potentially because people will dump assets to buy more Nxt to try and get more fNxt.  Also, fear that Nxt price might be diluted, Asset become less valuable and then are dumped as well.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 17, 2016, 09:40:19 am
@NxtSwe The concern is that if there's a 1:1 distribution of fNXT for NXT then people will want to stock up on NXT before that happens, and will sell assets to get it.
This is a bit like what happens when a new asset is launched. Nxt is still fairly small and it's a bit of a zero sum game shuffling money around for the next big thing. What's different about this, though, is that it's not the 'free market': it's a change that comes from within the Nxt ecosystem, a fundamental change of the platform that affects a different stakeholders in different ways (a nuance I hadn't fully appreciated until @windjc and others articulated it).
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Seccour on February 17, 2016, 09:43:42 am
So this thread began by saying that this was the best solution.

Can we know about the OTHER potential solutions that you don't think are as good?

Its easy for people to say "it doesn't matter if Asset values get destroyed." Except I have invested over $200k of money into assets.

Poor me? Maybe.

But updates that crush long term supporters and investors can't be good for the eco-system, can they?

I felt by investing in Assets I was investing in the development of the NXT eco system, instead of just investing and holding Nxt. Now, I could be severely punished for that.

I didn't really sign up for major overhauls like this one.

If it doesn't effect Assets then fine. But if it does, as it potentially can, and I lose $200k, I won't be coming back.

I love capitalism. I am willing to be a victim of it. That doesn't mean I will continue to be a part of a community that would disregard some people in such a way. There is "risk" and then there is stupidity. I invest in developers more than projects. Nxt felt like a project I could trust. Lose my trust, lose me. And probably other people like me.

Why would NXT 2.0 destroy assets?

Potentially because people will dump assets to buy more Nxt to try and get more fNxt.  Also, fear that Nxt price might be diluted, Asset become less valuable and then are dumped as well.

Even if asset are dumped, after the fork it will goes up again. Since the price of a lot of assets will be under their NAV because of the dump.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 09:48:24 am
@NxtSwe The concern is that if there's a 1:1 distribution of fNXT for NXT then people will want to stock up on NXT before that happens, and will sell assets to get it.
This is a bit like what happens when a new asset is launched. Nxt is still fairly small and it's a bit of a zero sum game shuffling money around for the next big thing. What's different about this, though, is that it's not the 'free market': it's a change that comes from within the Nxt ecosystem, a fundamental change of the platform that affects a different stakeholders in different ways (a nuance I hadn't fully appreciated until @windjc and others articulated it).

Correct. I certainly will not partake in a race to the bottom. In my opinion Nxt devs already showed some disregard to assets holders with the backwards compatibility issue (SuperNet and SuperNet Assets). This issue also forced some very useful services like secureae.com out of business.

If this goes through, its pretty obvious that Assets are not being taken into consideration. In my humble opinion.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 17, 2016, 10:49:49 am
That's why burning may be a better option than 1:1.
There is no dilution in burning, some coins out of 1 billion supply will be 'colored' and get a special function of forging, while most other functions will be removed.

When you invest in NXT assets, a) you invest in centralized companies and b) you don't forge, you expect from these companies to give you more profits than if you simply held NXT coins or forged. That's not stupid or smart, that's your personal choice, you take more risk and expect more reward.

Ask yourself why you're holding the NXT assets that you're holding, and whether you believe in them enough to keep holding. Why would you and others dump assets to get yearly 1% returns from forging if the assets should, by your calculations, return much more? You have done calculations to invest in them, haven't you? If you don't believe the assets should return much more, are you deluding yourself right this very moment, and should you dump these assets while you still can and with no regard to the future NXT 2.0 overhaul? Do you expect others to bail you out because you miscalculated?  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)

These are all tough questions. I had to dump some assets at a loss a few months ago because I saw them going nowhere. In the real world 90% or more of start-ups go bust. You can blame devs or whatever, but that's shifting responsibility onto others because you miscalculated. There is a chance you didn't miscalculate and the assets will succeed and you will get more rewards than others. Calculate the damn risks! Don't throw money into hyped ventures, it's a sure way to feel sorry afterwards and start blaming others.

Finally, suggest your plan to take assets into consideration in the NXT 2.0 roadmap, if you believe they are not, in all the plans that have been proposed.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 17, 2016, 11:27:07 am
could you post the equation where a hard fork changing fundametals is factored in?

imo you're totally reaching now to make your point lurker.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 11:27:31 am
Why would you and others dump assets to get yearly 1% returns from forging if the assets should, by your calculations, return much more?

First or all, how the hell does someone calculate the risks of a change to the core structure of a coin? That's ridiculous when applied to "risks of investing in assets". Its just as likely that such a core change would increase the value of an asset. This premise to "calculate risk" based on an unexpected unpredictable change in the very core makeup of the coin itself falls flat on its face in my opinion.

Secondly, to the bolded part above, fNXT WILL be traded and have value. And you get some FREE for every NXT you own. If you do not understand the value to sell assets over and above a 1% forging value, then I don't even know where to start a discussion with you.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 11:30:02 am

Finally, suggest your plan to take assets into consideration in the NXT 2.0 roadmap, if you believe they are not, in all the plans that have been proposed.

Sure. Take a snapshot of Nxt owned today and do a 1:1. Or a week ago. Or a day before this proposal. Its not perfectly fair, but it protects everyone from being grossly negatively effected by this proposal in ways they cannot control.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 17, 2016, 11:37:22 am

Finally, suggest your plan to take assets into consideration in the NXT 2.0 roadmap, if you believe they are not, in all the plans that have been proposed.

Sure. Take a snapshot of Nxt owned today and do a 1:1. Or a week ago. Or a day before this proposal. Its not perfectly fair, but it protects everyone from being grossly negatively effected by this proposal in ways they cannot control.

This would surely have a similar effect - people dumping assets to pick up NXT for the snapshot?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 11:40:56 am

Finally, suggest your plan to take assets into consideration in the NXT 2.0 roadmap, if you believe they are not, in all the plans that have been proposed.

Sure. Take a snapshot of Nxt owned today and do a 1:1. Or a week ago. Or a day before this proposal. Its not perfectly fair, but it protects everyone from being grossly negatively effected by this proposal in ways they cannot control.

This would surely have a similar effect - people dumping assets to pick up NXT for the snapshot?

Thats why I said a point in the past. If the devs were smart they would have already done this - taken a snapshot. But certainly if we can roll back to a certain block in the past, we should have a snapshot of the day before this proposal?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 17, 2016, 11:44:03 am

Finally, suggest your plan to take assets into consideration in the NXT 2.0 roadmap, if you believe they are not, in all the plans that have been proposed.

Sure. Take a snapshot of Nxt owned today and do a 1:1. Or a week ago. Or a day before this proposal. Its not perfectly fair, but it protects everyone from being grossly negatively effected by this proposal in ways they cannot control.

This would surely have a similar effect - people dumping assets to pick up NXT for the snapshot?

Thats why I said a point in the past.


Ah - thought you meant a day before the proposal [was implemented]. That's actually not so bad an idea :)
I'm still a little concerned about fNXT being dumped, which would have security implications.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 17, 2016, 11:45:01 am
Many assets are and overvalued right now and have always been overvalued in their history. Their prices will go down guaranteed if the price of NXT goes up. Why? Because the supply of NXT is only 1 billion, and that 1 billion is chasing a few billions of assets market caps. It's unrealistic and naive to expect the prices of assets to stay high unless you dilute and print more NXT coins in the same manner they do with fiat and stock market. Read this again, the prices of assets are guaranteed to go down with or without any NXT 2.0 changes, especially the assets that are vaporware which is a good part of them.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 11:47:08 am
Many assets are and overvalued right now and have always been overvalued in their history. Their prices will go down guaranteed if the price of NXT goes up. Why? Because the supply of NXT is only 1 billion, and that 1 billion is chasing a few billions of assets market caps. It's unrealistic and naive to expect the prices of assets to stay high unless you dilute and print more NXT coins in the same manner they do with fiat and stock market. Read this again, the prices of assets are guaranteed to go down with or without any NXT 2.0 changes, especially the assets that are vaporware which is a good part of them.

No shit sherlock.

These points have zero to do with what I am discussing on this thread.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 11:48:54 am

Finally, suggest your plan to take assets into consideration in the NXT 2.0 roadmap, if you believe they are not, in all the plans that have been proposed.

Sure. Take a snapshot of Nxt owned today and do a 1:1. Or a week ago. Or a day before this proposal. Its not perfectly fair, but it protects everyone from being grossly negatively effected by this proposal in ways they cannot control.

This would surely have a similar effect - people dumping assets to pick up NXT for the snapshot?

Ah - thought you meant a day before the proposal [was implemented]. That's actually not so bad an idea :)
I'm still a little concerned about fNXT being dumped, which would have security implications.



Thanks. I think its the ONLY right idea if we were to keep fNXT.

As to your security concern, I would like to hear what the devs have to say about that.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 17, 2016, 11:51:14 am
Many assets are and overvalued right now and have always been overvalued in their history. Their prices will go down guaranteed if the price of NXT goes up. Why? Because the supply of NXT is only 1 billion, and that 1 billion is chasing a few billions of assets market caps. It's unrealistic and naive to expect the prices of assets to stay high unless you dilute and print more NXT coins in the same manner they do with fiat and stock market. Read this again, the prices of assets are guaranteed to go down with or without any NXT 2.0 changes, especially the assets that are vaporware which is a good part of them.

No shit sherlock.

These points have zero to do with what I am discussing on this thread.

On the contrary, they have everything to do with the risk calculation. But I feel you will keep blaming devs, who somehow abused your trust. The devs didn't guarantee you anything, they are free to quit any time, the project is open source and can be forked, the community can disagree with the changes and stay on the old chain. F*ck, stop complaining, it's your damn fault you didn't see through vaporware promises of certain asset issuers and bought into the hype.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 17, 2016, 11:53:30 am
Many assets are and overvalued right now and have always been overvalued in their history. Their prices will go down guaranteed if the price of NXT goes up. Why? Because the supply of NXT is only 1 billion, and that 1 billion is chasing a few billions of assets market caps. It's unrealistic and naive to expect the prices of assets to stay high unless you dilute and print more NXT coins in the same manner they do with fiat and stock market. Read this again, the prices of assets are guaranteed to go down with or without any NXT 2.0 changes, especially the assets that are vaporware which is a good part of them.

No shit sherlock.

These points have zero to do with what I am discussing on this thread.

On the contrary, they have everything to do with the risk calculation. But I feel you will keep blaming devs, who somehow abused your trust. The devs didn't guarantee you anything, they are free to quit any time, the project is open source and can be forked, the community can disagree with the changes and stay on the old chain. F*ck, stop complaining, it's your damn fault you didn't see through vaporware promises of certain asset issuers and bought into the hype.

Of course. That WHY I said in my original post in this thread that I invest in DEVS not projects. Devs I trust. And if Devs betray my trust I will leave. Which I will do if things go south because of this.

Which part of that post do you need help comprehending? I am losing my patience trying to help you.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 17, 2016, 12:00:11 pm
Of course. That WHY I said in my original post in this thread that I INVEST in devs not projects. Devs I trust. And if Devs betray my  trust I will leave. Which I will do if things go south because of this.

Which part of that post do you need help comprehending? I am losing my patience trying to help you.

I am not the one who needs help, you complain, not me. Your threats to leave are nothing but stupid looking. Devs don't owe you anything, it's a gamble we're all part of, it's your responsibility to calculate risks.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 17, 2016, 12:15:32 pm
Of course. That WHY I said in my original post in this thread that I INVEST in devs not projects. Devs I trust. And if Devs betray my  trust I will leave. Which I will do if things go south because of this.

Which part of that post do you need help comprehending? I am losing my patience trying to help you.

I am not the one who needs help, you complain, not me. Your threats to leave are nothing but stupid looking. Devs don't owe you anything, it's a gamble we're all part of, it's your responsibility to calculate risks.

I disagree here. Of course the devs owe us something.
And a gamble is not a real gamble if the rules change during the game, which is what Windjc is fearing maybe.

This is an open discussion and investor concerns MATTER.

Cryptocurrency is not just a dev game where we are invited along for the ride. It's a new system where the interests of devs, investors, users and businesses are in a dynamic. A comment by an investor is part of that dynamic.

To me, that is what makes this whole adventure we are all in interesting. Devs are not all-knowing. They need input from people with interests other than theirs. :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 17, 2016, 12:25:10 pm
And a gamble is not a real gamble if the rules change during the game

There is the ultimate gamble where rules change during the game, called Life.
NXT is all about changing rules, new features - new rules.
Ultimately, consensus of forgers decides.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 17, 2016, 12:26:51 pm
A snapshot right the day before the proposal is a good idea imo, if a 1:1 distribution is to be taken. It would save some side effects related to eventual AE dumping and market crash.

Would be nice to have others opinon on the matter.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 17, 2016, 12:37:04 pm
A snapshot right the day before the proposal is a good idea imo, if a 1:1 distribution is to be taken. It would save some side effects related to eventual AE dumping and market crash.

Would be nice to have others opinon on the matter.

It doesn't help.

People will complain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg13904737#msg13904737) that it's not fair, because they were 'supporting the NXT ecosystem by investing in assets' and now they don't get fNXT. They expect to privatize profits from holding assets and socialize their personal losses by making everyone share the fNXT they received from saving NXT losing the potential to profit from assets. People don't want to take responsibility, they want f*cking socialism and bailouts every time. If NXT fails, it will fail for no other reason than trying to meet these socialistic demands.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 17, 2016, 12:38:14 pm
And a gamble is not a real gamble if the rules change during the game

There is the ultimate gamble where rules change during the game, called Life.
NXT is all about changing rules, new features - new rules.
Ultimately, consensus of forgers decides.

I think this is overstating it, as well as implicitly saying "I am right and you are not, whatever you say".

The above is, as anything, an opinion.
Your opinion, and I disagree. This is something inherent in all crypto projects and people seem to have difficulty accepting that.

The forgers decide which fork to follow, nothing else.
They don't decide which people can use the chain: which is good.
They don't decide if businesses will like their fork: which is good
They don't decide "good" or "bad": which is a relief
They don't decide where I should spend my Nxt: which is good.

The forgers are just ONE piece of the complete system, which includes many other stakeholders without whom the system would FAIL.

If your argument would be correct, any system with forgers or miners would succeed, because nothing else is needed.
This is obviously not true, as there are many projects that are not worth anything. This means there must be another reason for these projects to succeed, which is the other people with incentives.

Read http://www.bitcoinwednesday.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Bitcoins-Incentive-Structure.pdf

This document is very worthwhile in getting a grip on how the system works in Bitcoin and it can illuminate many aspects of any crypto. :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 17, 2016, 12:41:23 pm
You're right, Damelon, it's an opinion. Thanks for your mediation. The forum would be a hot spot without you :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 17, 2016, 12:43:35 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Freebieservers on February 17, 2016, 12:57:08 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.

I personally see no reason for people to sell their BTC, ETH in the existing bull markets. They'd rather hoard with the hopes of catching another bull rally.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 17, 2016, 01:38:43 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.

I personally see no reason for people to sell their BTC, ETH in the existing bull markets. They'd rather hoard with the hopes of catching another bull rally.

There is also the argument from observation: what is the most rational approach is not what people actually do. Crypto markets are characterised by panic buying and selling if nothing else.

Edit: it's actually a little worse than that - you run the risk (certainty?) of a Keynsian Beauty Contest race to the bottom. If you think one or two irrational people might sell, the most rational course of behaviour is to sell first. And if a larger tranche of people think that rational people are selling because irrational ones might... the crash gets pretty bad pretty fast.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 17, 2016, 01:58:00 pm
Any change or feature we do that increases NXT value relative to assets, or makes people anticipate that NXT value will increase faster in the future relative to asset value, can then be considered as the developers trying to undermine the value of those assets and creating risk of crashing the asset market. By that logic, no further development should be done and we should make sure NXT price remains flat, so that we don't cause asset holders to want to switch to holding NXT instead.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 17, 2016, 02:04:54 pm
Any change or feature we do that increases NXT value relative to assets, or makes people anticipate that NXT value will increase faster in the future relative to asset value, can then be considered as the developers trying to undermine the value of those assets and creating risk of crashing the asset market. By that logic, no further development should be done and we should make sure NXT price remains flat, so that we don't cause asset holders to want to switch to holding NXT instead.

Due respect, but that's a reductio ad absurdum.

Edit: there's a difference between a change that will provide long-term value to the whole platform, and a one-time event that can be gamed/exploited for gain (and therefore will be), as well as hopefully providing greater long-term value.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: websioux on February 17, 2016, 02:17:59 pm
a one-time event that can be gamed/exploited for gain (and therefore will be)

That is the question : is there in this event a move that guarantee a gain ?

I believe fNXT would go up, NXT down and asset up.. but it seems others would move in the other direction.. so it looks good.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 17, 2016, 02:39:45 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: websioux on February 17, 2016, 02:50:09 pm
I only see it as an event which forces people to rethink their portfolio. Which they should do as much as possible. But not in something that fundamentally change values.
Or yes, it does increase value of the whole system. And asset values inherits of it.
Whatever the change, communication efforts, and possibly marketing fund should be paid to minimize the number of people not aware of it.
It could really be a good move.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Benzedi on February 17, 2016, 02:55:11 pm
A snapshot right the day before the proposal is a good idea imo, if a 1:1 distribution is to be taken. It would save some side effects related to eventual AE dumping and market crash.

Would be nice to have others opinon on the matter.

It doesn't help.

People will complain (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg13904737#msg13904737) that it's not fair, because they were 'supporting the NXT ecosystem by investing in assets' and now they don't get fNXT. They expect to privatize profits from holding assets and socialize their personal losses by making everyone share the fNXT they received from saving NXT losing the potential to profit from assets. People don't want to take responsibility, they want f*cking socialism and bailouts every time. If NXT fails, it will fail for no other reason than trying to meet these socialistic demands.

Just give a reasonable period of notice as to when the snapshot will occur and then people can decide whether to keep their NXT in assets or not. That way, it will be the market which determines the new prices which is more capitalistic than anything.

EDIT: I'm not always present in the NXT community but I am getting a bit annoyed of all this talk and no action. Hopefully we can decide on 2.0 features soon, change the name to something completely different (unique), re-brand and market it all substantially. In my opinion that's what we need and fast.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: websioux on February 17, 2016, 03:02:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 17, 2016, 03:33:29 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.

Maybe, maybe not. This is the problem.
We are discussing introducing an external shock into an established economic system that has until now functioned on known rules. Everyone involved has understood the rules they implicitly signed up for when they got involved. We're now talking about shifting the goal posts. It will have very real and very significant consequences that can't be fully predicted. This is the kind of intervention many of us got into crypto because we disliked in the real world.
Taking a best guess and suggesting, effectively, that 'it will all come out in the wash, you know' isn't enough under these circumstances. Real people will lose real money.
I like the scalability proposal, in the broad strokes. It's radical, in the literal sense, and imaginative. But let's not pretend it isn't going to be a massive change that could have very significant consequences for existing Nxt stakeholders.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem).

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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc 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??
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave 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)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc 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?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheWireMaster 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. :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Tosch110 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?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave 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)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus 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
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 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?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker 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.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 18, 2016, 08:52:10 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.
Let me sum up things a bit.
Let's suppose we will increase TPS 100x. We will have:
- Motherchain running at 0,66 TPM.
- NXT childchain running at 200 TPM.
- NXT childchain DB size with near constant size (O(1) memory).
- Motherchain DB size with very low linear growth rate.
- Archival nodes for NXT childchain will have DB growth rate of 44Gb per year without any incentive doing it.

Are my calculations correct? Will the system be able to run with those assumptions?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 09:17:11 am
Archival nodes can set up an IP-based subscription. If there is demand for that data, there will be a service to meet the demand.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 09:20:47 am
Ok, since we're nowhere near a consensus I'll take another stab, on the grounds that it's guaranteed to work eventually (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem).

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.

I like the idea in the sense that you make fNXT sort of stock options distributed to companies' employees to strengthen their commitment to the companies' success.
However, I'm afraid that unlike stock options, these fNXT also need to forge and if they are locked we are going to lose a lot of the forging power due to technicalities like people losing interest over the course of a long lockup period.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 09:26:13 am
Perhaps it can be nuanced somewhat. A slow release of available fNXT over time, perhaps. I think it's worth exploring more though?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 09:27:05 am
Let me sum up things a bit.
Let's suppose we will increase TPS 100x. We will have:
- Motherchain running at 0,66 TPM.
- NXT childchain running at 200 TPM.
- NXT childchain DB size with near constant size (O(1) memory).
- Motherchain DB size with very low linear growth rate.
- Archival nodes for NXT childchain will have DB growth rate of 44Gb per year without any incentive doing it.

Are my calculations correct? Will the system be able to run with those assumptions?

Generally yes, I'd like to add that the Motherchain growth depends on the number of the child chains not on the activity of the child chains. The best case scenario is one, or few, very active child chains, this maximizes the throughput of this design.
In case we have many, relatively inactive child chains, this reduces the savings. But note that we don't have empty blocks in the child chains so the worst case scenario are many child chains each one sending exactly a single transaction every minute. In this case the saving from the 2.0 design is very small.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 09:33:28 am
Perhaps it can be nuanced somewhat. A slow release of available fNXT over time, perhaps. I think it's worth exploring more though?

Frankly, I think we have bigger fish to fry. I say let the market forces distribute the fNXT after a 1:1 initial distribution (I still recommend my KeepAlive property idea for better initial distribution) , I don't see a big risk of centralization since there is no significant advantage to size here.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 18, 2016, 09:34:46 am
Archival nodes can set up an IP-based subscription. If there is demand for that data, there will be a service to meet the demand.
I think you are underestimating the importance of the archival nodes in the 2.0 design.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 18, 2016, 09:35:47 am
Let me sum up things a bit.
Let's suppose we will increase TPS 100x. We will have:
- Motherchain running at 0,66 TPM.
- NXT childchain running at 200 TPM.
- NXT childchain DB size with near constant size (O(1) memory).
- Motherchain DB size with very low linear growth rate.
- Archival nodes for NXT childchain will have DB growth rate of 44Gb per year without any incentive doing it.

Are my calculations correct? Will the system be able to run with those assumptions?

Generally yes, I'd like to add that the Motherchain growth depends on the number of the child chains not on the activity of the child chains. The best case scenario is one, or few, very active child chains, this maximizes the throughput of this design.
In case we have many, relatively inactive child chains, this reduces the savings. But note that we don't have empty blocks in the child chains so the worst case scenario are many child chains each one sending exactly a single transaction every minute. In this case the saving from the 2.0 design is very small.
Is it correct that NXT balances and assets will be destroyed if not a single archival node will be available during 1440 blocks?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 09:37:26 am
Perhaps it can be nuanced somewhat. A slow release of available fNXT over time, perhaps. I think it's worth exploring more though?

Frankly, I think we have bigger fish to fry. I say let the market forces distribute the fNXT after a 1:1 initial distribution (I still recommend my KeepAlive property idea for better initial distribution) , I don't see a big risk of centralization since there is no significant advantage to size here.

Centralisation was only one issue. The main question here is the unknown and unknowable effects of creating 1bn new tokens on the existing financial ecosystem, particularly the asset exchange. Surely we cannot just take the line that 'It will probably be ok' and risk razing all that to the ground in the interests of creating a platform that is really well positioned to scale?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 09:39:32 am
Let me sum up things a bit.
Let's suppose we will increase TPS 100x. We will have:
- Motherchain running at 0,66 TPM.
- NXT childchain running at 200 TPM.
- NXT childchain DB size with near constant size (O(1) memory).
- Motherchain DB size with very low linear growth rate.
- Archival nodes for NXT childchain will have DB growth rate of 44Gb per year without any incentive doing it.

Are my calculations correct? Will the system be able to run with those assumptions?

Generally yes, I'd like to add that the Motherchain growth depends on the number of the child chains not on the activity of the child chains. The best case scenario is one, or few, very active child chains, this maximizes the throughput of this design.
In case we have many, relatively inactive child chains, this reduces the savings. But note that we don't have empty blocks in the child chains so the worst case scenario are many child chains each one sending exactly a single transaction every minute. In this case the saving from the 2.0 design is very small.
Is it correct that NXT balances and assets will be destroyed if not a single archival node will be available during 1440 blocks?

The balances won't be destroyed since they'll be part of the latest snapshot each node maintains for each child chain but the transaction sequence which led to these balances on the child chain would be destroyed without archival nodes (or at least this is my current understanding)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 09:43:28 am
Perhaps it can be nuanced somewhat. A slow release of available fNXT over time, perhaps. I think it's worth exploring more though?

Frankly, I think we have bigger fish to fry. I say let the market forces distribute the fNXT after a 1:1 initial distribution (I still recommend my KeepAlive property idea for better initial distribution) , I don't see a big risk of centralization since there is no significant advantage to size here.

Centralisation was only one issue. The main question here is the unknown and unknowable effects of creating 1bn new tokens on the existing financial ecosystem, particularly the asset exchange. Surely we cannot just take the line that 'It will probably be ok' and risk razing all that to the ground in the interests of creating a platform that is really well positioned to scale?

Is this a situation where this discussion is just a farce and the devs have already decided and we are just being dumbasses for thinking otherwise?

After seeing the bitcoin core devs give everyone the middle finger, I'm sensing the same type of attitude in this thread. Can someone tell me if I am right or wrong about this?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 09:47:55 am
Can someone tell me if I am right or wrong about this?

You're neither right nor wrong. As Damelon says, you're voicing an opinion. Others have different opinions.
Bitcoin will probably split in two forks this year, Core and Classic, because they can't come to one decision. NXT should do the same (NXT 1.x and NXT 2.0). And that's good, because diversity results in more decentralization. Decentralization is the main purpose of crypto currencies.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: sadface on February 18, 2016, 09:57:55 am
Perhaps it can be nuanced somewhat. A slow release of available fNXT over time, perhaps. I think it's worth exploring more though?

Frankly, I think we have bigger fish to fry. I say let the market forces distribute the fNXT after a 1:1 initial distribution (I still recommend my KeepAlive property idea for better initial distribution) , I don't see a big risk of centralization since there is no significant advantage to size here.

Centralisation was only one issue. The main question here is the unknown and unknowable effects of creating 1bn new tokens on the existing financial ecosystem, particularly the asset exchange. Surely we cannot just take the line that 'It will probably be ok' and risk razing all that to the ground in the interests of creating a platform that is really well positioned to scale?

Is this a situation where this discussion is just a farce and the devs have already decided and we are just being dumbasses for thinking otherwise?

After seeing the bitcoin core devs give everyone the middle finger, I'm sensing the same type of attitude in this thread. Can someone tell me if I am right or wrong about this?

i saw it as such in the beginning, but i think we reached a point where a discussion can begin and concerns are taken seriously. maybe i'm mistaken tho :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 09:59:40 am
Is this a situation where this discussion is just a farce and the devs have already decided and we are just being dumbasses for thinking otherwise?

After seeing the bitcoin core devs give everyone the middle finger, I'm sensing the same type of attitude in this thread. Can someone tell me if I am right or wrong about this?

You are absolutely wrong. I've never worked in a dev team which consulted so much with its users before implementing a feature.
I can recall dozens of times that we changed a feature based on user feedback.

Come up with a well thought proposal, explain it clearly and we'll consider it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 10:10:44 am
Is this a situation where this discussion is just a farce and the devs have already decided and we are just being dumbasses for thinking otherwise?

After seeing the bitcoin core devs give everyone the middle finger, I'm sensing the same type of attitude in this thread. Can someone tell me if I am right or wrong about this?

You are absolutely wrong. I've never worked in a dev team which consulted so much with its users before implementing a feature.
I can recall dozens of times that we changed a feature based on user feedback.

Come up with a well thought proposal, explain it clearly and we'll consider it.

That is good to hear because right or wrong this is the #1 issue right now - which I appreciate is weird because this is presented as a tech matter, when fundamentally the impact is on community relationships, particularly with devs.
People have offered various suggestions - snapshots, locked forging balances, and so on. Bear in mind that the people who suggest these, like myself and windjc, don't necessarily have the tech background that you do and take for granted.
So thanks for your willingness to discuss these things and take (really very valid) concerns seriously, but please remember that we can't necessarily give a well-thought through proposal, because we don't know what we don't know.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: cc001 on February 18, 2016, 10:31:07 am
What about including the value of assets in the initial fNXT distribution, but with a lower weight?

example (parameter are arguable):
2/3 of all fNXT are distributed according to the NXT holding, meaning 666'666'666 fNXT are distributed to the NXT holders with a 1:2/3 rate.
the other 1/3 of fNXT (333'333'333) are distributed to asset holders in the following way:
We take for example the top 20 assets (rated by volume over the last 30 days, or something more sophisticated). For every holding of such an assets, its value in NXT is calculated. All those NXT-values combined are the stack to which the 1/3 fNXT are distributed evenly.

I see a few debatable points with this approach:
1. do we want to include asset holders somehow into the distribution calculation at all?
2. all parameters (2/3, top 20 assets, etc...)
3. which assets are valid for the distribution? top 20 by what value? fake assets?
4. what is the value of one asset in NXT? For example the average value over the last 20 trades?
5. which accounts holding the valid assets are valid? How to exclude issuer accounts? (maybe count only accounts that hold less than 1/3 of the amount of assets?)

Maybe we could generate a temporary distribution list and give the account holders some time to intervene if they think something is not correct?

I think NXT 2.0 is very deep change, so we could also use a fair amount of time to manage and verify the distribution of fNXT (write scripts, lists, check objections of the account holders, etc...)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: KarlKarlsson on February 18, 2016, 10:37:55 am
What about including the value of assets in the initial fNXT distribution, but with a lower weight?

example (parameter are arguable):
2/3 of all fNXT are distributed according to the NXT holding, meaning 666'666'666 fNXT are distributed to the NXT holders with a 1:2/3 rate.
the other 1/3 of fNXT (333'333'333) are distributed to asset holders in the following way:
We take for example the top 20 assets (rated by volume over the last 30 days, or something more sophisticated). For every holding of such an assets, its value in NXT is calculated. All those NXT-values combined are the stack to which the 1/3 fNXT are distributed evenly.

I see a few debatable points with this approach:
1. do we want to include asset holders somehow into the distribution calculation at all?
2. all parameters (2/3, top 20 assets, etc...)
3. which assets are valid for the distribution? top 20 by what value? fake assets?
4. what is the value of one asset in NXT? For example the average value over the last 20 trades?
5. which accounts holding the valid assets are valid? How to exclude issuer accounts? (maybe count only accounts that hold less than 1/3 of the amount of assets?)

Maybe we could generate a temporary distribution list and give the account holders some time to intervene if they think something is not correct?

I think NXT 2.0 is very deep change, so we could also use a fair amount of time to manage and verify the distribution of fNXT (write scripts, lists, check objections of the account holders, etc...)
I am absolutely against a distribution to asset holders. If you invest in an asset, you trade a certain amount of NXT against a share of the business. As a result, you are no longer invested in Nxt for the amount you invested in the shares. Just because assets are valued in NXT doesn't mean you are having a stake in Nxt itself. The question you have to ask yourself as an asset investor is which way will benefit you more: stay in the asset or sell it for fNXT.

Please note that 95% of my NXT are invested in assets.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 18, 2016, 10:39:38 am
Based distribution on assets do not make any sense, imho. Each asset are so different from one another that it is not possible to compare them and find a common ground where everyone will be in agreement. For example, some people may be holding a lot of asset that do not really trade, e.g. NEXTBOND, among others.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 10:44:12 am
I am absolutely against a distribution to asset holders. If you invest in an asset, you trade a certain amount of NXT against a share of the business. As a result, you are no longer invested in Nxt for the amount you invested in the shares. Just because assets are valued in NXT doesn't mean you are having a stake in Nxt itself. The question you have to ask yourself as an asset investor is which way will benefit you more: stay in the asset or sell it for fNXT.

Please note that 95% of my NXT are invested in assets.

+1440

Asset holders get profits from assets, why should they be entitled to fNXT if they are not interested in supporting NXT by holding NXT or forging? Investing in assets is supporting the business they invest in, support for NXT is secondary and arguable, because most businesses at AE dump NXT to BTC or fiat to operate, this is downward pressure on the price. Yes, AE is important, but giving fNXT to asset holders means double rewarding asset holders, why?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 10:52:38 am
Assetholders have opted to receive income based on whatever their assets do (could be BTC, USD, NXT, or camel milk). Also some assets hold substantial quantities of NXT; SuperNET I think has ~40m, LQD ~10m.
That's not really the issue. The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 18, 2016, 10:53:02 am
Maybe this is stupid idea, I don't know, but is it possible to link fnxt directly to effective NXT balance during fork and during 2.0 version live? :)
 I mean in ver. 1.0 forging is done only with effective balance. In 2.0 all NXT accounts have corresponding balance of fnxt equal to effective balance. If you transfer your NXT to other account, you also transfer fnxt. Or in this 2.0 proposal fnxt is completely other world?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 11:03:57 am
Maybe this is stupid idea, I don't know, but is it possible to link fnxt directly to effective NXT balance during fork and during 2.0 version live? :)
 I mean in ver. 1.0 forging is done only with effective balance. In 2.0 all NXT accounts have corresponding balance of fnxt equal to effective balance. If you transfer your NXT to other account, you also transfer fnxt. Or in this 2.0 proposal fnxt is completely other world?

There's the pegged NXT/fNXT and shadowNXT suggestions here: https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-child-chain-tokens-pegged-to-fnxt/?all
I'm not sure about pegged NXT, but the criticism of sNXT (which is I think what you're suggesting) is that to know your fNXT balance, you'd also have to have the entire NXT blockchain.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 11:06:08 am
The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 11:09:04 am
The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 11:10:42 am
Is this a situation where this discussion is just a farce and the devs have already decided and we are just being dumbasses for thinking otherwise?

After seeing the bitcoin core devs give everyone the middle finger, I'm sensing the same type of attitude in this thread. Can someone tell me if I am right or wrong about this?

You are absolutely wrong. I've never worked in a dev team which consulted so much with its users before implementing a feature.
I can recall dozens of times that we changed a feature based on user feedback.

Come up with a well thought proposal, explain it clearly and we'll consider it.

Great!

Ok here is my 1 simple and easy to do proposal.

EvilDave has said, and let's assume he is right, that you and Jean-Luc are only interested in the best technical solution as pertains to the long term technical health of Nxt.

Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

From a tech perspective there is no difference between this and a distribution done sometime in the future.

Meanwhile, you are mitigating most of the potential unforeseen effects of this distribution on investors and the eco system.  Assets will not be sold in a race to the bottom so that people can have more Nxt to get more fNxt on the day of distribution. Likewise, the Nxt price will not be pumped and dumped by people trying to get as much free fNxt as possible.

However, if the changes in 2.0 are appealing Nxt price may still pump. But it will pump from people interested in the long term potential verse some short term free FNxt. Therefore the pump may be permanent, not a cheap trick used by people to turn a profit.

There. That is my proposal.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 11:13:05 am
The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

How much Nxt and Nxt assets do you own?

And while you are at it, can you list some Assets you think deserve to be "flushed"?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 11:21:36 am
The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

How much Nxt and Nxt assets do you own?

And while you are at it, can you list some Assets you think deserve to be "flushed"?

Why does it matter? The assets, especially vaporware, will be dumped regardless of what my personal holdings are, it's based on economic laws of supply and demand. If the price of NXT goes higher or investors lose patience with bad assets, it'll still be 1 billion NXT coins in the system. When the number of businesses on AE increases because more users are attracted by the price, earlier assets will be dumped to buy into newer ones, because supply of NXT is limited. It's basics.

I won't list the assets I believe are vaporware, because it'll provoke unnecessary inflammatory posts.

I like your proposal from the post above. It may be the answer to the problem.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 11:28:08 am
EvilDave has said, and let's assume he is right, that you and Jean-Luc are only interested in the best technical solution as pertains to the long term technical health of Nxt.

I agree with this statement.

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 11:35:58 am
EvilDave has said, and let's assume he is right, that you and Jean-Luc are only interested in the best technical solution as pertains to the long term technical health of Nxt.

I agree with this statement.

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

Given the constraints of the NXT/fNXT proposal (I'd still like to hear about viable alternatives), I think this is approaching a least-worst solution. I know that's not a ringing endorsement, but under the circumstances I think we're looking at damage limitation.

I know devs want the best technical solution. But let's remember that Nxt is FinTech. Please don't forget the present as well as the future implications of the 'Fin' bit of what's going to happen, because that will inevitably colour Nxt's reputation and support going forwards.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: cc001 on February 18, 2016, 11:44:02 am
If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

Good point. The only question is: What will get you more profit/value in the future? The asset or NXT and fNXT. Bad assets will go down, good assets will stay alive.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 11:46:42 am
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

The proposal of Windjc takes care of the current user base. New users joining the system between block 621000 and the 2.0 hard fork will get zero fNXT from distribution, it means slightly less incentive for them to join and less adoption. Can they be allocated a share at the 2.0 hard fork snapshot? It's up for discussion again.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: cc001 on February 18, 2016, 11:48:00 am
Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

I don't like this idea. I think it is not reasonable to take a snapshot of the distribution before a discussion, before everything is defined and clear, and one year, or probably even longer, before something which is not defined yet will be implemented. JL is right that the market should play until the happening.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 11:51:09 am
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

The proposal of Windjc takes care of the current user base. New users joining the system between block 621000 and the 2.0 hard fork will get zero fNXT from distribution, it means slightly less incentive for them to join and less adoption. Can they be allocated a share at the 2.0 hard fork snapshot? It's up for discussion again.

This is a good point. We want to encourage new users to join not lock them out.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 18, 2016, 11:53:54 am
Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.
This is a theft. Only preannounced and widely known snapshot is a legit solution. And this solution is equal to a 1:1 distribution on the fork.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 18, 2016, 12:00:37 pm
For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 12:10:23 pm
Sigh. What about announcing it now, doing the allocation in 2-3 months, but no one gets their fNXT for another 6-12 months, when 2.0 actually launches? Not so different to locking fNXT to prevent trading, because no one can trade something they haven't got.
It would mean anyone who took a short-term view by dumping - at personal cost due to liquidity issues - would also be taking a less-certain long-term view of Nxt's success. It's not perfect but it might mitigate a lot of the pump-and-dump risk.
 
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 12:20:43 pm
Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.
This is a theft. Only preannounced and widely known snapshot is a legit solution. And this solution is equal to a 1:1 distribution on the fork.

How is this theft? Thats laughable. No one is loosing anything. Some people are getting something. You can't have some stolen that you don't have yet.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 12:21:29 pm
For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

Again, it seems you are wanting to play economics. Please explain how a snapshot is any less of a technical solution than a date in the future?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 12:23:30 pm
Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

I don't like this idea. I think it is not reasonable to take a snapshot of the distribution before a discussion, before everything is defined and clear, and one year, or probably even longer, before something which is not defined yet will be implemented. JL is right that the market should play until the happening.

So you are saying JL is arguing economics?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 12:31:04 pm
For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

Again, it seems you are wanting to play economics. Please explain how a snapshot is any less of a technical solution than a date in the future?

How about we settle this issue like man by ... voting by stake.

I suggest two poles:
A. Timing of snapshot for distribution:
(1) Block 621000 i.e. 1.7 hard fork
(2) Some pre-announced block, say 3 month from now, well ahead of the actual 2.0 fork
(3) 2.0 hard fork

B. Method of distribution:
(1) 1 fNXT for 1 NXT
(2) Like (1) but omit NXT accounts without announced public key
(3) Like (2) but only distribute fNXT to NXT accounts which registered their interest by setting an account property.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 12:33:57 pm
For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

It sounds as if you feel Nxt has suffered from reputation. But Nxt is what it is. Those of in this community right now - we signed up for NXT, initial distribution and all. And now you would prefer to put the risk on the shoulders of us that have supported the coin as it is, as we believed it to be, in exchange to be seen as a coin with a "more fair distribution?"  That sounds like some sort of communism or socialism to me.

We signed up for a coin with this distribution. Is the distribution an issue for you?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 18, 2016, 12:34:49 pm
What about including the value of assets in the initial fNXT distribution, but with a lower weight?
...
 For every holding of such an assets, its value in NXT is calculated.
I am absolutely against a distribution to asset holders. If you invest in an asset, you trade a certain amount of NXT against a share of the business. As a result, you are no longer invested in Nxt for the amount you invested in the shares. Just because assets are valued in NXT doesn't mean you are having a stake in Nxt itself. The question you have to ask yourself as an asset investor is which way will benefit you more: stay in the asset or sell it for fNXT.

Please note that 95% of my NXT are invested in assets.
- agree 195%

Moreover, it's absolutely impossible to determine "asset value in NXT" on anonymous AE. Anyone can fake huge trading volume of garbage asset with two (or more) accounts.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 18, 2016, 12:39:11 pm
For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

It sounds as if you feel Nxt has suffered from reputation. But Nxt is what it is. Those of in this community right now - we signed up for NXT, initial distribution and all. And now you would prefer to put the risk on the shoulders of us that have supported the coin as it is, as we believed it to be, in exchange to be seen as a coin with a "more fair distribution?"  That sounds like some sort of communism or socialism to me.

We signed up for a coin with this distribution. Is the distribution an issue for you?

JL is right on one thing here: Nxt could/probably will get hammered by the trolls if we choose for a fNXT distribution based only on a past snapshot.
We'll probably get hammered anyway, though, no matter which method of fNXT distro we choose...... :(
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 12:39:37 pm
A. Timing of snapshot for distribution:
(1) Block 621000 i.e. 1.7 hard fork
(2) Some pre-announced block, say 3 month from now, well ahead of the actual 2.0 fork
(3) 2.0 hard fork

Can we add the 4th option?

50% goes to 1.7 snapshot (block 621000), 50% goes to 2.0 hardfork snapshot.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 18, 2016, 12:39:45 pm
Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.
This is a theft. Only preannounced and widely known snapshot is a legit solution. And this solution is equal to a 1:1 distribution on the fork.

How is this theft? Thats laughable. No one is loosing anything. Some people are getting something. You can't have some stolen that you don't have yet.
People who bought NXT after the snapshot date are losing.
Let's say 10.02.2016 Bob has bought 1M NXT expecting the ability to forge NXT fees. He is honestly holding and forging but 18.02.2016 Alice announces that starting 09.02.2016 NXT are loosing the ability to forge.
This way Alice has stolen the ability (and the value) to forge from Bob although he did not get any prior notice about it.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 12:43:37 pm
For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

It sounds as if you feel Nxt has suffered from reputation. But Nxt is what it is. Those of in this community right now - we signed up for NXT, initial distribution and all. And now you would prefer to put the risk on the shoulders of us that have supported the coin as it is, as we believed it to be, in exchange to be seen as a coin with a "more fair distribution?"  That sounds like some sort of communism or socialism to me.

We signed up for a coin with this distribution. Is the distribution an issue for you?

JL is right on one thing here: Nxt could/probably will get hammered by the trolls if we choose for a fNXT distribution based only on a past snapshot.

Why? People have had 3 YEARS to invest in NXT.

You know what people sound like in this community? They sound desperate. Like they will grab on to ANYTHING to try to get more interest or potentially pump the price. Its lazy. Nxt has had great projects and its biggest success- the asset exchange is constantly pubicly  trashed by members of the community and has been hurt by backwards compatibility updates in development. You - being actively involved with Bas with the new outreach projects should know this better than anyone, because you are actually on the ground doing something.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 18, 2016, 12:45:26 pm

nm
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: NxtSwe on February 18, 2016, 12:50:39 pm
How about we settle this issue like man by ... voting by stake.

I suggest two poles:
A. Timing of snapshot for distribution:
(1) Block 621000 i.e. 1.7 hard fork
(2) Some pre-announced block, say 3 month from now, well ahead of the actual 2.0 fork
(3) 2.0 hard fork

If A1 or A2 gets chosen, be prepared for heavy NXT dumping.
The second that block is passed, there will be a race to get out by everyone who is in this for the money.
Some true believers might not do it, because of the negative price chock will give NXT a bad reputation, but given the low liquidity there will be dumping for sure.

Say I have 500k NXT and the magic snapshot block is passed.
Assuming I'm not a true NXT believer, why would I keep my NXT?
I might as well sell them to get BTC, then I'll get my fNXT AND some "free BTC" from some trader who didn't read the forums.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 12:52:50 pm

How about we settle this issue like man by ... voting by stake.


Where I come from, that's fighting talk.

Realistically, whatever the subjective or objective merits of one option or another, a vote is probably the least-FUD option, and the only way to reflect the majority's wishes.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: cc001 on February 18, 2016, 12:54:53 pm
How about we settle this issue like man by ... voting by stake.

I suggest two poles:
A. Timing of snapshot for distribution:
(1) Block 621000 i.e. 1.7 hard fork
(2) Some pre-announced block, say 3 month from now, well ahead of the actual 2.0 fork
(3) 2.0 hard fork

B. Method of distribution:
(1) 1 fNXT for 1 NXT
(2) Like (1) but omit NXT accounts without announced public key
(3) Like (2) but only distribute fNXT to NXT accounts which registered their interest by setting an account property.

I like voting. But lets discuss the polls and the selectable options first, before setting up the polls. Or add at least an option "Something else, check forum".
Maybe a new thread, where you adapt the op post and include the different proposed options to vote on?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 18, 2016, 01:09:47 pm
Let's first vote whether we shall have a vote about alternatives to 1:1 at hard fork. Afterwards we can discuss these alternatives in detail. Or we won't have to anymore, because the NXT stakeholders won't vote for less potential of a price increase of their stake.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 18, 2016, 01:59:42 pm
Yup...we need to start voting, get a feel for how the entire Nxt community would like this to go.

2 things that we do need to keep in mind: this is still purely a discussion. We're a long way from making any firm decisions.
And: we might need to balance our own personal wishes against what will be best for everyone, and for Nxt as a whole.

What I am seeing is that the more we discuss this, the more understanding we gain of potential problems.
If we choose for a 1:1 fNXT distribution at the moment that 2.0 goes live, this will almost certainly lead to a speculative bubble in NXT, at the cost of Assets.
This could , potentially, heve the effect of dumping some Assets to very low levels, if enough asset-holders choose to build up their NXT holdings in anticipation of the fNXT issue.
Will assets and the AE recover from this dump to NXT ?

On the other hand....a snapshot from before the NXT 2.0 debate began will effectively exclude any speculation in NXT, thereby protecting Asset values.
But: some large Asset holders may be unhappy about this option, and may want to have the opportunity to recieve fNXT, by liquidating their holdings to Nxt, even if that is not in the short-term interests of Nxt as a whole. (not to mention the opportunity to accuse Nxt of being an insiders club on BTT)

What looks like a simple technical question of snapshot timing, can have far-reaching economic consequences.

   
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: cc001 on February 18, 2016, 02:09:24 pm
a snapshot from before the 2.0 discussion began makes definitively no sense because it will take at least 1 year until the 2.0 hardfork will happen. 1 year in crypto is like 10 years in "real" markets. You wouldn't want to distribute the assets of a brand new tech product (which is still highly unknown how it will work, how it will look like, and it will not be ready within the next 10 years!) based on the market distribution/situation from before it even has been mentioned, would you?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 18, 2016, 02:21:51 pm
1:1 distribution based on NXT holdings at 2.0 going live gives the asset issuers a year time to start paying dividends or paying higher dividends to prevent a dump. And it gives the asset holders the longest possible time to sell assets for NXT (and thereby future fNXT). I think that is the fairest solution for all participants.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 18, 2016, 02:38:13 pm
Regardless of where this goes, I think it's good for all of us involved to realise that there are many different kinds of people who have contributed to the fact that Nxt is where it is now and has been at the top (say what you want, it IS true!) of the markets for over two years.

Just to name a few:

1. Users
2. Initial stakeholders
3. Investors
4. 3rd party devs
5. Core devs
6. Asset Issuers
7. Asset investors
8. Forgers
9. Holders

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but any solution and way forward MUST take into account that all these groups have (sometimes conflicting) investments into the Nxt ecosystem, but ALL have been equally valuable and are necessary for the health of the system.

Because crypto is so heavily ideological, it is easy to want to steamroll over other's point of view, but in the end this is detrimental.
None of these can survive without the other, even though interests might not be directly aligned.

I want to advocate a healthy discussion, where topics are seperated properly. They tend to get conflated.

So far I have at least seen two that are floating to the top and should be treated seperately:

1. The issue wheter fNXT is needed.
Been discussed a lot, and I think it needs some summarising to clearly see the options and counterproposals.

2. The METHOD of making the transition to the fNXT/NXT system: this one can have very unfortunate consequences if not done correctly. It's also the one that I consider vital as a test on how we can manage such a transition with a view to taking into account ALL interests in the community.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 18, 2016, 02:42:57 pm
I suggest two poles:
A. Timing of snapshot for distribution:
(1) Block 621000 i.e. 1.7 hard fork
(2) Some pre-announced block, say 3 month from now, well ahead of the actual 2.0 fork
(3) 2.0 hard fork

B. Method of distribution:
(1) 1 fNXT for 1 NXT
(2) Like (1) but omit NXT accounts without announced public key
(3) Like (2) but only distribute fNXT to NXT accounts which registered their interest by setting an account property.

Currently I like A2 and B2.

I'll through one other option in there for A to make it more complex :-)
A4) The average NXT in the accounts from the "pre-announced block, say 3 month from now" until the fork? 
Would that help with any rush to buy and/or sell NXT/NXT assets? (From a technical perspective, this doesn't sound the easiest though  ;D )

Just my 2 NXT :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: dude on February 18, 2016, 03:01:33 pm
Anything else than 1:1 distribution at the time of the 2.0 fork doesn't make sense.

You can try to justify it any way you like, but there is no good reason to do it otherwise.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 03:11:25 pm
Anything else than 1:1 distribution at the time of the 2.0 fork doesn't make sense.

You can try to justify it any way you like, but there is no good reason to do it otherwise.

Except for, y'know, all the good reasons [see above]
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 18, 2016, 03:12:04 pm
Regardless of where this goes, I think it's good for all of us involved to realise that there are many different kinds of people who have contributed to the fact that Nxt is where it is now and has been at the top (say what you want, it IS true!) of the markets for over two years.

Just to name a few:

1. Users
2. Initial stakeholders
3. Investors
4. 3rd party devs
5. Core devs
6. Asset Issuers
7. Asset investors
8. Forgers
9. Holders

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but any solution and way forward MUST take into account that all these groups have (sometimes conflicting) investments into the Nxt ecosystem, but ALL have been equally valuable and are necessary for the health of the system.

Because crypto is so heavily ideological, it is easy to want to steamroll over other's point of view, but in the end this is detrimental.
None of these can survive without the other, even though interests might not be directly aligned.

I want to advocate a healthy discussion, where topics are seperated properly. They tend to get conflated.

So far I have at least seen two that are floating to the top and should be treated seperately:

1. The issue wheter fNXT is needed.
Been discussed a lot, and I think it needs some summarising to clearly see the options and counterproposals.

2. The METHOD of making the transition to the fNXT/NXT system: this one can have very unfortunate consequences if not done correctly. It's also the one that I consider vital as a test on how we can manage such a transition with a view to taking into account ALL interests in the community.

Discussing rationally is great, if really done. But in the end we need a way to make a decision. With asset investors equally valuable as NXT holders, Damelon, do you think that 1 NXT = 1 vote is the right way to make a decision? Should we allocate voting power to asset investors? And who decides that? Can "we" make such decisions based on forum discussions?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Damelon on February 18, 2016, 03:35:50 pm
Regardless of where this goes, I think it's good for all of us involved to realise that there are many different kinds of people who have contributed to the fact that Nxt is where it is now and has been at the top (say what you want, it IS true!) of the markets for over two years.

Just to name a few:

1. Users
2. Initial stakeholders
3. Investors
4. 3rd party devs
5. Core devs
6. Asset Issuers
7. Asset investors
8. Forgers
9. Holders

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but any solution and way forward MUST take into account that all these groups have (sometimes conflicting) investments into the Nxt ecosystem, but ALL have been equally valuable and are necessary for the health of the system.

Because crypto is so heavily ideological, it is easy to want to steamroll over other's point of view, but in the end this is detrimental.
None of these can survive without the other, even though interests might not be directly aligned.

I want to advocate a healthy discussion, where topics are seperated properly. They tend to get conflated.

So far I have at least seen two that are floating to the top and should be treated seperately:

1. The issue wheter fNXT is needed.
Been discussed a lot, and I think it needs some summarising to clearly see the options and counterproposals.

2. The METHOD of making the transition to the fNXT/NXT system: this one can have very unfortunate consequences if not done correctly. It's also the one that I consider vital as a test on how we can manage such a transition with a view to taking into account ALL interests in the community.

Discussing rationally is great, if really done. But in the end we need a way to make a decision. With asset investors equally valuable as NXT holders, Damelon, do you think that 1 NXT = 1 vote is the right way to make a decision? Should we allocate voting power to asset investors? And who decides that? Can "we" make such decisions based on forum discussions?

I don't know, to be honest. This is new territory for us all.
In Bitcoin, there is a "voting" by mining: the fork that wins out, get to be "it".

We're treading new territory: we are PoS and for the first time (except the rollback fork) have to decide on a major change.

This is why I am advocating looking at the bigger picture and taking into account the health of the system as a WHOLE.

Yes, the forgers "vote", but their interest need to be informed by ALL people with interest in the system. This is why all opinions and observations are important.
It's also why before we even start coding, we need to have a minimum alignment.

Asset holders need to be sure their investment is safe within standard parameters.
3rd party devs need to be sure their creations will be reasonably supported and don't need to be scrapped.
Users and holders need to be reassured their Nxt value interests will be guarded if possible.

All these of course are never "hard" guarantuees, but need to be within reasonable limits. This is about trust as much as technological advancement.
If we lost trust by not being serious about our investors we might end up with a shiny new system that will have little trust and thus will not be adopted.

For now, my own preference would be regular "advisory" polls on specific issues to see how things stand.
I'd also make seperate threads for seperate issues to avoid conflation and mixing of arguments, where possible.
Discussing is difficult, but it's possible to at least streamline it so the crucial points are getting accross.

At all time, I think we need to keep in mind this is not

a) something that is being done spuriously
b) not something that will happen overnight
c) we are all involved and SHOULD be involved: tech and non-tech.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: follas on February 18, 2016, 03:37:39 pm
Discussing rationally is great, if really done. But in the end we need a way to make a decision. With asset investors equally valuable as NXT holders, Damelon, do you think that 1 NXT = 1 vote is the right way to make a decision? Should we allocate voting power to asset investors? And who decides that? Can "we" make such decisions based on forum discussions?

I'd suggest the following :

1. Top 20 forum members (by posts and ratings, excluding core devs)
2. Top 20 forgers (i.e those who have mined the most blocks for the last 3 months)
3. Give permision to the top 20 assets and their holders to vote (judge by volume and market cap), as that affects them a lot
4. and finallly the Core devs
(Get the percentages from each group, divide by 4 and add them up)

I know that leaves a few people out, but I think those who are into this will vote based both on their best interest which probably will also be best for the community.

We should also try and reach consensus (probably 65% or 2/3), not just a 51% democracy.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Benzedi on February 18, 2016, 04:21:26 pm
People critiquing the idea that if we do 1:1 snapshot before the 2.0 release the price will bubble. I don't see a problem with that.

Even in real-life stocks the price will naturally increase closer to the dividend date and go back down after.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 18, 2016, 04:27:08 pm
Yes, the forgers "vote", but their interest need to be informed by ALL people with interest in the system. This is why all opinions and observations are important.
It's also why before we even start coding, we need to have a minimum alignment.

But before devs code software that forgers vote on, how to reach an alignment? By the voting system. Who should be allowed to vote? Who should have how much voting power? There are no objective numbers on how much asset investors for example contributed to NXT. The only objective number is how much NXT you own. Anything else than 1 NXT = 1 vote is arbitrary.

With 1 NXT = 1 vote the result, an overwhelming affirmation of JL's original idea, will be clear due to economic interest of NXT holders.

BTW: The presentation of George Papageorgiou is not completely applicable to asset investors. Devs code for a higher value of NXT, because they are stakeholders themselves. That's why I welcome devs talking, understanding and developping based on economics. Investors invest and forgers forge for the same reason: a higher value of NXT. Businesses don't necessarily care about the value of NXT as long as it is high enough to secure the functions of NXT they use. That is O.K. Only asset investors have a different goal: They want a higher value of the asset they invested in and not necessarily of NXT. This conflict of interest cannot be solved. You can't give somebody a vote who is not involved, because he sold his NXT for assets.

Or do you have any suggestion on how to solve that conflict of interest? Of course, we can educate ourselves by discussing. But I strongly suggest that we end up with 1 NXT = 1 vote to reach the alignment.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: maddy83 on February 18, 2016, 05:15:56 pm
Regarding whether we "need" this NXT/fNXT split in the first place, I am bit worried that it increases the complexity of the system for an "average" user.

It's probably difficult for most non-tech people to understand how NXT works in the current form, but it is still pretty simple concept that you have a dual-use token for forging and making payments. So after the split, how does the "average" guy make sense of this? He gets some NXT to make some payments, but now some mysterious fNXT group is doing the forging. That just feels like Bitcoin where some big centralized miners are mining, and the regular users are disconnected from that process.

I also realize that NXT has been very much "tech driven", but NXT is proof that having cool or advanced tech does not create value by itself. Those features need users. We have a lot of features already that are not very heavily utilized (MS, DGS, etc.) and we just keep adding more features. NXT is becoming more and more a "technology demo", rather than something which is used for payments etc. Now, I am fine with that direction, as long we have some understanding that is (or should be) the niche NXT wants to fill.

Of course, I do understand the problem of blockchain bloat. I am just questioning whether it is such a problem at this stage.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 18, 2016, 05:34:57 pm
Regarding whether we "need" this NXT/fNXT split in the first place, I am bit worried that it increases the complexity of the system for an "average" user.

I'm still thinking this out, but would the "average" user ever really care about fNXT?  They would just need to know about the currency they are using.  All the fNXT should be just for the "advanced" user
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: maddy83 on February 18, 2016, 05:54:56 pm
Regarding whether we "need" this NXT/fNXT split in the first place, I am bit worried that it increases the complexity of the system for an "average" user.

I'm still thinking this out, but would the "average" user ever really care about fNXT?  They would just need to know about the currency they are using.  All the fNXT should be just for the "advanced" user

I was just wondering if some users would be more discouraged in getting into NXT if they can't understand how it works. But I don't think that will be a very big issue at this stage of crypto.

The bigger issue is the question of separating users and forgers into separate groups, effectively copying that aspect of Bitcoin. Now instead of special hardware, like in BTC, user needs to buy some fNXT to participate in forging/mining. Are we destroying some fundamental benefit of POS here?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Stadtfeger on February 18, 2016, 06:48:00 pm
makes a client easy to install then all will be well... than we can talk of NXT 2.0 ...3.0  and so on!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheWireMaster on February 18, 2016, 07:51:44 pm
I think that the current implementation of NXT is quite cool.
As mentioned previously, I would leave it as it is and simply allow MS to be self sustainable, which means that fees are paid in that currency.
Asset Exchange, Marketplace could stay as they are, but simply issuers/sellers can choose in which currency issue/sell them.
Features as Voting, Data Cloud, Aliases can stay simply with the main currency NXT.
A user that wants to use the UI in a certain currency can switch and have the full set of functionalities if using NXT, only the financial functionalities if he/she chooses a specific currency.
I didn't really understand the way the pruning will work, but wouldn't that be possible also in this kind of implementation?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 18, 2016, 08:19:35 pm
As mentioned previously, I would leave it as it is and simply allow MS to be self sustainable, which means that fees are paid in that currency.
Than an attacker could fill up all the blocks with costless MS coin transactions, if he uses a worthless MS coin.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 18, 2016, 08:29:20 pm
I was just wondering if some users would be more discouraged in getting into NXT if they can't understand how it works. But I don't think that will be a very big issue at this stage of crypto.

The bigger issue is the question of separating users and forgers into separate groups, effectively copying that aspect of Bitcoin. Now instead of special hardware, like in BTC, user needs to buy some fNXT to participate in forging/mining. Are we destroying some fundamental benefit of POS here?

Agree very much. The fundamental strength of NXT is that the power is with the coin holders. They decide with their forging power what changes will ultimately be accepted for NXT. This is easy to understand and explained to newcomers and very attractive feature.

Explaining that you have to buy fNXT for that but this fNXT does not have many features, for that you have to buy NXT as well, makes it much more complicated to explain and less attractive.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 08:35:09 pm
I was just wondering if some users would be more discouraged in getting into NXT if they can't understand how it works. But I don't think that will be a very big issue at this stage of crypto.

The bigger issue is the question of separating users and forgers into separate groups, effectively copying that aspect of Bitcoin. Now instead of special hardware, like in BTC, user needs to buy some fNXT to participate in forging/mining. Are we destroying some fundamental benefit of POS here?

Agree very much. The fundamental strength of NXT is that the power is with the coin holders. They decide with their forging power what changes will ultimately be accepted for NXT. This is easy to understand and explained to newcomers and very attractive feature.

Explaining that you have to buy fNXT for that but this fNXT does not have many features, for that you have to buy NXT as well, makes it much more complicated to explain and less attractive.

Now we are coming back to the question that was never fully explored: is it possible to scale without an f/NXT split? Given that everything is still supposed to be on the table, it's worth establishing that beyond doubt. <Ducks>
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 18, 2016, 08:37:00 pm
I also realize that NXT has been very much "tech driven", but NXT is proof that having cool or advanced tech does not create value by itself. Those features need users. We have a lot of features already that are not very heavily utilized (MS, DGS, etc.) and we just keep adding more features. NXT is becoming more and more a "technology demo", rather than something which is used for payments etc. Now, I am fine with that direction, as long we have some understanding that is (or should be) the niche NXT wants to fill.

Of course, I do understand the problem of blockchain bloat. I am just questioning whether it is such a problem at this stage.

I agree, if you ask 'what is the biggest problem nxt has today?' it is adoption. The amount of transactions is only 2000 per day :( Many of the new features (like shuffling, MS) need much more work to get user friendly enough to reach adoption.

Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge. 
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 18, 2016, 08:37:14 pm
I am proposing again to make the childchain migration process prolonged over time instead of brute splitting of the coin.
Here is how it works:

- Leave the NXT as the mother currency. It will be unprunable blockchain.
- Create sidechains infrastructure.
- Create the NXT replacement sidechain. Let's call it NXT2.

Now start making people migrate to NXT2 chain. To start with make higher TPS (10x higher is a good start). Motherchain won't get any new features so it will be frozen forever with the current featureset. Now start raising fees on the motherchain eg increase them 2x every month.
Finally most of the activity and capital should flow into NXT2 without forcefully taking away the value from asset and NXT holders. Also we will be able to avoid financial shocks and asset dumps, have better backwards compatibility with current services and more time for people to adapt.

Also we can eventually recreate the Genesis again and remove the bloat of the outdated motherchain. Finally NXT2 will be as lightweight as proposed 2.0 design.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 18, 2016, 08:38:24 pm
I also realize that NXT has been very much "tech driven", but NXT is proof that having cool or advanced tech does not create value by itself. Those features need users. We have a lot of features already that are not very heavily utilized (MS, DGS, etc.) and we just keep adding more features. NXT is becoming more and more a "technology demo", rather than something which is used for payments etc. Now, I am fine with that direction, as long we have some understanding that is (or should be) the niche NXT wants to fill.

Of course, I do understand the problem of blockchain bloat. I am just questioning whether it is such a problem at this stage.

I agree, if you ask 'what is the biggest problem nxt has today?' it is adoption. Many of the new features (like shuffling, MS) need much more work to get user friendly enough to reach adoption.

Scalability is not our problem. Finding new users is our challenge.

Child chains is a very good potential market. That seems to be the feedback from businesses - they want their own off-the-peg blockchain, but not to pay fees in a different currency (as with MS). So doing this right would likely help a lot with adoption.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 18, 2016, 08:41:08 pm
I think that the current implementation of NXT is quite cool.
As mentioned previously, I would leave it as it is and simply allow MS to be self sustainable, which means that fees are paid in that currency.
Asset Exchange, Marketplace could stay as they are, but simply issuers/sellers can choose in which currency issue/sell them.
Features as Voting, Data Cloud, Aliases can stay simply with the main currency NXT.
A user that wants to use the UI in a certain currency can switch and have the full set of functionalities if using NXT, only the financial functionalities if he/she chooses a specific currency.
I didn't really understand the way the pruning will work, but wouldn't that be possible also in this kind of implementation?

Right on WireMaster. Jean Luc, I think this is the right way forward.   8)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 18, 2016, 08:42:10 pm
After thinking again about JL proposal started to understand, that there is no big problem with fnxt stuff. Today I forge with 10K NXT, other 180K are in assets. After the 2.0 fork, I'll have the same 10K in forging power (fnxt) and the same 180K in assets. Is forging so profitable, that I will need to dump my assets to get fnxt and have 190K fnxt and forging power? How much I will forge and will it be more profitable than receiving dividends from assets? Today 4747...888 has the biggest forging power and will have the same power after 2.0 fork, the same with me, I'll have the same forging power with my 10K effective balance. If forging would be so profitable, we should see forging more than 40% of forging power as of today.

What do I miss?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: cc001 on February 18, 2016, 09:07:31 pm
I agree, if you ask 'what is the biggest problem nxt has today?' it is adoption. The amount of transactions is only 2000 per day :( Many of the new features (like shuffling, MS) need much more work to get user friendly enough to reach adoption.

Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.

This! FULL ACK
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 18, 2016, 09:14:13 pm
Today I forge with 10K NXT, other 180K are in assets.
...
What do I miss?
- you do not have 180K NXT.
Your assets may worth 180K NXT, or may worth 0 NXT. And that was your decision - to get rid of 180K NXT and change them to assets.
So you are right, you have 10K NXT effective balance, that's all.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 18, 2016, 09:16:43 pm
I agree, if you ask 'what is the biggest problem nxt has today?' it is adoption. The amount of transactions is only 2000 per day :( Many of the new features (like shuffling, MS) need much more work to get user friendly enough to reach adoption.

Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.

This! FULL ACK

This! FULL ACK
!
and that is not going to happen with just doubling the supply!

Ultimately, fNXT == NXT because forgers must sell the fNXT somehow - so fNXT will hit the exchanges NXT, == DILUTION

correct my if I am wrong- maybe there is a built in mechanism to prevent fNXT from being traded? but that would be kind of silly and centralized, no?

so what i the difference again? fNXT is the forging token, but not the currency, and NXT is the currency, but not the forging token, but the forging token somehow has to be convertible into a currency- which makes it - what exactly? A currency?
How can I trade in my fNXT? Something to do with the sidechains?

And which business is going to rely on such a nebulous model? Adoption? Yes we'll see how that's gonna work out!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 18, 2016, 09:24:26 pm
Meanwhile http://www.coindesk.com/researchers-redesign-scaling-decentralized-blockchains/
"... The increasing popularity of bitcoin as a digital currency has made scalability a "primary and urgent concern" for the bitcoin network, the authors say, touching upon a topic that has been hotly debated for months in the bitcoin space."
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 18, 2016, 09:30:15 pm
I agree, if you ask 'what is the biggest problem nxt has today?' it is adoption. The amount of transactions is only 2000 per day :( Many of the new features (like shuffling, MS) need much more work to get user friendly enough to reach adoption.

Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.

True, but it's a little of a chicken and egg thing  :)
With more adoption, we need more scalabilty.
To take advantage of more scalability, we need more adoption

...What if 2.0 could have both  :o
or 1.8 and 1.9 could be focused on user friendliness and 2.0 scalability

Just me 2 NXT again  ;D
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: cc001 on February 18, 2016, 09:36:16 pm
Meanwhile http://www.coindesk.com/researchers-redesign-scaling-decentralized-blockchains/
"... The increasing popularity of bitcoin as a digital currency has made scalability a "primary and urgent concern" for the bitcoin network, the authors say, touching upon a topic that has been hotly debated for months in the bitcoin space."

yes, but Bitcoin has 100 times more transactions per day. If we don't find new users we will never need to think about scalability. even if we get traction, it will take a long time until scalability is a "primary and urgend concern" for Nxt. It is ok to think in advance about future problems, but scalability it is not our primary problem right now. It doesn't make sense to build a factory that can produce 100 Lambos [hey Marc ;) ] per day, if you can sell only one per month.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 18, 2016, 09:44:24 pm
Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.
I agree, but this is besides the point. It is not like the work on 2.0 will conflict with finding new users. For the next few months, it would be mostly me alone that will work on 2.0. I need to put a basic framework in place, before development can be parallelized and tasks split between more developers. And then still, it will continue to take development resources only. Attracting new users, marketing and adoption is not the job of the core developers.

If you wait until scalability becomes a problem, it will be too late to start work on 2.0.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 18, 2016, 09:50:17 pm
Meanwhile http://www.coindesk.com/researchers-redesign-scaling-decentralized-blockchains/
"... The increasing popularity of bitcoin as a digital currency has made scalability a "primary and urgent concern" for the bitcoin network, the authors say, touching upon a topic that has been hotly debated for months in the bitcoin space."

yes, but Bitcoin has 100 times more transactions per day. If we don't find new users we will never need to think about scalability. even if we get traction, it will take a long time until scalability is a "primary and urgend concern" for Nxt. It is ok to think in advance about future problems, but scalability it is not our primary problem right now. It doesn't make sense to build a factory that can produce 100 Lambos [hey Marc ;) ] per day, if you can sell only one per month.

If NXT reaches the transactional volume of Bitcoin making these huge architectural scalability changes will be completely out of the question. Too many users would then be affected, there is no chance in hell they will come to an agreement. Have a look at Bitcoin, a small change of the block size is debated for half a year.

NXT can change while it's small, being small is an advantage. If NXT doesn't evolve to let businesses have their own sidechains, it will not be popular, it will be just another altcoin with a few bells and whistles. Yes, AE, MS, Marketplace - all these features can be done with Bitcoin, in a roundabout way through third parties, but they can be done. NXT must do something Bitcoin can't do because it's already too big for that. This is NXT's competitive advantage, it must be used if we want NXT to survive at all.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: NxtSwe on February 18, 2016, 10:07:44 pm
If you wait until scalability becomes a problem, it will be too late to start work on 2.0.
This!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 18, 2016, 10:18:30 pm
I am proposing again to make the childchain migration process prolonged over time instead of brute splitting of the coin.
Here is how it works:

- Leave the NXT as the mother currency. It will be unprunable blockchain.
- Create sidechains infrastructure.
- Create the NXT replacement sidechain. Let's call it NXT2.

Now start making people migrate to NXT2 chain. To start with make higher TPS (10x higher is a good start). Motherchain won't get any new features so it will be frozen forever with the current featureset. Now start raising fees on the motherchain eg increase them 2x every month.
Finally most of the activity and capital should flow into NXT2 without forcefully taking away the value from asset and NXT holders. Also we will be able to avoid financial shocks and asset dumps, have better backwards compatibility with current services and more time for people to adapt.

Also we can eventually recreate the Genesis again and remove the bloat of the outdated motherchain. Finally NXT2 will be as lightweight as proposed 2.0 design.

I don't consider this a viable approach from software engineering perspective. It would require maintaining code for two different types of blockchains, prunable and not, but unlike the split fNXT design, without a clear separation of transaction types between the two. Every single transaction type will have to be supported on both, and inevitably with small or not so small differences in behavior, resulting in code full of special cases in very fundamental parts of the code. This is not a system I am willing to start developing, let alone maintain in the future.

And in the end, assuming someone goes this route, you will have a system where the Nxt child chain is unwanted baggage, not being prunable itself. Why would anyone want to create a child chain on such platform, and have to carry multiple gigabytes of legacy NXT transactions? As soon as the situation is explained to any business potentially interested in a child chain, they would just ask for a clone instead, without those extra Nxt data. And we are back at where we are now. The Nxt child chain itself must not be a burden, it must be architecturally equal to the other child chains, in order for 2.0 to be considered as a usable child chain hosting platform.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 19, 2016, 04:32:39 am
dear DEVs, you don't need to proof something to the blockchain industry or the crypto-currency world because you have already something! you have made an innovative all-in-one concept really unique and i am sure that under the wood there is a wonder as code and software architecture but that is not what the user sees, uses and needs ...
if only you invest the same effort to create this childchains architecture in rewriting the marketplace it will restart the economic dynamics... and bring a bit of life to this ecosystem...

Thank you and @++

thumbs up
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 19, 2016, 04:46:28 am
Will you stop hardcode fees ? Will you let decide the forgers ( in the fNXT motherchain ) which transactions to include or not even with 0 fee ? If no why ? Since everyone speak about free market here.

Same for the childchain NXT. Everything will be prunable so are you going to let the market decide of the fees ? If no why ?

My brother also talks about this often. He thinks it would be a great improvement. Allowing forgers to also choose which childchains to support would also make childchains possible without the nxt blockchain becoming too big. Childchains would be forks only carried by those nxt forgers that choose to support it/validate transactions for it.

Making nxt more scalable is good, but the cost is way too high if it means splitting nxt into 2 coins.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 19, 2016, 05:28:30 am
The initial cost of creating a child chain should be very high, to protect against abuse.
Unfortunatly that will result into low usage as well.
And that's fine, we don't want anyone and their brother creating a child chain just to see how it works and then abandoning it. To create a child chain, you must be an established business and the token you are going to use for your child chain must have market value. If not, use the Monetary System.
But as I said, at first creating child chains and changing their properties will be a manual process, in which case if there is any fee it would be to cover the development efforts for it. Until the system is working smoothly enough to think about automating it.
I think it would be better if that would be possible that everyone can just try to create his coin. Test it around, notice that their coin is only being supported by the last 2 nxt nodes for the last 200 blocks and realise they need to start giving value to their coins if they want it to survive it to survive longer time they create one. This all without any nxt blockchain bloat.

Just like in my proposal.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/ (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/)

I would love to explain this proposal to you verbally, if you are open to it.

Very good post.

On first impression I liked nxt 2.0 as I thought it was MS done well but if you can't cheaply launch your coin, it's not done well and adoption will be - again - poor.

In this alternate proposal I like very much that people can launch their altcoin cheaply (as they are basically forks that nxt forgers can individually decide to support or not) while also not bloating the nxt blockchain but still giving value to nxt as you need it to forge the altcoin.

And they can pay fees with their altcoin directly!! No need even for the altcoin to buy/have nxt.  This is a great improvement over the current Monetary System while not having to split up nxt in 2 coins.


Back to bed now, this nxt 2.0 thing has kept me up. I'm very worried.  :-[
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 19, 2016, 05:56:37 am
I am proposing again to make the childchain migration process prolonged over time instead of brute splitting of the coin.
Here is how it works:

- Leave the NXT as the mother currency. It will be unprunable blockchain.
- Create sidechains infrastructure.
- Create the NXT replacement sidechain. Let's call it NXT2.

Now start making people migrate to NXT2 chain. To start with make higher TPS (10x higher is a good start). Motherchain won't get any new features so it will be frozen forever with the current featureset. Now start raising fees on the motherchain eg increase them 2x every month.
Finally most of the activity and capital should flow into NXT2 without forcefully taking away the value from asset and NXT holders. Also we will be able to avoid financial shocks and asset dumps, have better backwards compatibility with current services and more time for people to adapt.

Also we can eventually recreate the Genesis again and remove the bloat of the outdated motherchain. Finally NXT2 will be as lightweight as proposed 2.0 design.

I don't consider this a viable approach from software engineering perspective. It would require maintaining code for two different types of blockchains, prunable and not, but unlike the split fNXT design, without a clear separation of transaction types between the two. Every single transaction type will have to be supported on both, and inevitably with small or not so small differences in behavior, resulting in code full of special cases in very fundamental parts of the code. This is not a system I am willing to start developing, let alone maintain in the future.

And in the end, assuming someone goes this route, you will have a system where the Nxt child chain is unwanted baggage, not being prunable itself. Why would anyone want to create a child chain on such platform, and have to carry multiple gigabytes of legacy NXT transactions? As soon as the situation is explained to any business potentially interested in a child chain, they would just ask for a clone instead, without those extra Nxt data. And we are back at where we are now. The Nxt child chain itself must not be a burden, it must be architecturally equal to the other child chains, in order for 2.0 to be considered as a usable child chain hosting platform.
If you are talking about business let's look at the problem from a business point of view.
NXT started with a business proposal of 1000 bytes permanent storage for 1 NXT payment. Great deal! Later you have decided that this kind of market is not interesting and raised the fees 30x together with limiting the maximum message size to 160 bytes. This way we have lost a cut of the permanent storage market. Now you are proposing to totally remove the business for the permanent storage from the NXT services. Instead you are moving forward the business of temporary ledger backed with archival nodes. Those are 2 kind of different markets with different businesses interested in them and different fees.

My proposal is to stick with both markets and let people use permanent and temporary ledgers together. Permanent ledger should cost much higher but it is still very attractive for people. You are talking about bloat but this is not a bloat. This is a permanent record which we promised to people and this 1Gb database is a proof to the businesses that we are sticking with our promises.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 06:54:51 am
Hard coded fees are serious nonsense anyway. I proposed quite a while back to adjust the fees to a real world, non-inflatable utility, like a scaled basket of several surface mail costs - where *physical* activites actually take place like *physically* moving an envelope over *physical* distances.
Or electricty costs, or even bitcoin mining costs, because those include a basket of electricity costs.
 
A process that cannot be spoofed, something that is not pulled out of thin air!

But simply hardcoding fees is as stupid as having the price of bread fixed in a central bureau of prices- and we all know what that leads to. And how often does any sage have to adjust them in order to make it work?
In any case, this discussion is very harmful to NXT, and there are plenty of non-disruptive changes and amendments to the NXT platform to increase adoption.

Increasing adoption? Who is going to build a project on a platform that is in LIMBO for at least a year, because the rules are totally unclear?

Golly Gee, I wonder how much adoption we will see until NXT2.0 is out?
And how long after that until any projects feel secure enough that it is viable and stable? And for the predominantly technologically minded people, I should emphasize: ECONOMICALLY viable and stable?

So- putting myself into the shoes of a potential project manager seeking a platform:
Quote
'NXT may be a nice platform, but I have no idea what it will be like in 15 months from now and I can't jeopardise my project so I'll wait until then... or go somewhere else, becasue there are other similar platforms around where the conditions are a bit more clear'



Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 19, 2016, 07:08:09 am
Very rough idea to eliminate fnxt from the proposal:

Quote
- A new main chain will be created, on which NXT becomes a token used for forging only, "forgingNXT". The current NXT ecosystem will become a child chain, preserving all features and holdings except the ability to forge. At the hard fork block, each NXT owner will have his NXT converted to both tokens in 1:1 ratio, and all other holdings migrated to the NXT child chain.

- It will always be possible to exchange NXT to fNXT, so small stakeholders not interested in forging may decide to sell their fNXT to large stakeholders running forging nodes. This would lead to some centralization, but also to a higher percentage of the (f)NXT stakeholders forging and thus securing the complete Nxt ecosystem.

1. NXT remains as a mainchain with its forging
2. There is button in client "clone NXT", which let to create sidechain with it own parameters and wishful features (MS, AE, DGS, etc) as it is now by creating currency or asset.
3. Everything works as proposed in OP, except fnxt stuff, sidechain creator pays fees in NXT, while sidechain inside works with its native token, sidechain prunable every 1440 block, etc
4. Prune data from NXT mainchain which we can see could be prunable (ask/bid orders, messages or whatever) every month or half a year, storing just snapshot or whatever on mainchain.

Does this approach solve scalability and bloat problem? Is it possible to do technically (I think yes :) )?
If this could be possible solution, IMO we could solve these asset dump/not dump, fnxt/nxt ratio, fnxt distribution discussions, having one mainchain with NXT instead of two fnxt and not NXT chains, and working sidechains stuff :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 19, 2016, 08:27:03 am
BCNext's original plan was that MS coins would come to be widely used as actual currencies. How did he foresee the transition from using NXT as a currency to using something else? Anyone know?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: testdruif on February 19, 2016, 09:11:41 am
Something is still not really clear to me. (forgive me if the below text is non intelligent)

Right now when I want to get something published on the blockchain I create the transaction and pay the nxt minimum fees to have it included.

With 2.0, in order to get my transaction processed, someone needs to create an "nxt block" which in turn needs to be picked up by forgers that create an "fnxt block"?
fnxt forger will get the fnxt, "nxt block creator" will get the nxt.

Who is going to create that childchain block? will there be "nxt forgers" who basically trade the nxt transaction fees (they recieve nxt from the nxt block) for fnxt (the pay fnxt to get it included in the fnxt blockchain)?

are there scenarios where the "price/worth" of fnxt is higher than the "price/worth" of the transaction fees of the childchain block?

example:

Lets say that I want to send 1000 nxt to someone. it will cost me 1 nxt in transaction fees.
The blockchain creator (lets assume there is only one transaction going on) will need to pay 1 fnxt to get the block included and receives 1 nxt

Can it be possible that 1 fnxt costs 1002 nxt to trade (the nxt block creator needs to get his fnxt from somewhere and it's still a user driven economy)?
Would it then not be cheaper to transfer 1 fnxt to the person I was first intending to send 1000nxt? (and thus defeat the purpose of nxt as a currency at that point)

And if the price for fnxt would be greater than what the nxt block creator get in return (the nxt) it will probably not be worth it for the block creator to even consider creating a block
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: icoin on February 19, 2016, 09:27:24 am
This looks like compression of blocks? Do you want to consider this in Nxt 2.0 design?
_https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46gtjm/thin_blocks_early_results_messages_are_on_average/
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Windjc on February 19, 2016, 10:50:30 am
The more I have studied the more I have a concern about this issue - once Fnxt is created Nxt is relegated to "Child Chain Status." THINK about that for a moment. NXT is no longer a MAIN CHAIN coin/token.

So we expect the price of a child chain to have the same speculative attraction as all the full chain competitors out there? And we expect the SECURITY of a child chain to be as strong as a main chain?

We are devaluing Nxt, if not in real world terms, at the very least in perception. And perception = reality. As we know.

Can someone address these issues please?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Hachoir on February 19, 2016, 11:16:04 am


We are devaluing Nxt, if not in real world terms, at the very least in perception. And perception = reality. As we know.

Not true at all, and stupid
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheWireMaster on February 19, 2016, 11:17:10 am
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 11:31:04 am
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.

yes, if you are a java dev you can do that, no one is stopping you...
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 19, 2016, 11:33:18 am
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.

yes, if you are a java dev you can do that, no one is stopping you...

The NXT 1.x chain should be functional after the hard fork. It makes sense to forge on both chains.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: abctc on February 19, 2016, 11:53:37 am
With 2.0, in order to get my transaction processed, someone needs to create an "nxt block" which in turn needs to be picked up by forgers that create an "fnxt block"?
fnxt forger will get the fnxt, "nxt block creator" will get the nxt.

Who is going to create that childchain block? will there be "nxt forgers" who basically trade the nxt transaction fees (they recieve nxt from the nxt block) for fnxt (the pay fnxt to get it included in the fnxt blockchain)?

are there scenarios where the "price/worth" of fnxt is higher than the "price/worth" of the transaction fees of the childchain block?
- I also see this as a tough question...

This is J-L's thought on this matter:
Anyone should be able to create a child chain block, if willing to pay the fee in fNXT and get back the total of native token fees from the child chain transactions. How exactly this will work remains to be thought through, but it should be possible to out-bid a child chain block creator and offer more fNXT for the same content, and then the forger should pick the best offer.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: testdruif on February 19, 2016, 11:57:18 am
another thought

Is it possible to use nxt as the token for the main chain (only forging) and nxt as the token for the chidlchain (all other transaction types)?

That would mean that if other childchains are created they will have to deal with getting nxt to have their transactions included

Leads to
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: testdruif on February 19, 2016, 12:00:19 pm
With 2.0, in order to get my transaction processed, someone needs to create an "nxt block" which in turn needs to be picked up by forgers that create an "fnxt block"?
fnxt forger will get the fnxt, "nxt block creator" will get the nxt.

Who is going to create that childchain block? will there be "nxt forgers" who basically trade the nxt transaction fees (they recieve nxt from the nxt block) for fnxt (the pay fnxt to get it included in the fnxt blockchain)?

are there scenarios where the "price/worth" of fnxt is higher than the "price/worth" of the transaction fees of the childchain block?
- I also see this as a tough question...

This is J-L's thought on this matter:
Anyone should be able to create a child chain block, if willing to pay the fee in fNXT and get back the total of native token fees from the child chain transactions. How exactly this will work remains to be thought through, but it should be possible to out-bid a child chain block creator and offer more fNXT for the same content, and then the forger should pick the best offer.

Which basically means that yes, there need to be willing people and it is possible that paying in fnxt would be preferable to using nxt :(

I also get that 2.0 will be a great framework for new childchains because they can start from scratch but for the current economy of NXT there will be some concerns
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 19, 2016, 12:35:46 pm
The Asset Exchange, along with millions of USD of assets on it, is the primary use case for Nxt right now. DGS, MS have little adoption.
Can we keep AE on mainchain on a limited/temporary basis, and bump everything else off onto a child chain that runs on a separate token (determined by 1:1 split)? AMs will quite happily run on that and nothing else is going to upset people much.

Sure it means a little extra bloat in the medium-term, but not much and probably not permanently - and that seems like a small price to pay for not destroying or at least disenfranchising the most vibrant part of Nxt's community. Maybe there would be ways of incentivising assets to move to different chains in the future if bloat really was an issue - or preventing new assets from launching on mainchain? There would be a transition phase, at the very least. Grandfather existing assets but make sure no new ones can be created. Over time the rest will die or migrate. And we're somewhere close to where we want to be without razing the place to the ground to get there.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: websioux on February 19, 2016, 12:42:35 pm
dear DEVs, you don't need to proof something to the blockchain industry or the crypto-currency world because you have already something! you have made an innovative all-in-one concept really unique and i am sure that under the wood there is a wonder as code and software architecture but that is not what the user sees, uses and needs ...
if only you invest the same effort to create this childchains architecture in rewriting the marketplace it will restart the economic dynamics... and bring a bit of life to this ecosystem...

Thank you and @++

thumbs up
Market place is not Core Devs work.
If you want a healthy market place look at what Amazon has been doing from its creation.
It's all about targeted marketing, agressive pricing competition, client support, good delivery & refunds mecanism. Things that are out of NXT  and that NXT API should be enough to organize in more or less decentralized way. Then business that would go this route may ask core devs for specific features if there is a need for.

People should talk but do not expect core devs to be the best qualified on this matter.
Designing a crypto plateform is completly different from designing use cases of it.

Like talking about scalability (what nxt2.0 is about) is different from talking about NXT revitalization plan.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: websioux on February 19, 2016, 01:06:57 pm
Is it possible to use nxt as the token for the main chain (only forging) and nxt as the token for the chidlchain (all other transaction types)?

From my understanding no as it relate to the new nodes downloading the forging chain and the snapshot. The forging chain, which contains every transaction of this coin allows to verify everything down to the genesis.

If it could be pruned as well, then their would be no need of two different coins, but that would mean that new nodes would have to trust the snapshot they download. There would be no link with the genesis anymore = fake chains everywhere..

This is my humble understanding, that may be wrong, but I suddenly wonder if there would no be a possibility to maintain a relation with the genesis or if that relationship needs a coin..
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 19, 2016, 02:09:27 pm
After 28 pages of discussions, brainstorming, suggestions and new proposals by some assets issuers to go away with their own blockchain I would like to know and am curious, do core devs see any changes possible to their OP proposal or not? If they see any changes possible, it would be good to see new complete proposal to go forward and discuss it again :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: durerus on February 19, 2016, 03:58:04 pm
@Jean-Luc: Could you please sum up your reasons, maybe in order of importance, for not implementing child chains as a feature of the current NXT blockchain?

I understood the following reasons for pruning the legacy blockchain:

1) It is a very elegant solution, because it makes the new blockchain as slim as possible.

2) Future child chain creators will have to download much less data.

3) We will have a very highly used child chain (NXT with its network effect) right from the start and can thereby prove by fact that the design works.

4) All this together leads to more investor's money flowing into NXT before 2.0 and holding fNXT and NXT combined after 2.0.

5) More tokens will be used for forging, because people who just want to use the functions of NXT won't need forging tokens for that. That leads to higher security.

I am sure, I forgot a lot. But this is so complex. Maybe you, Jean-Luc, can add to the list and put it in the right order.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 19, 2016, 04:22:17 pm
I just want to sum up my take of the discussion so far for everyone and my thoughts on it  :)

NXT 2.0's current plan is about scalabilty.  This will be accomplished with child chains and pruning.  However, the major points of controversy so far are:
1. fNXT/NXT vs NXT
For maximal savings and pruning it seems there needs to be a new main chain with the token of fNXT and NXT would become a child chain.  Some people would prefer NXT stays as the main chain though.  There is a lot of discussion about this in regards to complexity for users, the AE, and the value of NXT.
Personally I think the average user can be shielded from fNXT and not be worried about it and that fNXT/NXT is the current way to go as long as the distribution of it isn't crazy  ;D

2. Then if there is a fNXT/NXT split, how to implement it.  Riker threw out a few ideas:
A. Timing of snapshot for distribution:
(1) Block 621000 i.e. 1.7 hard fork
(2) Some pre-announced block, say 3 month from now, well ahead of the actual 2.0 fork
(3) 2.0 hard fork

B. Method of distribution:
(1) 1 fNXT for 1 NXT
(2) Like (1) but omit NXT accounts without announced public key
(3) Like (2) but only distribute fNXT to NXT accounts which registered their interest by setting an account property.
Personally I like A2/B2 or
1 fNXT for 1 NXT based on the average NXT in the accounts from the "pre-announced block, say 3 month from now" until the fork for all NXT accounts except ones without an announced public key

3. Should NXT 2.0 be more focused on scalability or user friendliness/adoption?
For me, this is a chicken and egg issue:
With more adoption, we need more scalabilty.  To take advantage of more scalability, we need more adoption

Personally I am thinking NXT 1.8 and/or 1.9 to be focused on user friendliness/adoption and 2.0 be about scalability.  This would give us close to a year to increase the user friendliness/adoption and then have the scalability ready with 2.0

Again, this is just my personal summery and thoughts on the NXT 2.0 discussion  ;D
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 04:40:24 pm
This looks like compression of blocks? Do you want to consider this in Nxt 2.0 design?
_https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46gtjm/thin_blocks_early_results_messages_are_on_average/
This is about reduction of traffic/bandwidth between peers. It does not change the size of what gets stored in the blockchain. Actually, I already have something like that in mind for 2.0, for the propagation of childchain blocks between peers. But this is an optimization unrelated to the core of 2.0 changes.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 04:48:32 pm
are there scenarios where the "price/worth" of fnxt is higher than the "price/worth" of the transaction fees of the childchain block?
Yes, and if that happens the childchain block will not be included by the forger. Unless someone is willing to pay more fNXT and create another childchain block packaging the same transactions. It would be wise for the transaction senders to include a fee slightly exceeding the minimum, to make it more likely that their transactions will get included.

Quote
Would it then not be cheaper to transfer 1 fnxt to the person I was first intending to send 1000nxt? (and thus defeat the purpose of nxt as a currency at that point)
Transactions involving fNXT are not prunable, one such transaction takes the same space as a childchain block transaction which can potentially include 255 prunable transactions. Transaction fees for fNXT transactions will therefore be set much higher than those for child chain transactions, like 100x higher.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 19, 2016, 04:53:30 pm
Transactions involving fNXT are not prunable, one such transaction takes the same space as a childchain block transaction which can potentially include 255 prunable transactions. Transaction fees for fNXT transactions will therefore be set much higher than those for child chain transactions, like 100x higher.
Hmm, I understand the reasoning behind this, but have a question in regards to leasing then:
Say someone has 50,000fNXT and wants to lease that balance so they don't need to keep their account forging.  If it costs 100NXT to lease the balance, but they are only expected to forge 50fNXT during the max lease time, wouldn't that discourage leasing?
Also, this sounds like it would discourage buying/selling fNXT unless it is large sums.  Is that an issue or is that okay?  I feel like that might centralize fNXT some.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 04:54:14 pm
The more I have studied the more I have a concern about this issue - once Fnxt is created Nxt is relegated to "Child Chain Status." THINK about that for a moment. NXT is no longer a MAIN CHAIN coin/token.

We are devaluing Nxt, if not in real world terms, at the very least in perception. And perception = reality.

This is indeed only a matter of perception, and will be fixed by using a different terminology. The fNXT chain should be called "forging, limited functionality, basic, low-level, underlying, platform chain". The NXT chain should be called "main, transactional, full-featured, high-level chain". The other child chains should be called "additional, sibling, alternative chains". Even though internally they will share the exact same code as the main (i.e. the NXT) chain. If we move away from that mother/child terminology, there should be no such confusion.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 04:58:02 pm
Say someone has 50,000fNXT and wants to lease that balance so they don't need to keep their account forging.  If it costs 100NXT to lease the balance, but they are only expected to forge 50fNXT during the max lease time, wouldn't that discourage leasing?
I am speaking of fees for ordinary payment transactions of course. Leasing transactions will be low-fee, and leasing will only be possible on the forging chain. To prevent abuse by spamming with low-fee leasing transactions, we can add some other restrictions on how many an account can submit per month for example, as you can't schedule more than two consecutive leases at once anyway.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 05:02:26 pm
why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
I wasn't serious with my keepZombie proposal, but it starts looking as an alternative to consider now...
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 19, 2016, 05:16:22 pm
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.

Yeah....I'm in broad agreement there.

But: one option that we haven't yet looked at is to launch Nxt 2.0 as a seperate system.
Distribute that systems fNXT via IPO, with no link to existing Nxt distribution.

This cuts out all issues with assets, backwards compatibility, etc. The old Nxt system can carry on running with minimal dev input, providing a stable environment, while we see if the core concepts of Nxt 2.0 actually work.

(Think about it. ;D And remember that this is just an IDEA, not a fixed plan....)

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 19, 2016, 05:17:28 pm
J-L/Riker: can you comment on the suggestion of moving everything but AE (DGS, MS, AMs) to a child chain, freezing creation of new assets on the mainchain and incentivising assets to move to to child chain over time, pruning as you go?
There will be a transition period before new chains start to be used anyway, and this would be a good way to make the most of it.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg210056/#msg210056
 
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 19, 2016, 05:18:47 pm
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.

Yeah....I'm in broad agreement there.

But: one option that we haven't yet looked at is to launch Nxt 2.0 as a seperate system.
Distribute that systems fNXT via IPO, with no link to existing Nxt distribution.

This cuts out all issues with assets, backwards compatibility, etc. The old Nxt system can carry on running with minimal dev input, providing a stable environment, while we see if the core concepts of Nxt 2.0 actually work.

(Think about it. ;D And remember that this is just an IDEA, not a fixed plan....)

It occurred to me that this would make a lot of sense, from one perspective. Unfortunately, from others it's a real problem.
Case in point: what happens to TNSSE? You guys were funded by Nxt to market Nxt.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: testdruif on February 19, 2016, 05:23:33 pm
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.

Yeah....I'm in broad agreement there.

But: one option that we haven't yet looked at is to launch Nxt 2.0 as a seperate system.
Distribute that systems fNXT via IPO, with no link to existing Nxt distribution.

This cuts out all issues with assets, backwards compatibility, etc. The old Nxt system can carry on running with minimal dev input, providing a stable environment, while we see if the core concepts of Nxt 2.0 actually work.

(Think about it. ;D And remember that this is just an IDEA, not a fixed plan....)

Could be a good point in time to think about a name change for the new platform (since there are brand issues with the "next" name)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: remix on February 19, 2016, 05:23:55 pm
The fNXT chain should be called "forging, limited functionality, basic, low-level, underlying, platform chain". The NXT chain should be called "main, transactional, full-featured, high-level chain". The other child chains should be called "additional, sibling, alternative chains". Even though internally they will share the exact same code as the main (i.e. the NXT) chain. If we move away from that mother/child terminology, there should be no such confusion.

The child chains will typically have less functionality than the NXT chain? And they can't have more functionality than the NXT chain?

Are there still plans for a proposed feature where transactions are sent only to the next active forger to save bandwidth? This is a scalability issue too.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 05:25:34 pm
so what exactly does all that mean for assets?
I think this is an extremely important question that must be addressed.

Will assets be tradable in fNXT, or in NXT?
Thank you.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 19, 2016, 05:27:41 pm
Will assets be tradable in fNXT, or in NXT?

According to the current proposal, fNXT would only be able to forge, pay fees, and be transferred between accounts.  So current assets would not be tradeable in fNXT
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 05:37:38 pm
@Jean-Luc: Could you please sum up your reasons, maybe in order of importance, for not implementing child chains as a feature of the current NXT blockchain?

My main objection is that this is creating a chimera, a complicated design which is a mixture of 1.0 and 2.0 as proposed, with the same transaction types possible on the non-prunable Nxt chain and on all prunable child chain. And the same derived objects, such as assets, AE orders, etc, can be created on either a permanent, or on a prunable chain. This will result in code full of special cases in fundamental parts that should be kept simple. It will take longer to develop, will likely contain more bugs, and will be harder to maintain.

Assume it is created, it will be a system that is neither here nor there. The main Nxt chain itself can take no advantage of pruning, so the whole system will have no scalability (as most transactions will still occur on that chain). Nobody will care that child chains are prunable, because the presence of the Nxt chain will slow everything down. Instead of creating child chains, potential users would just ask for a custom clone, without the Nxt chain.

And after that, making the Nxt chain itself prunable is again more work, so instead of getting to 2.0 in one year, it would take 3 years overall. The transitioning of Nxt to a proper child chain will again require splitting it into forging and non-forging token. How is that going to be less of a problem at that time? Talks about a gradual transition to a new child chain are not realistic, you would basically be hoping that the Nxt chain dies away. How do you enforce that, over what period of time? This is software where every incompatible change requires a hard fork, and you know how much overhead and time planning a hard fork takes.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 19, 2016, 05:42:17 pm
Yeah....I'm in broad agreement there.

But: one option that we haven't yet looked at is to launch Nxt 2.0 as a seperate system.
Distribute that systems fNXT via IPO, with no link to existing Nxt distribution.

This cuts out all issues with assets, backwards compatibility, etc. The old Nxt system can carry on running with minimal dev input, providing a stable environment, while we see if the core concepts of Nxt 2.0 actually work.

(Think about it. ;D And remember that this is just an IDEA, not a fixed plan....)

No, it's a bad idea.
Users have bought NXT, now they have to pay again for the IPO.
If development needs donations, this can be organized in the current system or proposed NXT 2.0 design, not a new IPO.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 05:42:59 pm
Will assets be tradable in fNXT, or in NXT?
In NXT, if issued on the NXT child chain. Or in any other child chain token, provided the asset issuer or that child chain does not prohibit it. Assets will exist globally, so in theory could be traded on any child chain, but it is likely that some asset issuers or child chain creators will want restrictions on trading, we would need to allow for that.

The only holding that should be tradable against fNXT directly are the native child chain currencies, such as NXT itself.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 05:46:55 pm
The child chains will typically have less functionality than the NXT chain? And they can't have more functionality than the NXT chain?
They need to share the same code, so they can't have functionality that is not possible on NXT. But there could be special cases for restrictive functionality we don't want on the NXT chain, in which case such features will be enabled on the specific child chains that need it only.

Quote
Are there still plans for a proposed feature where transactions are sent only to the next active forger to save bandwidth? This is a scalability issue too.
This is 3.0 issue.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheWireMaster on February 19, 2016, 05:54:03 pm
Yeah....I'm in broad agreement there.

But: one option that we haven't yet looked at is to launch Nxt 2.0 as a seperate system.
Distribute that systems fNXT via IPO, with no link to existing Nxt distribution.

This cuts out all issues with assets, backwards compatibility, etc. The old Nxt system can carry on running with minimal dev input, providing a stable environment, while we see if the core concepts of Nxt 2.0 actually work.

(Think about it. ;D And remember that this is just an IDEA, not a fixed plan....)

No, it's a bad idea.
Users have bought NXT, now they have to pay again for the IPO.
If development needs donations, this can be organized in the current system or proposed NXT 2.0 design, not a new IPO.

I would create an asset and according to the distribution of that asset, the new tokens on the new chain will be distributed.
Who doesn't believe in NXT2.0 will not invest in the asset, who does will invest in it. It could also be a good way to collect resourced for the development of NXT2.0.
But still only an option if large consensus is not found.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 06:01:39 pm
Will assets be tradable in fNXT, or in NXT?
In NXT, if issued on the NXT child chain. Or in any other child chain token, provided the asset issuer or that child chain does not prohibit it. Assets will exist globally, so in theory could be traded on any child chain, but it is likely that some asset issuers or child chain creators will want restrictions on trading, we would need to allow for that.

The only holding that should be tradable against fNXT directly are the native child chain currencies, such as NXT itself.

this will destroy the value of the assets. that is an absolute no-go.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 06:04:38 pm
this will destroy the value of the assets. that is an absolute no-go.
How come? This is fundamental, we can't have trading assets against fNXT as transactions that change fNXT balances can't be pruned.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 06:10:40 pm
this will destroy the value of the assets. that is an absolute no-go.
How come? This is fundamental, we can't have trading assets against fNXT as transactions that change fNXT balances can't be pruned.

because fNXT will be traded on BTC38 and other exchanges, and NXT will be marginalized, hence the assets have been devalued.
it is like denominating the price of stocks suddenly in turkish Lira instead of USD- but without changing the number - hence: $100 today - 100TRK tomorrow

to be more precise: nobody will care at all about NXT, because everybody wants to have fNXT.
which spells doom for the asset exchange, becasue no sane person will entrust their IPO to such a platform where they don't know if their assets won't be burnt tomorrow
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 06:12:59 pm
because fNXT will be traded on BTC38 and other exchanges, and NXT will be marginalized, hence the assets have been devalued.
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 19, 2016, 06:15:04 pm
nobody will care at all about NXT, because everybody wants to have fNXT.
We just had a discussion in this thread that the value of fNXT will drop a lot, and it will be insecure to have a high-value NXT chain on top of it. So which is it, is fNXT going to go up or down after all? Who knows the answer?

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 06:15:52 pm
because there are 1,000,000,000 fNXT on top of 1,000,000,000 NXT already in existence.
and fNXT is the one that generates revenue, not NXT.

so fNXT will be traded on exchanges, in large batches if the TX fee is 100
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 06:16:50 pm
nobody will care at all about NXT, because everybody wants to have fNXT.
We just had a discussion in this thread that the value of fNXT will drop a lot, and it will be insecure to have a high-value NXT chain on top of it. So which is it, is fNXT going to go up or down after all? Who knows the answer?

do you? because if not, then you have no idea what you are doing!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 19, 2016, 06:19:12 pm
because there are 1,000,000,000 fNXT on top of 1,000,000,000 NXT already in existence.
and fNXT is the one that generates revenue, not NXT.

so fNXT will be traded on exchanges, in large batches if the TX fee is 100

I say burn NXT for fNXT, total supply will stay at 1 billion. Only users who care about forging will burn their NXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 19, 2016, 06:20:19 pm
Are there current potential business that want to have childchain?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Johnnybtcseed on February 19, 2016, 06:26:36 pm
Ok, first post here. Hopefully i wont say anything stupid, but I can't promise anything. ;)

I'd like to introduce a white knight concept here. Kinda like a jedi knight, but in the star trek universe. Ok scratch that. Just a white knight concept.

Whereas the white knight is committed to the preservation and defense of Nxt ecosystem (all of it)

1. A white knight forger could make nxt the prefered chain to be included in a block.

https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg208904/

Quote
Is there a reason that nxt 1.0 cannot be grandfathered in to always 100% be included in a block? As opposed to these "childchains" who would not get this privelage.

It is not possible to force a forger to include a transaction in a block. It is also not possible to force him to not include it, provided the transaction is valid. It would be up to the forgers then, if some want to always include Nxt transactions even if other child chains offer more fees for the same space in the block, they can do it.

2. Maybe it is possible to use the white knight to defend against nxt ecosystem dumps, ie add in some extra liquidity then act in a responsible and reasonable manner when returning nxt or assets or whatever back to the market.

3. Maybe, White knight could also be used as a rally to a cause, ie: communicate to the public army the need for support in certain campaigns , etc.


This is just a rough draft of these ideas so maybe they wont work
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 06:32:12 pm
The more I have studied the more I have a concern about this issue - once Fnxt is created Nxt is relegated to "Child Chain Status." THINK about that for a moment. NXT is no longer a MAIN CHAIN coin/token.

We are devaluing Nxt, if not in real world terms, at the very least in perception. And perception = reality.

This is indeed only a matter of perception, and will be fixed by using a different terminology.

no it will not be fixed. how do you plan to enforce such perceptional changes? you won't.
but what you are saying there is that you just want to make investors and users make see it different? what is more shocking, that you apparently have no idea what that means.


So the argument is:
Quote
if they have such concerns that will not be a problem, we just whirl a word cloud of technobabble around and then they will understand?


and with what exaxctly?

Quote
The fNXT chain should be called "forging, limited functionality, basic, low-level, underlying, platform chain". The NXT chain should be called "main, transactional, full-featured, high-level chain". The other child chains should be called "additional, sibling, alternative chains". Even though internally they will share the exact same code as the main (i.e. the NXT) chain. If we move away from that mother/child terminology, there should be no such confusion.
seriously? you believe anyone to be bamboozled by such GOBBLEDIGOOK?
that is seriously delusional thinkning.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Johnnybtcseed on February 19, 2016, 06:35:23 pm
in regards to fnxt distribution. And taking into more commits and such in this thread.

Id feel more comfortable about a 1-1 nxt to fnxt if it was something more like once a month for the next year on x predetermined day, a snapshot gets taken.

This would be something like 12 snapshots each getting 1/12 the total fnxt supply.  Maybe this could help prevent any perceived dumping of ae? Atleast we would get to see a model of how this might affect the ae. Thoughts?

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 19, 2016, 06:36:32 pm
because there are 1,000,000,000 fNXT on top of 1,000,000,000 NXT already in existence.
and fNXT is the one that generates revenue, not NXT.

so fNXT will be traded on exchanges, in large batches if the TX fee is 100

From when forging started to be profitable? Did I miss something?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 19, 2016, 06:44:35 pm
in regards to fnxt distribution. And taking into more commits and such in this thread.

Id feel more comfortable about a 1-1 nxt to fnxt if it was something more like once a month for the next year on x predetermined day, a snapshot gets taken.

This would be something like 12 snapshots each getting 1/12 the total fnxt supply.  Maybe this could help prevent any perceived dumping of ae? Atleast we would get to see a model of how this might affect the ae. Thoughts?

That's similar to what I was thinking:
Quote
fNXT for 1 NXT based on the average NXT in the accounts from the "pre-announced block, say 3 month from now" until the fork for all NXT accounts except ones without an announced public key
Yours sounds easier to implement/code.  The one issue I can see right away though, is people might complain about a spike in buying NXT before each snapshot and a spike in selling NXT after each snapshot.  It kind of sounds like dividends with stocks though, and that all evens out
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 19, 2016, 07:10:59 pm
in regards to fnxt distribution. And taking into more commits and such in this thread.

Id feel more comfortable about a 1-1 nxt to fnxt if it was something more like once a month for the next year on x predetermined day, a snapshot gets taken.

This would be something like 12 snapshots each getting 1/12 the total fnxt supply.  Maybe this could help prevent any perceived dumping of ae? Atleast we would get to see a model of how this might affect the ae. Thoughts?



That's similar to what I was thinking:
Quote
fNXT for 1 NXT based on the average NXT in the accounts from the "pre-announced block, say 3 month from now" until the fork for all NXT accounts except ones without an announced public key
Yours sounds easier to implement/code.  The one issue I can see right away though, is people might complain about a spike in buying NXT before each snapshot and a spike in selling NXT after each snapshot.  It kind of sounds like dividends with stocks though, and that all evens out

And what about this (taken and a little bit edited from my post in nxtchat slack):

what about not to split to both, but to swap NXT effective balance to fnxt 1:1 during the fork and hardcode fnxt/NXT exchange ratio 1:1 for future? I mean, during fork my 1000 NXT is swaped to 1000 fnxt, in result I'll have 1000 fnxt and 0 NXT. If I want to forge, I'll do it with 1000 fnxt. If I want use them as NXT (buy asstes, pay for something) i'll just swap fnxt to NXT in 1:1 and will have 0 fnxt and 1000 NXT for trading or whatever.
It is like if you trade a lot and move your NXT forward back, your effective balance is 0 and you don't forge. If you want just forge, you don't move your NXT during 1440 blocks in order to have effective balance which is forging.

in other words, you monetize your convert effective (forging) balance to fnxt

and no panic for asset stuff, NXT stays where it is now

I'm not a coder, so don't know how difficult is to code this swap. After the fork, maybe there will be some hardcoded "genesis" account doing fnxt/NXT swaps in 1:1. Swap could be like present core dividend feature, happening in background. What securit or other flaws could have this appraoch?

EDITED a little bit :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 07:12:51 pm

From when forging started to be profitable? Did I miss something?
Ever since you can lease to http://pool.nxtcrypto.org/ for 32767 blocks and have about, in that time, 10000 nxt... Unless you count dollars instead of nxt  ;)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 19, 2016, 07:18:21 pm
nobody will care at all about NXT, because everybody wants to have fNXT.
We just had a discussion in this thread that the value of fNXT will drop a lot, and it will be insecure to have a high-value NXT chain on top of it. So which is it, is fNXT going to go up or down after all? Who knows the answer?

The answer is dependent: if NXT2.0 turns out to be the solution to the scalablity issue, then we'll be golden. The value of both fNXT and NXT will rise: fNXT because the increased tx volume will make forging profitable (even if it is a marginal profit) and NXT because much of that tx volume will happen on the main child chain: not everyone will need to run a child chain as Assets and MS currencies will still provide enough functionality for most projects.
Not to mention that the crypto market is completely hype-driven: if we are the first to crack the scalablity problem, the sky's the limit. 

If Nxt2.0 doesn't solve scalablity, then tough. We can stay where we are, with the current system.
Once we have NXT2.0 running on a TestNet, we'll know one way or the other, so I'd like to see that happen.

On the terminology used by JLP::

There is a major difference between fNXT and NXT, that's not disputable. The terminology we use needs to reflect that.
There will, in principle, be no difference between NXT and any other child chain, except that NXT will be the dominant chain in the eco-system, at least initially, and will be the chain that supports most Assets and MS based projects.
Again, we need precise terminology to reflect that dominance. It's not just marketing talk.

Couple of suggestions:
I still like the idea of burning NXT>fNXT, and I also like the idea of linking the 2, by allowing transfer from NXT>fNXT and vice versa.
(yeah, I know that could give rise to some extra issues, like variable forging amounts, but the effect of linking fNXT to NXT would be to prevent a lot of economic uncertainty and make external trading of fNXT<>NXT completely pointless)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 07:26:55 pm
what you guys don't understand is that by throwing such fatal changes out there on a whim primarily destroys the most important thing such a platform needs, and that is TRUST in the stability.

Who is expecting any sane business venture to issue an asset on the AE while this trainwreck looms?
I guarantee you, there will not be a single serious asset issued on the Asset Exchange as long as this insanity is not dead and buried.

splitting NXT creates untold number of possibilities that we can see
and another untold amount that will only be obvious after it happens

mark my words, and if you don't, I will be there to do rub it in!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 07:28:31 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 07:32:09 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.
I have never heard a forger complain about the blockchain size, nor low fees. I think your focus is wrong, also think my proposal is the only one
making true scalebility improvements with no data loss.... or data sharing incentive loss...

https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/ (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 19, 2016, 07:32:23 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.

as I wrote above, setting fix TX fees is like fixing the price of bread- it only works in tiny economies.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 07:33:55 pm
what you guys don't understand is that by throwing such fatal changes out there on a whim primarily destroys the most important thing such a platform needs, and that is TRUST in the stability.

Who is expecting any sane business venture to issue an asset on the AE while this trainwreck looms?
I guarantee you, there will not be a single serious asset issued on the Asset Exchange as long as this insanity is not dead and buried.

mark my words, and if you don't, I will be there to do rub it in!
True
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 19, 2016, 07:48:46 pm
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.

Yeah....I'm in broad agreement there.

But: one option that we haven't yet looked at is to launch Nxt 2.0 as a seperate system.
Distribute that systems fNXT via IPO, with no link to existing Nxt distribution.

This cuts out all issues with assets, backwards compatibility, etc. The old Nxt system can carry on running with minimal dev input, providing a stable environment, while we see if the core concepts of Nxt 2.0 actually work.

(Think about it. ;D And remember that this is just an IDEA, not a fixed plan....)
One of the best ideas so far.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 07:49:11 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.

as I wrote above, setting fix TX fees is like fixing the price of bread- it only works in tiny economies.
It never works in the long run I would say.
Just as bakeries should set their bread prices, forgers should set their prices. Instead of Jean Luc dictating the consensus price.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 07:53:08 pm
I have a feeling that the core developers honestly have a vision that is not related to making money, but to make a great decentralized platform.
But if that is is the case, and no agreement is found with big investors in nxt1.x, why not create a new chain for the nxt2.0 and maintain the current one improving the existing functionalities and keeping an eye on backwards compatibility?
It could be backed up by a nxt1.x asset and distribution of that would determine the initial distribution for nxt2.0.
In that way nxt2.0 will be future oriented and nxt1.x will be the one that people can be sure will not change too much except for improvements of the current implementation.
I would prefer 1 NXT with a wide consensus on how to go forward.

Yeah....I'm in broad agreement there.

But: one option that we haven't yet looked at is to launch Nxt 2.0 as a seperate system.
Distribute that systems fNXT via IPO, with no link to existing Nxt distribution.

This cuts out all issues with assets, backwards compatibility, etc. The old Nxt system can carry on running with minimal dev input, providing a stable environment, while we see if the core concepts of Nxt 2.0 actually work.

(Think about it. ;D And remember that this is just an IDEA, not a fixed plan....)
One of the best ideas so far.
This will happen anyway, no way I will switch all of my nxt to fnxt, or all my nodes to nxt 2.0

The problem is that we might have to look for new development team, since they all seem to be following JL ....
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 19, 2016, 07:53:59 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.

as I wrote above, setting fix TX fees is like fixing the price of bread- it only works in tiny economies.
It never works in the long run I would say.
Just as bakeries should set their bread prices, forgers should set their prices. Instead of Jean Luc dictating the consensus price.
I have already noticed that with fNXT market based fees won't work.
Here is why:
we will have a bitcoin like scheme. Unconfirmed pool float around until there is a forger wanting to accept the propsed fees and create a block. Hence we could have only one guy accepting zero fees and all the network will have zero fees until we will see all blocks full. fNXT only has a value of forged fees. Hence zero fees lead to zero value of the fNXT. Zero value of fNXT leads to network security below critical level.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 19, 2016, 07:57:46 pm
we could have only one guy accepting zero fees and all the network will have zero fees until we will see all blocks full.

If one guy accepts zero fees, his turn to forge a block will come every X hours/days/weeks. Why would users wait for his turn just to send txs with zero fees? They need to get their txs processed quickly, they'll pay fees.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: blackyblack1 on February 19, 2016, 08:06:04 pm
we could have only one guy accepting zero fees and all the network will have zero fees until we will see all blocks full.

If one guy accepts zero fees, his turn to forge a block will come every X hours/days/weeks. Why would users wait for his turn just to send txs with zero fees? They need to get their txs processed quickly, they'll pay fees.
You are right. Looks like it is not so bad as I imagined. Still if you are a forger and you are forging a block once a week you will set minumum fee to a lower possible bound because you do not want to miss a penny and wait another week for a better block.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 19, 2016, 08:13:25 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.

as I wrote above, setting fix TX fees is like fixing the price of bread- it only works in tiny economies.

This is setting only one specific class of tx fee, not all tx fees across the board.
I see setting a high tx fee for fNXT transfers as a means to ensure that fNXT remains as a high level forging token, not an everyday currency token.

And: it's the possibilty of having fNXT traded as an everyday currency (and diluting NXT value) that we want to avoid, so where's the problem here ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 19, 2016, 08:14:24 pm
we could have only one guy accepting zero fees and all the network will have zero fees until we will see all blocks full.

If one guy accepts zero fees, his turn to forge a block will come every X hours/days/weeks. Why would users wait for his turn just to send txs with zero fees? They need to get their txs processed quickly, they'll pay fees.
You are right. Looks like it is not so bad as I imagined. Still if you are a forger and you are forging a block once a week you will set minumum fee to a lower possible bound because you do not want to miss a penny and wait another week for a better block.

The minimum fee is fine. There is a fee/size tx processing order, it will ensure the fee market will be supported by most forgers because this order maximizes forging profits. I understand your concern about the value of fNXT in the case when fNXT fees are hard-coded in the client. I'd like to see as few as possible fNXT fees hard-coded. Floating fNXT fees is a free market approach, is what this design needs to establish secure value of fNXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Johnnybtcseed on February 19, 2016, 08:17:12 pm
Would anyone like to comment on the idea of a white knight forger. Ie a forger that gives preference to nxt
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 19, 2016, 08:19:33 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.

as I wrote above, setting fix TX fees is like fixing the price of bread- it only works in tiny economies.

This is setting only one specific class of tx fee, not all tx fees across the board.
I see setting a high tx fee for fNXT transfers as a means to ensure that fNXT remains as a high level forging token, not an everyday currency token.

And: it's the possibilty of having fNXT traded as an everyday currency (and diluting NXT value) that we want to avoid, so where's the problem here ?

A broader way of looking at this is: how do you prevent fNXT being traded and/or having value without undermining security?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 08:21:18 pm
so where's the problem here ?
More expensive transaction fees for a less secure than BTC blockchain, maybe?
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.

less secure as there are less full nodes for nxt than btc...
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Johnnybtcseed on February 19, 2016, 08:24:22 pm
Outside the box

Is it possible for fnxt to be issued as a MS? Fnxt still secures mult chains yet is also a ms.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 19, 2016, 08:26:47 pm
Having fNXT traded at exchanges will not undermine security if fNXT fees can float and are subject to free market rules. The value of fNXT will take care of itself. It will not be too low or too high. I know it's hard to believe how free market can balance prices, we almost never see this in the real world these days because free market is not allowed in the real world any more, but it will when left to its own devices. Let's think how we can have floating, not hard-coded fNXT fees. Hard-coding fNXT fees will likely result in imbalances of the fNXT value. Hopefully these imbalances will not be large, but it's risky to rely on hope, better get it right from the start with enabling floating fees where it's possible.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: MrV777 on February 19, 2016, 08:27:26 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.

With NXT 2.0, except fNXT transfers, all other fees can be lowered.  From my understanding fees were higher to prevent bloat and spamming.  NXT 2.0 addresses the bloat issue and would even think the max txs in a block could be raised.  Spamming could still be an issue, however it would have less of a negative effect
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 08:27:52 pm
Outside the box

Is it possible for fnxt to be issued as a MS? Fnxt still secures mult chains yet is also a ms.
I would like that  ;D
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 08:31:54 pm
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.

With NXT 2.0, except fNXT transfers, all other fees can be lowered.  From my understanding fees were higher to prevent bloat and spamming.  NXT 2.0 addresses the bloat issue and would even think the max txs in a block could be raised.  Spamming could still be an issue, however it would have less of a negative effect
Implementing childchains, reducing future bloat and increasing tx in a block can all be done without having to start all over again. Nor do we have to delete all the improvements on nxt for 2 years to achieve this....
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/ (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: EvilDave on February 19, 2016, 09:05:06 pm
Would anyone like to comment on the idea of a white knight forger. Ie a forger that gives preference to nxt

Give it some time, the pace of debate is pretty fast here, and the WK idea (just to get the acronym sorted out now) is still very new.
Over-dedicated Nxt'ers like myself would certainly be willing to take on a WK role, but we need more thinking time.

Expanding on my earlier thoughts....what would the consequences be of locking the value of fNXT to NXT by allowing a fNXT<>NXT transfer mechanism ?
(I'd suggest making this a slow transfer mechanism, btw, with fees, for example collecting and executing fNXT<>NXT transfers only once every 24/48/...  hours, to prevent rushes from one to the other)

For asset holders there are advantages: the value of NXT will not run out into fNXT. The entire Nxt system will rise (or fall) together.
If asset holders wish to liquidate assets to get NXT to get fNXT........they can, but they won't have to do it to comply with a snapshot at any one moment. They can wait, and step into fNXT whenever they feel like.
This could eliminate the "I need to dump all my assets to get NXT to get fNXT" scenario that is scaring people right now.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 19, 2016, 09:18:32 pm
Implementing childchains, reducing future bloat and increasing tx in a block can all be done without having to start all over again. Nor do we have to delete all the improvements on nxt for 2 years to achieve this....
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/ (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/)

I read your proposal several times.
You start with "NXT stays the way it is, just get expanded with another feature: childchains" so far I follow you.
What comes next might be useful (have to admit I don't understand it) but it's not NXT and has no clear relation to the way NXT works.
Basically, what you are saying is leave NXT alone, add on top of this a feature that I can't really explain and this will solve the blockchain bloat problem.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: TheCoinWizard on February 19, 2016, 09:30:24 pm
Implementing childchains, reducing future bloat and increasing tx in a block can all be done without having to start all over again. Nor do we have to delete all the improvements on nxt for 2 years to achieve this....
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/ (https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/aternate-nxt-2-0-design/)

I read your proposal several times.
You start with "NXT stays the way it is, just get expanded with another feature: childchains" so far I follow you.
What comes next might be useful (have to admit I don't understand it) but it's not NXT and has no clear relation to the way NXT works.
Basically, what you are saying is leave NXT alone, add on top of this a feature that I can't really explain and this will solve the blockchain bloat problem.
Currently there is no blockchain bloat problem, maximally there could be a blockchain bloat problem once nxt gets succesfull and used a alot and scales in transactions and thus blockchain size. Problem is the limited availability of light clients.
As I said to JL, I am also willing to clarify the idea to you with an audio link like telephone or skype...
I am not a programmer, but I do understand cryptocoin architecture and am willing to explain.
What part do you not understand?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: OutSL on February 19, 2016, 09:31:04 pm
Hi  :D
i was a bit busy this week but i read you when i can...
the problem is more serious and is not limited to the code or implementations ...

we can not build a strong ecosystem on top of an unstable and changing technology. is like building a home on top of sand...

to be able to follow this changes ,every project or company must plan and reserve a budget dedicated to the developement and upgrade every time the code changes ... NXT is not so proffitable as to allow such a thing on a large scale and few businesses can survive in this way

which brings us to the second major problem... is the trust and credibility of the system in its entirety...
as you see, even talking about a change make people leave the boat and purge them assets and NXT...

