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

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 210992 times)

sadface

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +16/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #100 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.
Logged

vytasz7

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #101 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.
Logged

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #102 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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 03:20:34 pm by lurker10 »
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

TheWireMaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +27/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
    • NXT Folks
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #103 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!
Logged
NXT-5WW2-XQ63-CFGM-G7YAJ

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #104 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.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

vytasz7

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +3/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #105 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 .
Logged

wolffang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +98/-5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #106 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.
Logged

komputor

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +36/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 215
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #107 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.
Logged

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #108 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.
Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

durerus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +106/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • user-owner
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #109 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
Logged

Jetboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +19/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #110 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!
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 04:22:31 pm by Jetboy »
Logged

wolffang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +98/-5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #111 on: February 09, 2016, 04:21:07 pm »

- MILK (motherchain token)

MILK - fNXT 1-0

What about FoMoN: Forging Mother of Nxt  ???
Logged

wolffang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +98/-5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 690
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #112 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.
Logged

coretechs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +161/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #113 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.
Logged
https://ardorportal.org - Ardor blockchain explorer | https://nxtportal.org - Nxt blockchain explorer | http://bitcoindoc.com - The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin
ARDOR-T43P-R2K9-8W79-9W2AL | NXT-WY9K-ZMTT-QQTT-3NBL7

VanBreuk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +362/-19
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2772
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #114 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.
Logged
GPG Fingerprint: B020 D1C1 F289 3B2C 3577  9EAD 455D D175 5913 C7F1

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #115 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.
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

MrV777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #116 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
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 04:49:25 pm by MrV777 »
Logged
NXT: NXT-BK2J-ZMY4-93UY-8EM9V
NXT nodes: 209.222.98.250, 216.155.128.10

durerus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +106/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • user-owner
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #117 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.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2016, 04:58:25 pm by durerus »
Logged

MrV777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #118 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. 
Logged
NXT: NXT-BK2J-ZMY4-93UY-8EM9V
NXT nodes: 209.222.98.250, 216.155.128.10

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #119 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.
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly