elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Show Posts - sadface  
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

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 - sadface

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
21
Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 child chain tokens pegged to fNXT
« on: February 13, 2016, 06:30:49 pm »
My original assumption was that the sNXT/NXT balances on each chain would reflect each other and both be independently verifiable, which is probably not possible. (I'm not 100% clear why the NXT chain would be unpruneable, since all the balance information would be stored on the sNXT chain, but I think you're probably right in your criticism.)
There is a strong advantage to securing everything on the one chain because unlimited scalability is so valuable. If we were starting from scratch it would be a different matter. But we're not :)

its not unlimited scalability

22
Nxt General Discussion / Re: [TNNSE] The new NXT.ORG site
« on: February 13, 2016, 12:30:39 pm »
site looks great, good job!

menu was easy to find for me.

23
Nxt General Discussion / Re: [TNSSE] New Nxt Slack!
« on: February 13, 2016, 12:28:29 pm »
i'd rather like to see a chat plugin for this forum, if such thing exists.

24
Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

25
Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

26
Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

27
Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

28
Nxt Projects / Re: [NXT3D] The NXT Community 3D Virtual World
« on: February 11, 2016, 10:49:57 pm »
i have to disagree with dave.
if you are uncertain you should probably wait a bit and let the 2.0 design proposal sink in. if you can't come to terms with it in maybe a week you're better of dropping the whole thing.
i already see 2.0 happening very close to how it was proposed. the only thing that seems 'allowed' to be discussed is how to distribute fNXT.

29
Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: February 10, 2016, 04:51:08 pm »
Just a few short questions:

Where is James?
Is the SuperNET project still up and running, developing, evolving?
Will all my assets become worthless with Nxt2.0?
Is there another site like nxtreporting.com has been?
CaI use Nxt without downloading the whole blockchain?

Thank you

nxtportal.org or mynxt.info

james doesnt come here anymore, hes probably on slack. what i know from him makes me think hes probably not going to like the changes.

supernet lite client or webwallet at mynxt.info

30
Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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?

31
Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

32
Nxt General Discussion / Re: Nxt and SuperNET: API testers and bounties
« on: February 07, 2016, 08:55:52 am »
Quote
jl777 [8:46 PM]
i made the nxtae exchange support in iguana. total people that tested it after 4 days: 0

i dont want to highjack this thread, but what is he expecting when he moves everything away from this forum? this is the first time i heard of iguana.

33
cool, good job!

34
Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: February 01, 2016, 10:50:59 am »
Shuffling 8013583978537097563 is waiting for account NXT-6A4Q-L7L6-LAL7-GA2NJ to submit processing transaction. The owner of this account, make sure your shuffler is running. Otherwise it will fail in about an hour, which will cost you 1000 NXT.

He didn't do it and the shuffle failed. It's going to get exponentially more difficult to complete a shuffle with more participants, which is what is required for increased anonymity. I believe we have ourselves a paradox. :-/

i already see threads like "why did i lose 1000nxt" and "someone stole 1000nxt from me", if this ever gets more usage. how did that 1000nxt fine came about? is there any calculation to it?

35
Nxt General Discussion / Re: Supernet News
« on: January 30, 2016, 01:55:21 pm »
imo supernet has a duty to maintain their threads. the least supernet should have done is inform in every single projects thread that they will no longer provide updates in this forum.

36
Old Nxt Promotion Topics / Re: NXT Revitalization Plan
« on: January 28, 2016, 06:25:07 pm »
with those funds you should consider scaling up (in baby steps).

also i think the banners need coin shuffling added.

37
Old Nxt Promotion Topics / Re: NXT Revitalization Plan
« on: January 28, 2016, 01:18:47 pm »
thanks marc!

38
Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: January 26, 2016, 09:17:37 pm »
vote up and answer please: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/42541/how-long-do-files-stay-on-the-decentralized-data-storage-blockchain-when-using-n good for exposure.

Answered

as long as there are full archival nodes, can files be retrieved indefinitely?

maybe that is a useful addition to the answer.

39
Smart Contracts / Re: Express your wish (Smart Contracts)
« on: January 26, 2016, 12:48:22 pm »
iirc cfb already finished his smart contract implementation. the dev team just didnt want to implement it. you can probably dig it up from jean-lucs post history. i think the tone was that sc was potentially dangerous and therefor they wanted to wait for other blockchains to test it.
... way back similar actually happened with AT, another smart contract implimentation, that was developed by CiYAM. it was finished and iirc even paid for by the community, but never even made it to testnet.
i haven't read anything from the dev team that their stance has changed. it seems very hard to get any kind of straight answer on controversial topics, much like asset/asset trading.

40
Nxt General Discussion / Re: Price speculation
« on: January 24, 2016, 11:05:13 pm »
So I haven't been around for a while. I was reading around a forum and I have noticed that James aka jl777 is nowhere to be seen.

What happened to him? Is he still around? Someone cares to summarize.

in short: API changes were made without proper communication, jl777 didn't like it. the whole thing went down a bit silly. jean-luc and jl777 were unable to have a discussion, so the issue was not (publicly) resolved. idk, whos at fault.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 14
elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly