Show Posts - valarmg singapore
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - valarmg

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89
Nxt General Discussion / Re: SuperNET TOKEN from BTER
« on: June 12, 2017, 07:23:09 pm »
Still a handful of TOKEN floating around. Since last redemption 15 months ago:

TOKEN(15641806960898178066) sent to NXT-7Y5B-J8LQ-SL5P-3ULFL
23/02/2016 16:38:02, 11, NXT-UDHN-A4VD-JMWP-GQY57
09/10/2016 12:03:09, 11, NXT-8UNC-QVL6-43W7-9KMFT
04/11/2016 9:55:14, 41, NXT-8UNC-QVL6-43W7-9KMFT
30/01/2017 7:43:20, 6, NXT-8UNC-QVL6-43W7-9KMFT
07/06/2017 8:17:07, 10, NXT-8UNC-QVL6-43W7-9KMFT
11/06/2017 11:16:47, 40, NXT-NNBQ-NXU8-8R7E-3TG5M

So payout just done of:
NXT-8UNC-QVL6-43W7-9KMFT gets 68 SuperNET
NXT-NNBQ-NXU8-8R7E-3TG5M gets 40 SuperNET

2. Snapshot backdated to before announcement of Nxt 2.0 (8th of February 2016)

I like 2. It means that Nxt can continue on as normal, no spikes or dips due to fNxt creation, no big speculators getting in and making money, then dumping. Genuine Nxt holders who have been in for the long term get the fNxt. This should mean no big dip, which should help assetholders. It also adds certainty.

What's the disadvantage?

Nxt General Discussion / Re: SuperNET TOKEN from BTER
« on: February 19, 2016, 12:19:30 pm »
The automated process has liked been broken by the latest core changes, so I just made manual transfers for the last 9 months of TOKEN swaps. Hopefully I didn't make any mistakes.

Sent the following accounts the listed amount of superNET.
NXT-8UNC-QVL6-43W7-9KMFT, 18
NXT-7HQE-82RR-FAQ2-4RTL9, 48

Core Development Announcements / Re: Start preparing for 1.7 - NOW!
« on: November 19, 2015, 01:05:49 pm »
Heres my view, and then i will STFU....

The claim that entities are 'working hard for NXT' is not only logically false, but its this kind of self-appointed importance that needs to stop.
Firstly, entities, will always have their own business/project self interests at the forefront of their motives, way before any meaningful considerations of its associated platform. By meaningful, i mean, what value does the current crop of crap on the AE, REALLY give to NXT? As ive said, currently 95% are worthless shit that does, and will do absolutely nothing, for the much needed broad ordinary user base, and business adoption that NXT needs to survive as a viable platform.
Secondly, Vitalik certainly doesnt need help from third party interests to 'work hard' for ETH. Quite rightly, people choosing ETH as a platform to work on, will do so for their own self-interest and motives. Microsoft aint getting involved to work for ETH, and i would be utterly amazed if their main consideration was based on how many times they believe an API was going to changed.   
At some point, NXT will hopefully attract the interest of a company/business that has a turnover several magnitudes higher than the minnows on the AE and their associated operators/devs, and then the voices of those operators/devs should be ignored as being insignificant. Sorry if that sounds arrogant and misguided, but if Jean-Luc's inbox had 5 enquires on a given day, and one of them was from Microsoft or similar, who should he prioritise his attention to? Its just business. The kind of business NXT now needs, and hopefully, the kind of business the Tennessee project will produce. And, probably the kind of business that would have enough clout and relevance to nail any core devs bollocks to the mast, as far as future change is concerned, and it would be quite right for Jean-Luc to go out his way to accommodate a close working relationship. But that clout does not exist right now.
I dont personally consider James or anyone else to have the necessary clout, to feel entitled to influence Jean-Luc's roadmap, until those projects start behaving like REAL businesses that have meaningful and significant turnover, and that crosses over into real world use.
Seen the price of NXT and most of the assets lately? Tis a metric that tells me its time to move away from interesting and clever projects, cos the experiment aint working my friends. C'mon, lets start moving towards the end-game. Its getting tedious around here.


Yes, forget about everyone who is working hard on the Nxt platform right now because they are not that important. Wait for a Microsoft to magically decide to start using Nxt. (Remember how great getting OverStock worked out for Counterparty. Of course, possibly the devs wouldn't listen to any big fish either.) If any of the small projects did become big and real-world, well by then they'll likely have moved away from using Nxt the way things are going.

Core Development Announcements / Re: Start preparing for 1.7 - NOW!
« on: November 18, 2015, 02:41:15 pm »
I am on the BTCOR team and we have a developer building an application on top of NXT so no my main investment isn't SuperNet. I also write and edit the BTCOR magazine. Our magazine has been giving free PR to NXT and NXT projects. It is meant to encourage people to learn about NXT and to build on it too. If NXT continues to change the API I don't think any business could honestly take NXT seriously and I will need to rethink endorsing NXT as not THE bitcoin 2.0 block chain but ONE OF MANY Bitcoin 2.0 block chains.
So, are we saying that API's are really that fundamental to the perception of a given platform? How much work does it really take for an operator to update their system to accommodate a change?

It's not about perception. It's about being a stable platform that businesses/software devs can build on. People thought that was what Nxt was. Turns out it's not, and Nxt don't seem to care about being useful as a platform (feedback from those who decided to build on top of Nxt are ignored). So businesses and app developers will choose another platform. Software can be hard to get right, it becomes impossible if there are too many moving parts.

Say Linux was a platform that people wanted to build on. It looked like it was becoming popular, and apps were built. Then Linux changed its API and all those apps broke. So all of app developers went and fixed their apps, went through a testing cycle, had users reinstall everything. Then two months later the API was broken again. Let's just say that Linux wouldn't have continued to draw app developers or users.

NXTventures / Re: Pangea Poker - asset 6883271355794806507
« on: October 25, 2015, 08:13:24 am »
I got you. I agree the design is very complicated and would take a long time to implement on a technical level. There are a few things that still need to be worked out. I also am not crazy about the reversible chips idea, but it was the best I could come up with.

Well.. hopefully you can get a couple ideas from my paper if that is all. I doubt I will ever build it honestly.. I don't have enough free time and the Bitshares community seems disinterested. Good luck to your project! I am of the opinion that we should decentralized everything! ;D

The paper is very well written and thought out, and from a poker point of view, I find myself agreeing with most of what's in there. I just struggle to see how the main concepts can be implemented.

For Pangea, we are concentrating on getting working decentralized poker working first (that's difficult enough), then afterwards figuring out dealing with bots/collusion. We do have a plan though. Our overall vision is that there will be hosts who bring the players together to play under their banner. The host's job is to bring in players, and to make sure the games are good, and in return the host receives rake. Part of ensuring good games, is that the host verifies that each person is a real person and not a bot. They are then banned for bad behavior. Bots et al. can make some money, but that's the same as centralized sites, and good hosts will make sure it's hard for them to return if banned. It's up to players to watch out for suspicious behavior and report it (similar to how it is presently). The main problem is that each host's community becomes a walled garden, but the idea is that the free market ensures that several large and competent hosts will create viable games.

If you have free time and skills, and aren't going to be working on the bitshares version, maybe you'd like to get involved with helping Pangea.

NXTventures / Re: Pangea Poker - asset 6883271355794806507
« on: October 24, 2015, 08:15:15 am »
I'm interested in what you guys think of my design of a decentralized poker network. No offense, but I think your collusion and multi-accounting protection is not very well thought out. There has been little to no talk of it ITT so excuse me if I am wrong. Any poker game expecting to cater to greater than 2 player games must have some sort of system in place to combat multi-accounting and collusion. I think some collaboration could be nice for us both, as I feel like I have at least a couple genuinely good ideas in my design. I honestly don't care whether a bad ass decentralized poker network gets built on Nxt, SuperNet, or Bitshares, just the fact that it exists will do for me. My design is centered around Bitshares though. Here is the latest version of my design: docdro.id/NZf3LyG

Seems very well thought out in a theoretical and ideal world sense, but doesn't sound very practical from a technical/implementation point of view. I especially can't see the reversible chips idea working.

Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: October 02, 2015, 03:29:14 pm »

Is it not true to say that the ~70 original NXT stakeholders could do whatever they wanted with the network? Yes, you'd have to get them together and yes, they'd kill it and it's wildly impractical and almost pointless but...

As I understand it, the original stakeholders could probably create a fork that would likely confuse new nodes. So something would have to be done (maybe insure new nodes are bootstrapped with real network, maybe economic clustering, maybe hardcoded checkpoints), but I don't think it would cause irreparable harm.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: October 02, 2015, 03:03:49 pm »

As Vitalik Buterin puts it '[A]ll “pure” proof-of-stake systems are ultimately permanent nobilities where the members of the genesis block allocation always have the ultimate say. No matter what happens ten million blocks down the road, the genesis block members can always come together and launch an alternate fork with an alternate transaction history and have that fork take over.'

Which I suppose is correct.

But that's not correct. Why does the fork have to take over?

First of all, it'll be super hard to create that fork. Second of all, why will everyone follow that fork? If an attack is made, can't devs make a hardfork to avoid that fork. Third, it seems to me there are many possible solutions (economic clustering being one, I can think of other possibilities but I'm not an expert) but because this fork attack is super impractical (how to get all the original keys) it doesn't seem worth it to put large amounts of effort into combating it right now.

Also, proof of work has many giant insurmountable problems which have surfaced due to the massive mining infrastructure required.  Proof of Stake solves most of the proof of work problems, but ends up having a potential security issue. Instead of looking to solve this issue (BCNxt, kushti, Buterin, Suuny King have all looked at proof of stake and seen it as solvable) proof-of-work aficionados just throw up their hands and immediately say "Impossible, we must go back to wasting gazillions of electricity". Instead of weighting up "gazillions of electricity forever+other problems" vs "security issue" and saying, let's put some effort into solving the security issue. That's how Buterin ultimately came around to choosing proof of stake.

Also, seems disingenuous to use a quote from Buterin when he has gone back (somewhat) on his original thoughts and now thinks that proof of stake is the best option.

General / Re: Preventing spam by forgers
« on: September 19, 2015, 08:09:03 am »

If the decision is made to change the fee payout mechanism to a distributed method for ALL transactions, it will fundamentally change the economic incentives for forging and should not be done without serious consideration/simulation/testing.  I am wary of doing this for the reasons I posted above, but perhaps we can lower tx fees at the same time to make up for the loss of entirely free transactions...

I don't think that anyone really uses the free transaction possibilities from forging, so I don't see how it changes the economic incentives of forging right now.

It it could become used like that in the future and I agree with bcdev that it should be changed for the reasons he outlines. Though I don't think it needs to be a priority.

Coin shuffling will also work for assets.


Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: September 11, 2015, 09:47:29 pm »
Wow did anybody else see a queue of 520 unconfirmed transactions just now?

When SuperNET/NxtVenture is doing an asset dividend, it takes about 3000 transactions.

SuperNET Lite Releases / Re: SuperNET Lite v2.0.6-Beta
« on: September 07, 2015, 10:50:53 pm »
Can this bug be fixed in the next SUPERNET release:


The dividend bug is very persistent in every SUPERNET V2 release, but works on SUPERNET V1, so please fix it devs.

yes, I will have a look at this

A question which came to mind. Any reason you would like to use SuperNET dividends else than native Nxt function?
I am asking because I would tend to use the native Nxt Dividend & Voting instead of the SuperNET version which you can find on the "Advanced" tab.

Or can the SuperNET version do anything the native Nxt version cannot?

You can remove the voting functions in Dividends+. They have no real use now that native voting is implemented.

The share swap functionality is still useful, I believe, as is the dividends (and asset distribution probably). Native dividends only distributes Nxt, while the Dividends+ allows assets and Nxt to be distributed. Also, it is easier to see dividends received in Dividends+ (that might change in 1.6), plus Dividends+ is more flexible in terms of options.

SuperNET Lite Releases / Re: SuperNET Lite v2.0.6-Beta
« on: September 07, 2015, 08:42:32 am »
Hi Guys, trying out the 'share swap' facility for first time ... I have a swap that I would like to process both from same originating account ... I'm getting "Reddem acccont doesn't seem valid."

Apart from the spelling ... lol ... Is this correct, am I doing something wrong ?

Also, I was unable to process dividend payments in last beta version, is this version working for dividends ?

Thanks in advance, cheers

Dividends+/share swap hasn't been tested in the Lite non-blockchain version. Seems that it doesn't work.

SuperNET Releases / Re: Dividends+ Release
« on: August 28, 2015, 12:23:07 pm »
It doesn't work for me, whenever I try to calculate the dividends it shows this error:

"Asset ID is invalid."

Even though i triple checked the asset ID and the amount was ok it always shows me this error. In fact it shows it for all assets, not just 1. I correctly copied the asset ID without spaces, so I think its a major bug.

I didn't had the ADVANCED checkbox checked in.

I searched quickly through the files and I found the error notice in this file:

So Please fix it :)

I haven't seen this problem, but someone else did and they used incognito mode and it worked. Maybe change browser or use incognito mode and see if there is still a problem.

NXTventures / Re: Pangea Poker - asset 6883271355794806507
« on: August 21, 2015, 01:02:08 pm »
Any progress this month?

Unfortunately things are moving slow right now. The developer we tried to hire didn't end up being able to work for the project in the end, and the one who has been working all along hasn't been able to do much work on it recently.

We are thinking of refocusing and instead of going playmoney->centralized poker->decentralized poker, we'll just get the playmoney working and go directly to decentralized poker which will start to come on stream after some of the other superNET projects are up and running (instantDex, crypto777).

I imagine the lack of progress is disheartening to investors, but with a super low burn rate, the project doesn't have the time sensitive issues a normal startup would have (similar to other superNET projects). In addition, Pangea only gains its potency when part of a strong overall superNET ecosystem, so a delay in development right now might not affect the overall Pangea timeline. Just as pokereum needs a stable and strong ethereum, Pangea will need a stable and strong superNET, and we don't want to burn all our resources before that time.

The features planned for the next hard fork are coin shuffling, account control for phased transactions (which makes an account only allowed to submit phased transactions, requiring the approval of one or more other accounts), and 2FA using hash chains (using one-time hashcodes to approve each account transaction).

This release will however be called 1.7, because in the meantime we are preparing another major release which must be numbered 1.6, upgrade to which will be optional and will not require a hard fork. The main features that will go into this 1.6 release are account ledger (you will finally be able to see the received dividend payments in the client), peer services (being able to fetch expired prunable data from peers that archive them), and asset deletion (which until the 1.7 hardfork will still use an asset transfer transaction internally, to be compatible with 1.5 nodes).

Wow, great work.

Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: August 06, 2015, 02:21:38 pm »

Sounds like the same old nothing-at-stake story to me.

He is referring to this paper: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
Has anyone well versed in PoS algo taken a look at this?

Yes, kushti looked at it and found it to be more philosophy than science/maths and that it had no academic rigor.

Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: August 04, 2015, 04:36:29 pm »

Thanks. That's some serious inflation.

Though I know there is a plan to go to Proof of Stake (which is not taken into account in that article) so that will likely change the emission rate in later years.

Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: August 04, 2015, 01:22:04 pm »
they are already building a larger community than we are and that is all that matters in terms of price speculation. ethereum is directly aiming for the heart (dev community).

Ya know, I haven't really followed ETH because I'm primarily interested in decentralized, anon projects...
But everything about it is serious and adult and meticulously roadmapped...
It's gonna suck all the oxygen out of the Alt sector the minute it starts trading on Polo this week.

NXT -24% and BTS -35% month-over-month are already casualties...
Guess ETH will chart at #4... then Augur will land in the Top 20 mid-August...
Which way from there is anyone's guess.

Here's an actual intelligent discussion:


I feel there'll be a lot of hype and possibly a big pump in the initial month after Eth starts trading. However there is a large emission rate of ethers in the early days, plus there will likely be very few usages for ether until next year or later, so the speculative bubble will burst. Long term ethereum could be great, but the time to buy will probably be in 6 months time or later for those who believe in ethereum's success.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 89