In the 2.0 era, the NXT community and ecosystem will be summarized in a group of devs and a group (less than 100) of big fat 0.0000000000000000000000000000001$ value coin accounts watching ones the others... ;D ;D ;D

I think JL was assimilated by the Borgs...  ;D

Thank you and @++
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 19, 2016, 09:40:27 pm
To make this discussion on topic please try to avoid "forward looking" statements such as:
"The value of token X will increase/decrease causing the value of token Y to increase/decrease - this will destroy NXT"
In a world where the value of any given token increases or decreases 10% an hour on a daily basis due to reasons that nobody understands, it's really not serious to make such predictions about the future. Let alone base decisions on such predictions.

Regarding the "this will destroy NXT" postfix that seems to accompany so many messages in this thread. Relax, come down, take a big breath.
Everybody here would like to see NXT succeed.
We know changing an existing system is always difficult but NXT must not stagnate like Bitcoin it must evolve.

What would be helpful is if you think about how your application, business, asset etc can be adapted to take advantage of this new design and the scalability increase it will offer.
Then see if you can understand how it will work. Does it make sense for your application to use it's own child chain ?
For example, over the last year or so, I've been approached by several application developers which wanted to issue and MS currency but had a problem paying fees in NXT.
With NXT 2.0 these applications can issue a child chain token and also pay transaction fees in this token.
Not only that, the users of this applications can now pay very low transaction fees or not pay any fees at all, as long as they will make sure their prunable transactions are included in the forging chain blocks. This is a real world problem solved by this design. There are many others.
Asset to Asset trading is another potential problem solved by this design. Think about it.

I encourage you think about your existing use case and its limitations. Can we solve them with a child chain ? If not, why not ?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 19, 2016, 09:56:52 pm
Hi  :D
i was a bit busy this week but i read you when i can...
the problem is more serious and is not limited to the code or implementations ...

we can not build a strong ecosystem on top of an unstable and changing technology. is like building a home on top of sand...

to be able to follow this changes ,every project or company must plan and reserve a budget dedicated to the developement and upgrade every time the code changes ... NXT is not so proffitable as to allow such a thing on a large scale and few businesses can survive in this way

which brings us to the second major problem... is the trust and credibility of the system in its entirety...
as you see, even talking about a change make people leave the boat and purge them assets and NXT...

In the 2.0 era, the NXT community and ecosystem will be summarized in a group of devs and a group (less than 100) of big fat 0.0000000000000000000000000000001$ value coin accounts watching ones the others... ;D ;D ;D

I think JL was assimilated by the Borgs...  ;D

Thank you and @++

OutSL, do you really think you'll be able to disrupt the way payments are made in the metaverse using the existing NXT 1.7 network which supports 2 transactions per second, generates 50GB data each year and used by 1000 other applications.
This change is exactly for you, you can now create a new child chain for the metaverse and scale it almost indefinably without being dependent on the Bitcoin ATM network which sends a message to the network whenever someone makes a purchase and the ACCI token that updates an altcoin index every 10 minutes.
Why do you need to use the same blockchain as these completely unrelated applications.
This change is exactly what you need.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Riker on February 19, 2016, 10:04:33 pm
And regarding asset/asset trading. Child chains provides an excellent solution for this at almost the same cost it would take to introduce this as a standalone feature into the core.
If you like to peg something to USD and some 3rd party business agrees to respect these USD tokens for their face value then you have several options:
1. Issue a USD child chain and peg it's value to USD. Then any asset/currency issued on this child chain is automatically pegged to USD as long as the business which guarantees this stands by his word.
2. Given a popular child chain token that you want to peg to USD. Issue a USD asset on this child chain and peg it to USD.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: OutSL on February 19, 2016, 10:47:57 pm
Hi  :D
i was a bit busy this week but i read you when i can...
the problem is more serious and is not limited to the code or implementations ...

we can not build a strong ecosystem on top of an unstable and changing technology. is like building a home on top of sand...

to be able to follow this changes ,every project or company must plan and reserve a budget dedicated to the developement and upgrade every time the code changes ... NXT is not so proffitable as to allow such a thing on a large scale and few businesses can survive in this way

which brings us to the second major problem... is the trust and credibility of the system in its entirety...
as you see, even talking about a change make people leave the boat and purge them assets and NXT...

In the 2.0 era, the NXT community and ecosystem will be summarized in a group of devs and a group (less than 100) of big fat 0.0000000000000000000000000000001$ value coin accounts watching ones the others... ;D ;D ;D

I think JL was assimilated by the Borgs...  ;D

Thank you and @++

OutSL, do you really think you'll be able to disrupt the way payments are made in the metaverse using the existing NXT 1.7 network which supports 2 transactions per second, generates 50GB data each year and used by 1000 other applications.
This change is exactly for you, you can now create a new child chain for the metaverse and scale it almost indefinably without being dependent on the Bitcoin ATM network which sends a message to the network whenever someone makes a purchase and the ACCI token that updates an altcoin index every 10 minutes.
Why do you need to use the same blockchain as these completely unrelated applications.
This change is exactly what you need.
yes sure, i understand the importance of this change, and I admit that is an ingenious solution to manage the size of the database!
the metaverse do not need a currency because it already has tons http://www.podex.info/ and this situation that we are fighting because this is a bad thing for the metaverse... 1 currency for all the metaverse is the goal and the requiered solution
it need too a decentralized cross grids and platforms marketplace... at this moment the unique marketplace cross grids is https://www.kitely.com/ how tax it's users 20% commissions if they use paypal/USD or 10% if they use them local currency...
will not be nice if this commissions was paid to the forgers instead of a company?
as you see, there is nothing planned for the NXT DGS... mean if you implement child chains or even child descendants chains is not important for the usability but without a sexy look marketplace people will never use at all!

http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2016/02/uphold-considering-currency-for-opensim/
soon the NXT will be the "just an other" if we talk about it in the metaverse...
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sabertooth on February 20, 2016, 12:42:40 am
because fNXT will be traded on BTC38 and other exchanges, and NXT will be marginalized, hence the assets have been devalued.
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?

How do you expect forgers to buy up small amounts from others with that high price? What is the purpose of this other than to damage the economics of fNXT?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: qq2536007339 on February 20, 2016, 05:31:04 am
I am speaking of fees for ordinary payment transactions of course. Leasing transactions will be low-fee, and leasing will only be possible on the forging chain. To prevent abuse by spamming with low-fee leasing transactions, we can add some other restrictions on how many an account can submit per month for example, as you can't schedule more than two consecutive leases at once anyway.

I hope you can consider increase leasing period and add a hard cap (maybe 10M forging power/account) to prevent possible 51% attack.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 20, 2016, 06:43:07 am
Riker, I see majority agrees with sidechain stuff and this is big step forward. Problem, a lot of people complain about, is fnxt/nxt.

If I understanf correctly, this JL proposal offers SPLIT with 1:1 ratio (after fork 10 NXT become 10 fnxt and 10 NXT). Why it is impossible to SWAP them with ratio 1:1 during fork and peg fnxt/nxt with ratio 1:1 for ages? Nobody could answer me this question or I miss one.

IMO such kind of swap could prevent NXT value and panic sell of assets. User will not notice this swap, as their effective balance will go and be converted to fnxt

Correct me if I wrong understand JL proposal and explain, why such approach is impossible to do. Thank you.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: allwelder on February 20, 2016, 07:06:24 am
On Child Chain,there are no block,just single transaction,and then transaction creator sent them to Mainchain forger to confirm?
Any detailed info about how blocks/tx works on sidechain,such as who create blocks,how to send to mainchain,transaction fee,etc ?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Cassius on February 20, 2016, 08:06:06 am
Pegging is interesting but I'm not sure how it could work in practice. Would like to hear ideas.

It's not just us: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35616768
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 08:11:03 am
Pegging is interesting but I'm not sure how it could work in practice. Would like to hear ideas.

It's not just us: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35616768

Pegging won't work. If fNXT can be transferred between accounts, it will be transferred to exchanges and traded at free market value. Pegging is part of price and capital control policy, tools of the centrally planned economy.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 09:35:13 am
Report from the Bitcoin lands.

Bitcoin Core devs and Chinese miners are having a meeting today on the block size and other issues roadmap.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/46oa1r/feb_20_hk_coreminer_conference_pics_will_be/

Quote
[HKmeeting]Core'll be mostly focus on SegWit next 3 months, will start working on HF afterwards. Already has several proposals inside team

The number of transactions in Bitcoin network is pushing the upper limit, has approached the number of txs during the stress-test in September 2015, now it's going to be close to stress-test levels every other day.
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

If Bitcoin doesn't gather the critical mass of miners to fork to Classic shortly, it will not fork to increased block size for 6 months or longer based on the Core's plans to work on SegWit before the hard fork. What does it mean? Bitcoin network congestion and ever increasing fees for the next 6 months or longer depending on the Core's ability to finish the job. What it means for altcoins? Unhappy Bitcoin users looking for altcoins to diversify. Increased block size supporters among Bitcoin users are not few, roughly estimated at 25% of the Bitcoin community. It's important to learn from Bitcoin and come up with a plan to scale NXT as soon as possible to attract new users who will see a clear and more or less unified vision in the NXT community.

For those who haven't followed, this SegWit (centralized off-chain method) is less than a satisfactory solution to the scaling problem, from what I've researched the tx processing increase is only 1.7x. Coupled with the block size increase to 2MB the practical tx processing capacity can go to max 12 tx/s from the current practical pushed limit of 3 tx/s (7 tx/s was theoretical).

NXT can do better than that.

Update:
Miners yield to Blockstream/Core, Bitcoin is a corporation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/46podf/cnledger_on_twitter_hkmtgto_everyone_we_have/
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: OutSL on February 20, 2016, 11:16:18 am
Hi  :D
i don't know why but the 1st thing that i got in mind after reading is this :
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10371.msg201457#msg201457  ;D ;D ;D

i agree, this is a big fat problem affecting all the cryptos because the majority are clones of bitcoin...
but at the NXT level, the problem is not technical but economic... we don't have the economic activity to push the things at the top limits like bitcoin... and without this activity (mean users, merchands, assets traders...) = dead coin.

this said, any effort that is not directed towards the development of more attractive things (extreme relooking ) that will bring more users is an effort in vain even if is technically important to develop a means to prevent a resource overload as bitcoin...

let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...
because you will not have data to put in the child chains if you don't have users...

sorry for my poor english  :(
Thank you and @++
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 11:33:26 am
Hi  :D
i don't know why but the 1st thing that i got in mind after reading is this :
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10371.msg201457#msg201457  ;D ;D ;D

i agree, this is a big fat problem affecting all the cryptos because the majority are clones of bitcoin...
but at the NXT level, the problem is not technical but economic... we don't have the economic activity to push the things at the top limits like bitcoin... and without this activity (mean users, merchands, assets traders...) = dead coin.

this said, any effort that is not directed towards the development of more attractive things (extreme relooking ) that will bring more users is an effort in vain even if is technically important to develop a means to prevent a resource overload as bitcoin...

let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...
because you will not have data to put in the child chains if you don't have users...

sorry for my poor english  :(
Thank you and @++

I'm wondering what if JLP works towards the 2.0 scalability while NXT 1.8 and/or 1.9 has user friendliness improvements.
That's more or less the plan, although since those UI improvements will not require a hard fork or major new functionality, they may be released gradually as 1.7.x versions instead of 1.8 and 1.9.

Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.
I agree, but this is besides the point. It is not like the work on 2.0 will conflict with finding new users. For the next few months, it would be mostly me alone that will work on 2.0. I need to put a basic framework in place, before development can be parallelized and tasks split between more developers. And then still, it will continue to take development resources only. Attracting new users, marketing and adoption is not the job of the core developers.

If you wait until scalability becomes a problem, it will be too late to start work on 2.0.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: websioux on February 20, 2016, 01:49:00 pm
let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...

We would harm ourselves a lot calling a "re-looking" : 2.0
I've never seen sexy stuff create long term adoption.

However, what you suggest is welcome at any time, hence right now, it's just off topic.
These are feature requests to add for the client, or good plugins ideas to start with.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jose on February 20, 2016, 02:30:59 pm
The Asset Exchange, along with millions of USD of assets on it, is the primary use case for Nxt right now. DGS, MS have little adoption.
Can we keep AE on mainchain on a limited/temporary basis, and bump everything else off onto a child chain that runs on a separate token (determined by 1:1 split)? AMs will quite happily run on that and nothing else is going to upset people much.

Sure it means a little extra bloat in the medium-term, but not much and probably not permanently - and that seems like a small price to pay for not destroying or at least disenfranchising the most vibrant part of Nxt's community. Maybe there would be ways of incentivising assets to move to different chains in the future if bloat really was an issue - or preventing new assets from launching on mainchain? There would be a transition phase, at the very least. Grandfather existing assets but make sure no new ones can be created. Over time the rest will die or migrate. And we're somewhere close to where we want to be without razing the place to the ground to get there.

J-L/Riker: can you comment on the suggestion of moving everything but AE (DGS, MS, AMs) to a child chain, freezing creation of new assets on the mainchain and incentivising assets to move to to child chain over time, pruning as you go?
There will be a transition period before new chains start to be used anyway, and this would be a good way to make the most of it.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg210056/#msg210056

I find this question interesting, and I think it wasn't answered.
Anyone?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 20, 2016, 02:33:55 pm
Hi  :D
i don't know why but the 1st thing that i got in mind after reading is this :
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10371.msg201457#msg201457  ;D ;D ;D

i agree, this is a big fat problem affecting all the cryptos because the majority are clones of bitcoin...
but at the NXT level, the problem is not technical but economic... we don't have the economic activity to push the things at the top limits like bitcoin... and without this activity (mean users, merchands, assets traders...) = dead coin.

this said, any effort that is not directed towards the development of more attractive things (extreme relooking ) that will bring more users is an effort in vain even if is technically important to develop a means to prevent a resource overload as bitcoin...

let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...
because you will not have data to put in the child chains if you don't have users...

sorry for my poor english  :(
Thank you and @++


Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.


I very much support these views!
This exactly points to what is needed for NXT:
Not become marginalized by arduous implementation of features that may well destroy the entire economic base of the platform,
while squandering time and opportunities to fill real world demands.
Real world demands existing today, which will otherwise be filled by competitors that have more sense for the priorities of adoption, growth and survival:
Supplying solutions for real world use cases.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 20, 2016, 02:42:11 pm
The Asset Exchange, along with millions of USD of assets on it, is the primary use case for Nxt right now. DGS, MS have little adoption.
Can we keep AE on mainchain on a limited/temporary basis, and bump everything else off onto a child chain that runs on a separate token (determined by 1:1 split)? AMs will quite happily run on that and nothing else is going to upset people much.

Sure it means a little extra bloat in the medium-term, but not much and probably not permanently - and that seems like a small price to pay for not destroying or at least disenfranchising the most vibrant part of Nxt's community. Maybe there would be ways of incentivising assets to move to different chains in the future if bloat really was an issue - or preventing new assets from launching on mainchain? There would be a transition phase, at the very least. Grandfather existing assets but make sure no new ones can be created. Over time the rest will die or migrate. And we're somewhere close to where we want to be without razing the place to the ground to get there.

Thanks for this! I am convinced that destroying the assets would be unsurvivable for the NXT platform.
And unless there are guarantees that this can not happen, proceeding with this in spite of this would be insanely irresponsible.
 
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 02:51:11 pm
I do not believe that Nxt 2.0 as propose by JL would destroy assets. I do not understand why people think of that.

The proposed design is just a separation between the transaction and forging token. Assets are completely unaffected by this procedure. In fact, I believe quite the contrary could happen, since Nxt 2.0 will much more efficient concerning the data used in the blockchain because the transactions with the NXT token will be prunable, all the fees related for transacting, bidding, asking, trading, etc, could be made much lower. The consequence of this is that this will promote a lot the usage of the NXT platform.

@JLP et al. You have my full support on this design.

Overall, after reading all the topic, I believe that a 1:1 distribution at fork is the best case scenario.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Jean-Luc on February 20, 2016, 03:05:17 pm
The Asset Exchange, along with millions of USD of assets on it, is the primary use case for Nxt right now. DGS, MS have little adoption.
Can we keep AE on mainchain on a limited/temporary basis, and bump everything else off onto a child chain that runs on a separate token (determined by 1:1 split)? AMs will quite happily run on that and nothing else is going to upset people much.

Sure it means a little extra bloat in the medium-term, but not much and probably not permanently - and that seems like a small price to pay for not destroying or at least disenfranchising the most vibrant part of Nxt's community. Maybe there would be ways of incentivising assets to move to different chains in the future if bloat really was an issue - or preventing new assets from launching on mainchain? There would be a transition phase, at the very least. Grandfather existing assets but make sure no new ones can be created. Over time the rest will die or migrate. And we're somewhere close to where we want to be without razing the place to the ground to get there.

J-L/Riker: can you comment on the suggestion of moving everything but AE (DGS, MS, AMs) to a child chain, freezing creation of new assets on the mainchain and incentivising assets to move to to child chain over time, pruning as you go?
There will be a transition period before new chains start to be used anyway, and this would be a good way to make the most of it.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg210056/#msg210056

I find this question interesting, and I think it wasn't answered.
Anyone?

Yes, it was answered. What Cassius is proposing is even worse than keeping the Nxt chain not prunable.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg210100/#msg210100
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Marc De Mesel on February 20, 2016, 03:21:56 pm
Splitting NXT into a transaction and forging token is what scares the shit out of me.

But thinking about how companies work, shareholders are not the user/clients. They are separated. You can be shareholder or client or both, but a user is not automatically also a shareholder.

You have company structures where users are also automatically shareholders but these models are much less successful.

Maybe the same applies here?
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Tosch110 on February 20, 2016, 03:31:08 pm
I have been thinking about the distribution of "fNXT" the last days and I have two ideas I have not yet read about and I think could be used  to distribute "fNXT". First, I have a name idea for this chain instead of "fNXT" we could call it "meta" as it contains information about the child chain but is not the childchain itself. It is "beyond" the childChains so I think the name META fits pretty well for this.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata
Metadata is "data that provides information about other data

The distribution methods I had in mind are:

1) business model for distribution - ICO + (Pow+Pos)
Ethereum has successfully used this distribution method right now. Nobody questions their distribution and everyone seems to be fine with this method. Additionally, we could gather some funds during the ICO for development and after ICO we could choose to use POW for a limited time and then switch to POS like ethereum does. Attracting miner is always a good thing because you have attention coming back regularly. But POW would not be necessary, we could also do ICO + POS.

2) enhanced forging model - distribute to forgers
We already had the idea of using NSC. My idea would be to distribute the META to people that have forged a block. This is easily observable because the block creator is noted in every block. So if we announce a certain timeframe (6-12 months) and announce that the forger of this timeframe will receive the new META currency, it could create a new upwind for forgers and buying into NXT. Forgers would before Nxt 2.0 receive a double award (NXT transaction fees + META later) and therefore cause great attraction and you can be sure that the new META owner will forge more likely.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: martismartis on February 20, 2016, 03:48:25 pm

2) enhanced forging model - distribute to forgers
We already had the idea of using NSC. My idea would be to distribute the META to people that have forged a block. This is easily observable because the block creator is noted in every block. So if we announce a certain timeframe (6-12 months) and announce that the forger of this timeframe will receive the new META currency, it could create a new upwind for forgers and buying into NXT dumping assets for NXT. Forgers would before Nxt 2.0 receive a double award (NXT transaction fees + META later) and therefore cause great attraction and you can be sure that the new META owner will forge more likely.

I think will happen this :)
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 03:49:51 pm
The distribution methods I had in mind are:

1) business model for distribution - ICO + (Pow+Pos)
Ethereum has successfully used this distribution method right now. Nobody questions their distribution and everyone seems to be fine with this method. Additionally, we could gather some funds during the ICO for development and after ICO we could choose to use POW for a limited time and then switch to POS like ethereum does. Attracting miner is always a good thing because you have attention coming back regularly. But POW would not be necessary, we could also do ICO + POS.

2) enhanced forging model - distribute to forgers
We already had the idea of using NSC. My idea would be to distribute the META to people that have forged a block. This is easily observable because the block creator is noted in every block. So if we announce a certain timeframe (6-12 months) and announce that the forger of this timeframe will receive the new META currency, it could create a new upwind for forgers and buying into NXT. Forgers would before Nxt 2.0 receive a double award (NXT transaction fees + META later) and therefore cause great attraction and you can be sure that the new META owner will forge more likely.

The two proposed model actually steal the forging power of the current forging power owner. I think those two are not good ideas and I'm pretty sure these will not happen.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 04:27:32 pm
Splitting NXT into a transaction and forging token is what scares the shit out of me.

But thinking about how companies work, shareholders are not the user/clients. They are separated. You can be shareholder or client or both, but a user is not automatically also a shareholder.

You have company structures where users are also automatically shareholders but these models are much less successful.

Maybe the same applies here?
It has been a while but I have continued to support NXT within SuperNET (MGW, mynxt.info, instantdex), I just dont have the energy to be attacked when I try to help.

I warned that breaking Backward Compatibility is a bad idea, specifically that I literally didnt have any more time in the day to redo my software due to API changes. Then the data became prunable and permanent data 10x more expensive. A hardcap of 160 bytes was justified to keep the size of the blockchain low. OK, fine. I have no influence and it was made clear I wasnt welcome here, so I just did what had to be done to keep the SuperNET services working.

However I stated that as long as NXT didnt break the way assets work that there was no reason to change from the NXT as the financial platform.

fNXT model breaks the way assets work. I am not talking about any onetime distribution issue, that is not the problem. The asset selloff for the expected NXT pump, that also is not an issue.

The primary issue is that assets will be using NXT as the reference currency. A NXT that is a childchain subordinated to fNXT, the preferred stock that has all the power. If a stock does a 2:1 split, the price is automatically adjusted so everyone ends up with the same value. In the upcoming fNXT:NXT split, there is no such mechanism, all asset will immediately lose half their value, but will the hardfork double all AE bids/asks, I doubt it. So will the market readjust the prices back to where it was? In a perfectly efficient market, yes, but we have the cost of tx to cancel and submit a new quote and the extra effort it would take. But the biggest issue is that there simply isnt enough liquidity. I am not talking about asset liquidity, I am talking about NXT liquidity. There just is not enough NXT to allow a doubling of the prices. Primarily because there isnt an extra billion NXT, it is an extra billion fNXT. So irrespective of an asset's quality there will be a massive liquidity squeeze. This magnitude of a liquidity crisis is seldom seen in the real world, maybe the gold shortage caused depressions in the 1800's. The reality is that to make the fNXT plan neutral from the immediate 50% haircut, all AE prices need to be doubled. And to do that would require doubling the NXT supply and issuing another billion NXT. But still that doesnt balance out the loss of future growth due to fNXT present and future value, so the extra billion NXT is just the start. Of course, it probably wont work to just double the supple, though I heard ripple did it and it worked out fine.

But supposedly NXT will gain value from 2.0, but how? NXT isnt the main chain anymore. NXT doesnt benefit directly from childchains and might even be hurt by them, or simply priced out of existence. NXT doesnt have the forging power any more, so it basically becomes like an asset or MS coin is now. Nothing wrong with that, but this does nothing to strenghten NXT and that is what the assets were issued on. NXT and its future. That future is now inside fNXT.

The way I understand it, NXT would be prunable subject to paying whatever fees the fNXT nodes required. So if there are many successful childchains, NXT could simply get priced out and then pruned away. There does not seem to be any provision to guarantee archival nodes will always be there.

Also, NXT goes from having exclusive rights to all the new features to non-exclusive. If any of you are familiar with intellectual property and the difference between exclusive and non-exclusive, you know how important it is. It is hard to quantify, might be 2x or 10x or 100x, depends on specific scenario. In no scenario does demoting NXT to child chain benefit NXT.

If there are no significant child chains, then all this chaos is for nothing.

The security model for childchains cannot be evaluated until more details are known and even then having a track record of 2+ years vs 0 months, will make childchains security not as strong as fNXT security, even if mathematically they are identical.

Now, how important is security to an asset investor? Of course, very important.

1 + 1 = 2
I dont think many people will debate me about that.
NXT 2.0 + fNXT = NXT
Let us assume the value of the two is the same. the NXT after 2.0 + fNXT vs current NXT. As I wrote above NXT2.0 is not worth as much as NXT, impossible to know exactly how much less, but it is significant, especially since the expectation of future grown goes to childchain and fNXT, with NXT left behind. And clearly fNXT has value, possible the majority of value if the expectations are that childchains are going to be significant.

Now remember that the price of ALL assets and MS coins are cut the moment of the hard fork by the ratio of old value vs new value and the liquidity on the fNXT side is effectively locked away with the 100NXT/tx fee.

So in addition to looking at an immediate loss of 50%, beyond that it could get worse in the event the value of NXT is below half the combined NXT2.0+fNXT.

The fNXT issuing protects the holders of NXT and its price will probably increase leading up to the fNXT hardfork, which appears to already be fully decided based on the posts I see. However if assets and MS are immediately losing half the price and long term without any mechanism to recover it, this is basically a wealth transfer of the 50% magnitude. If anybody is wondering why asset issuers and investors are upset, hopefully my post will open your eyes.

It is one thing to just change the API and upset third party developers, after all coders are so easy to find, who cares about losing developers. And long time sites that couldnt financially justify the development costs to retool for a new API, who needs those anyway.

I am speaking as a businessman, investor and asset issuer. Areas that I have proven skills in, but it probably doesnt matter that I understand business, financing, and issuing assets. I also had proven skills in the tech side all my warnings about the API issues were ignored. However in the asset area I created more asset values that everybody else combined for quite a while and that includes not just NXT but all decentralized platforms. And I did that in a span of just over a year.

My biggest priority is to protect the millions of dollars invested into my assets. Since the NXT is apparently unconcerned about what the effects of totally changing the financial scope of the reference currency would do to everybody who built on top of it, I will have to take proactive steps to do so.

I knew the BC2 incident was going to hurt NXT and I tried to stop it and warn people, but that got turned around into somehow it being my fault that promises made after BC1 were broken and that I didnt compromise. Then a big FUD storm against me and SuperNET pushed the price of it below the value of just the core coins it held, wiping out all the gains. So I was reluctant to say anything due to the "shoot the messenger" thing that happened last time.

I have been silent, but when this farce of community "feedback" is making it clear that it has already been decided by fiat that NXT will be massively devalued permanently, I decided to make an appearance directly. So please if you want to just make me upset, attack me for what the NXT is forcing down our throats without regard to the millions of dollars at stake.

At this point I am reacting to protect investors in my assets. If you are such a person, do not worry. If indeed this fNXT plan moves forward without any protections to asset holders, there will be a way to transition off of the NXT blockchain to where it can be priced and traded against BTC and other currencies.

Anyway, I dont want to get into any extended back and forth. I just wanted to state my position that I will protect investors in my assets and unless there is a believable plan that protects asset holders interests against the issues I raise in this post and any other that might arise, then my hand will be forced. Do not bother trying to convince me to compromise as I do not have the power to just let half the investors value get "temporarily" pushed down by 50% without any clear path to recoup it. If you want to prevent this migration, you need to prevent fNXT and I have ZERO influence over that. I couldnt even get small API change reversed.

I will converse as long as things stay civil, but really I do not have the tolerance to being called names and being insulted.

For all your NXTers without any assets and just love this fNXT plan, just imagine if instead of a 1:1 distribution, all the fNXT would go to only people who have the camelmilk asset. From the asset holders point of view it is a similar type of wealth transfer, even if the ones who are benefiting might not benefit at all, it is clear that fNXT has very little chance of helping assets and a very significant chance to hurt them.

James

P.S. I will not be making technical advices as it is clear that I dont get any respect in that area from the NXT devs, so it is no point to deal with this technically as I clearly dont have the capacity to understand java and it could very well be technical limitations caused by java. I speak about the financial aspects. I will probably lose another million dollars of net worth due to this post, but I am trying to save NXT.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 04:48:51 pm
all asset will immediately lose half their value

It's a valid concern for hyped up assets with no working product.
Quality assets have no reason for concern.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 05:00:22 pm
If a stock does a 2:1 split, the price is automatically adjusted so everyone ends up with the same value. In the upcoming fNXT:NXT split, there is no such mechanism, all asset will immediately lose half their value, but will the hardfork double all AE bids/asks, I doubt it.

I stopped reading there.

The Nxt 2.0 proposal also split in two disjoint ensembles the fNxt/Nxt token functionnality. It is not pure inflation like in stock when all share are equal in functionnality. The value of the fNxt/Nxt token will split between those two token, but not like a 50%/50% distribution of the value. Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork. Since NXT token will have all functionnality except forging, I expect it will be value more than fNxt at fork (fNxt will only be good for forging), but will lose some value because it can't forge anymore. This is the value that will be transfer to the fNXT. If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 20, 2016, 05:02:52 pm
all asset will immediately lose half their value

It's a valid concern for hyped up assets with no working product.
Quality assets have no reason for concern.

that is utter nonsense unfortunately. what you mean is that 'better' assets will feel 'less' of a negative impact, where you only operate with maximally vague concepts of such effects.

such vacuous and superficial assumptions of convenience are not the basis to bet the future of an enterprise like NXT on.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: VanBreuk on February 20, 2016, 05:10:27 pm
If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

I think the point is that if assets will be only tradable in NXT, as it derives from the discussion so far, even following your reasoning the value of assets will decrease proportionally to what NXT loses as non-forging currency.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 20, 2016, 05:10:41 pm
If a stock does a 2:1 split, the price is automatically adjusted so everyone ends up with the same value. In the upcoming fNXT:NXT split, there is no such mechanism, all asset will immediately lose half their value, but will the hardfork double all AE bids/asks, I doubt it.

I stopped reading there.

The Nxt 2.0 proposal split also fNxt/Nxt token functionnality. It is not pure inflation like in stock when all share are equal in functionnality. The value of the fNxt/Nxt token will split between those two token, but not like a 50%/50% distribution of the value. Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork. Since NXT token will have all functionnality except forging I expect it will be value more than fNxt at fork (fNxt will only be good for forging), but will lose some value because it can't forge anymore. This value will be transfer to the fNXT. If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

Quote
Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork.

DEFINE: 'SOME' !

I took these from your rather short text:
Quote

 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...


you are stringing up baseless assumptions, but you have no clue what you are blathering about.
in fact, you claim that you know the future of a highly interdependent and complex system.

I strongly object to such arrogant tea leaves reading in connection with the well being of the NXT platform in the future.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 05:11:56 pm
If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

I think the point is that if assets will be only tradable in NXT, as it derives from the discussion so far, even following your reasoning the value of assets will decrease proportionally to what NXT loses as forging currency.

Asset productivity is usually in fiat, so asset value should be constant vs fiat, e.g. usd.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 05:13:21 pm
@locomb sorry for my poor english. I don't know much verb tense in english.

edit, read the text carefully and you will find where "some" is defined.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 05:14:15 pm
that is utter nonsense unfortunately. what you mean is that 'better' assets will feel 'less' of a negative impact, where you only operate with maximally vague concepts of such effects.

If stock 1 price is close to its NAV and stock 2 is hyped and priced 100-200-x00% above NAV, which of them is more likely to correct significantly? Add the lack of company performance to the mix and you have a perfect candidate to short. It's a no-brainer. Google famous stock market bubbles of 1929, 2000 and the rest of them.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 05:15:20 pm
If a stock does a 2:1 split, the price is automatically adjusted so everyone ends up with the same value. In the upcoming fNXT:NXT split, there is no such mechanism, all asset will immediately lose half their value, but will the hardfork double all AE bids/asks, I doubt it.

I stopped reading there.

The Nxt 2.0 proposal split also fNxt/Nxt token functionnality. It is not pure inflation like in stock when all share are equal in functionnality. The value of the fNxt/Nxt token will split between those two token, but not like a 50%/50% distribution of the value. Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork. Since NXT token will have all functionnality except forging I expect it will be value more than fNxt at fork (fNxt will only be good for forging), but will lose some value because it can't forge anymore. This value will be transfer to the fNXT. If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.
Are you familiar with macroeconomics?
What is happening with the NXT/fNXT split that is causing the most negative reaction is that assuming fNXT has equal value to NXT the moment of the hardfork, HALF (50%) of the money supply vanishes.

Now, imagine if in your country, overnight half the money supply just vanished, but they are now safely inside bank vaults where it cant really be spent.

HALF the money supply being converted to a non-liquid form.

So an asset that is priced at 35 stays at 35, but it really should be 70 as NXT is worth half (plz let us not debate the exact ration of 2:1 as nobody really knows, we just know it is significant)

OK, so where does this 35 NXT come from?

Remember this is not a microeconomic (applying to specific entities) but macroeconomic (applying to all), so ALL assets are now mispriced by a factor of 2, the total asset market cap is what? higher than 1 billion NXT, so even if the market wanted to reprice, it couldnt and there is only about 300 million NXT in circulation. That is enough liquidity to reprice JINN asset and then there is no more NXT for anything else.

This is pretty basic economics. When the market is flooded with cash, things inflate. When the market has its cash removed, it deflates. So we have a devaluation via deflation.

If the price of something needs to be doubled to maintain its value, there needs to be twice as much capital in that denomination or there is a liquidity crunch. Doesnt matter the quality of asset, it applies across the board. But it will hurt the worse assets really bad, in fact there might be no bids at all for many assets as all the NXT is used up.

Once there is such a drop in value, it destablizes markets and could make a long lasting downtrend (start or continue)

James
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 05:17:59 pm
@james
I know enought in economy to state that it will have market repercussion, but not as much as you claim.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 05:18:52 pm
converted to a non-liquid form.

Like the assets hyped to way above NAV that 'investors' are now stuck in with no hopes of liquidating ever. Tell us more.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 20, 2016, 05:19:15 pm
@locomb sorry for my poor english. I don't know much verb tense in english.

edit, read the text carefully and you will find where "some" is defined.

forget about english- that is not an issue- but it is a huge issue that you recklessly throw baseless fantasies around and arrogate yourself to hold these as truths.

of course that 'SOME' is completely undefined, that is just a fantasy of yours!
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 05:20:17 pm
that is utter nonsense unfortunately. what you mean is that 'better' assets will feel 'less' of a negative impact, where you only operate with maximally vague concepts of such effects.

If stock 1 price is close to its NAV and stock 2 is hyped and priced 100-200-x00% above NAV, which of them is more likely to correct significantly? Add the lack of company performance to the mix and you have a perfect candidate to short. It's a no-brainer. Google famous stock market bubbles of 1929, 2000 and the rest of them.
Let us assume all the assets are trading at their NAV. let us remove your biased thinking against my assets that you dont like and is coloring your thinking. Just because you are happy that my assets will lose value, that is fine, but plz dont make it so you stop thinking clear.

We have 2 billion NXT worth of assets backed with NAV. Let us assume this, even if it is not 100% accurate. I want to illustrate my point.

fNXT fork happens, so now there is 4 billion NXT 2.0 worth of assets.
I hope you followed this point as it is critical. We now have 4 billion worth of assets and this is its NAV, so not any thing other than real value.

Please explain to me how exactly all of this gets magically repriced by ~200 million of liquid NXT?
I left a detail in here where you can get close to solving it, but it wont quite get there.

James
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 05:22:00 pm
@james
I know enought in economy to state that it will have market repercussion, but not as much as you claim.
I look forward to your MATH that shows how a 2 billion NXT shortfall is able to be repriced in a reasonable time by ~200 million NXT that circulates.

You must be much smarter than me as I cant see how it is possible in any short amount of time. Maybe over some weeks or months, maybe not

James
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 05:24:22 pm
converted to a non-liquid form.

Like the assets hyped to way above NAV that 'investors' are now stuck in with no hopes of liquidating ever. Tell us more.
You are just trying to annoy me, so if you have no interest in the truth and just want to say bad things about me, then I will just put you on my ignore list.

I was the one that created the entire NAV concept for crypto assets, I am well aware of the bear market that lost 80%+ of the value of the reference currencies and how when the reference currency is debased, things that are based on them lose value through no fault of their own.

James
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 05:24:41 pm
@locomb sorry for my poor english. I don't know much verb tense in english.

edit, read the text carefully and you will find where "some" is defined.

forget about english- that is not an issue- but it is a huge issue that you recklessly throw baseless fantasies around and arrogate yourself to hold these as truths.

of course that 'SOME' is completely undefined, that is just a fantasy of yours!

I think NXT token will decrease equally to the value that fNxt increase, since the functionnality of both token will be split in disjoint group. This what "some" will be imo. I never claim I know this value.

Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: Sebastien256 on February 20, 2016, 05:27:30 pm
@james
I know enought in economy to state that it will have market repercussion, but not as much as you claim.
I look forward to your MATH that shows how a 2 billion NXT shortfall is able to be repriced in a reasonable time by ~200 million NXT that circulates.

You must be much smarter than me as I cant see how it is possible in any short amount of time. Maybe over some weeks or months, maybe not

James

James, it because the fork split the functionnality of the fNxt/Nxt tokens in disjoint group. At least this is what I believe.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 05:33:34 pm
Let us assume all the assets are trading at their NAV. let us remove your biased thinking against my assets that you dont like and is coloring your thinking. Just because you are happy that my assets will lose value, that is fine, but plz dont make it so you stop thinking clear.

Too many assumptions from you.

You are just trying to annoy me, so if you have no interest in the truth and just want to say bad things about me, then I will just put you on my ignore list.

I was the one that created the entire NAV concept for crypto assets, I am well aware of the bear market that lost 80%+ of the value of the reference currencies and how when the reference currency is debased, things that are based on them lose value through no fault of their own.

James

You're a businessman, investor asset issuer. I can't possibly know more about markets than you do, I am just a simple nxter.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 05:33:44 pm
@locomb sorry for my poor english. I don't know much verb tense in english.

edit, read the text carefully and you will find where "some" is defined.

forget about english- that is not an issue- but it is a huge issue that you recklessly throw baseless fantasies around and arrogate yourself to hold these as truths.

of course that 'SOME' is completely undefined, that is just a fantasy of yours!

I think NXT token will decrease equally to the value that fNxt increase, since the functionnality of both token will be split in disjoint group. This what "some" will be imo. I never claim I know this value.
great! so you understand it does decrease the value of NXT and also creates uncertanity, both are things that asset peoples are not liking since this is self-inflicted.

And maybe you can be open minded enough to realize that whatever this "SOME" value is that is lost has to be replaced by less money!

Remember you agree that NXT will be worth some amount less, let us call this "delta", the greek word for change.

this delta is now a mispricing (in macroeconomics we ignore microeconomics otherwise things cannot be calculated, only simulated via massive simulations and this self-infliction is simple enough that we dont need to do such simulations)

So we need to somehow make delta worth of NXT appear. However, NXT is now worth (1 - delta), so to compesate delta with units worth (1 - delta) we need delta / (1 - delta)

I think I got that right.

if delta is 0.5 (50%), that means 0.5 / (1 - 0.5) = 1.0
That means the entire supply of NXT is needed to compesate for this delta

if delta is 0.1, then it isnt so bad 0.1 / 0.9 = .11 or 11%

So even though we cant know what delta will be, we can calculate the effect on things at different deltas.

Did I make a math error somewhere?

James
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 05:34:58 pm
Let us assume all the assets are trading at their NAV. let us remove your biased thinking against my assets that you dont like and is coloring your thinking. Just because you are happy that my assets will lose value, that is fine, but plz dont make it so you stop thinking clear.

Too many assumptions from you.

You are just trying to annoy me, so if you have no interest in the truth and just want to say bad things about me, then I will just put you on my ignore list.

I was the one that created the entire NAV concept for crypto assets, I am well aware of the bear market that lost 80%+ of the value of the reference currencies and how when the reference currency is debased, things that are based on them lose value through no fault of their own.

James

You're a businessman, investor asset issuer. I can't possibly know more about markets than you do, I am just a simple nxter.
Really, that's it? Here I was looking forward to an objective economic analysis.
You usually pretend to be the smart guy, so this is quite surprising to me

James
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: jl777 on February 20, 2016, 05:38:55 pm
@james
I know enought in economy to state that it will have market repercussion, but not as much as you claim.
I look forward to your MATH that shows how a 2 billion NXT shortfall is able to be repriced in a reasonable time by ~200 million NXT that circulates.

You must be much smarter than me as I cant see how it is possible in any short amount of time. Maybe over some weeks or months, maybe not

James

James, it because the fork split the functionnality of the fNxt/Nxt tokens in disjoint group. At least this is what I believe.
OK, we both agree that is what happens. Can we agree that if you split the functionality, you split the value?

If you can agree to that, then can you agree that if there is less total currency available, that any readjustment back to where it should be cannot happen instantly

So the question is how long will it take and if this self-inflicted bear market is ok to dicate to all assetholders. The problem is that the ones that will suffer are not the NXT holders, but the asset holders. and the NXT holders have the power to decide. There is a name for this, when one group has no rights and another can simple dictate to the other group what will happen

Is that really what you want NXT to be?

Jame
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: LocoMB on February 20, 2016, 05:44:05 pm

There is a name for this, when one group has no rights and another can simple dictate to the other group what will happen

Is that really what you want NXT to be?

Jame

in which case, NXT will be no better than Bitshares and Wall Street and any deceased and forgotten banana republic that clutters the history books.

the very antithesis of what Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencues are supposed to be.
Title: Re: Nxt 2.0 design
Post by: lurker10 on February 20, 2016, 05:44:55 pm