When will we achieve next order of magnitude increase?

[yellowecho]

Are you talking about Nxt instant transactions?

How did you read about instant transactions a year ago?  Were BTSX transactions available a year ago?

Because the initial idea within Nxt was only initially proposed 4 months ago.  It was in May.  A couple months of chatting and figuring out details, plus the guy quit his job a month ago to start working on them full time and doing the actual coding.

The only version that was available in December was BCNext's idea that you would only allow someone to instantly spend 10% of all your Nxt within a given 24 hours period, and the rest would be locked.

"[Nxt] Instant transactions with guaranteed confirmation -- October 22, 2013":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=316104.0

[eagleeye]

Guys we will have an awesome infographic by the end of tonight for tomorrows announcement.  If you have big facebook friends in big facebook groups.....promote promote promote.  (Im in BTSX to $10 - $20 dollars not a $1)

[hughmanwho]

Are you talking about Nxt instant transactions?

How did you read about instant transactions a year ago?  Were BTSX transactions available a year ago?

Because the initial idea within Nxt was only initially proposed 4 months ago.  It was in May.  A couple months of chatting and figuring out details, plus the guy quit his job a month ago to start working on them full time and doing the actual coding.

The only version that was available in December was BCNext's idea that you would only allow someone to instantly spend 10% of all your Nxt within a given 24 hours period, and the rest would be locked.

Who are you talking to?  I don't see anyone being anti-NXT.  And what's the 'long term, 90% protection'?

Someone was spreading FUD about Nxt's 'unfair' distribution but how even though someone owns 9% of BTSX it's more fair.. whatever.

[yellowecho]

So I don't understand how you can be pro-BTSX but anti-Nxt due to an 'unfair distribution'.

If it's that you are worried about too much of the network being controlled by people with big accounts.. the delegates could collude just as easily as forgers.  It's not implemented yet but long term, 90% protection will be implemented.

Who are you talking to?  I don't see anyone being anti-NXT.  And what's the 'long term, 90% protection'?

If it's that you are worried about dumping.. you just said that someone owns ~10% of BTSX!  It'd take multiple Nxt accounts all deciding to sell at the same time to achieve that level of dumping.  Personally as a Nxt fan, I would love to see that level of dumping.

Yeah, wish I could say more about instant transaction method but it was posted at Nxtforum.org for 3 or 4 months for all to see, discussed with lots of other nxt developers, but the developer is staying quite about how it works currently, so I will too.

No one said that... they said the top 51 delegates have over 10%.  And I also read about instant transactions a year ago.  Meanwhile, BTSX already has avg 5 second transactions and narrowing with a proven scalability model.

[werneo]

2) if the attacker stopped transactions that voted for other people then DAC Sun would release a hard fork that burned the attackers shares and the network would continue... instant 10% dividend

Does that make DAC Sun a single point of failure? I don't want to get too far out there, but following this logic, if a powerful entity wanted to control Bitshares, wouldn't they anticipate a fork and take steps to prevent a clear fork from being released? If bad actors could muddy the waters by throttling DAC Sun and by adding competing false forks to the mix, is it possible they could cause a panic -- even if only for a few days or a week? That would be a catastrophe in a mature system.

[CLains]

There's a big difference between 5 and 10 seconds. Between 5 and 2.5 too. Just as much as between 6 and 12 minutes, or 6 and 3. However far ahead we are of the competition, this is still a big improvement. It's just not something we should prioritize from a competitive perspective at this moment in time.

[hughmanwho]

So I don't understand how you can be pro-BTSX but anti-Nxt due to an 'unfair distribution'.

If it's that you are worried about too much of the network being controlled by people with big accounts.. the delegates could collude just as easily as forgers.  It's not implemented yet but long term, 90% protection will be implemented.  In fact taking control of delegates is easier, yes it would be a lot of work but it say a group of 5-10 Counterparty people decided to do it, it would be doable with fake accounts and what not.  Hard and unlikely to happen, yes.

If it's that you are worried about dumping.. you just said that someone owns ~10% of BTSX!  It'd take multiple Nxt accounts all deciding to sell at the same time to achieve that level of dumping.  Personally as a Nxt fan, I would love to see that level of dumping.

Yeah, wish I could say more about instant transaction method but it was posted at Nxtforum.org for 3 or 4 months for all to see, discussed with lots of other nxt developers, but the developer is staying quite about how it works currently, so I will too.

[Brent.Allsop]

"What happens if 51 delegates collude?" is going to be a common question, no matter how small the likelihood of it actually happening.

I can imagine a time when delegates are part of a political party. You'll have the BitShares equivalent of delegate.democrats and delegate.republicans. Voting one party in over another means that party has control of the network.

you may forget that btsx is an international network .. i guess country politics will have their problems becoming an active delegate ..

I don't mean that literally. I mean we'll have the BitShares equivalent.

This kind of polarization and governments elected via primitive methods is definitely a problem to be solved.  And so far, no crypto currency has solved it.  For example, Either is going the beurocratic way of Bitcoin, creating an Etherium foundation to try to help solve the problem.  But there is no way a beurocracy like that could do something like convert Bitcoin from POW to dPOS.

But I believe these types of problems have also been solved with modern governance and modern leaderless social amplification of the wisdom of the crowd and consensus building systems like those being developed at Canonizer.com.  They enable huge leaderless organizations/heards to be very intelligent, and to drastically change directions, on a dime, if need be, without all the polarizing battles to the death that polarizes, destroys and paralyzes bureaucracies and hierarchies.

[G1ng3rBr34dM4n]

Overall it takes 10 seconds to process a credit card swipe / print / sign.  BTSX can already be faster than credit cards... so how "instant" do you really need?

You're right; but I think about it from the perspective of the UX - When using a credit card, even though it takes longer than 10 seconds to complete a transaction, typically you're "staying busy" throughout the transaction process.

I would hypothesize that once actual work needed to complete a transaction is reduced from 10+ seconds to 1-2 seconds, conservatively; there will be a higher awareness of "waiting" and an acute sense of "what is going on, why is this taking so long" when one has to wait the full 10 seconds for confirmation and have nothing to do (granted this would only occur ~10% of the time)

I think it would be really cool to integrate games into the transaction process ranging from 1-10 seconds to keep people interested while their transaction is pending.  You could even monetize it.  People would then look forward to checking out, which would increase the amount of things they buy...

"Faster than a credit card and safer than a bank."

Would get some serious attention.

I like that a lot.

[Method-X]

"What happens if 51 delegates collude?" is going to be a common question, no matter how small the likelihood of it actually happening.

I can imagine a time when delegates are part of a political party. You'll have the BitShares equivalent of delegate.democrats and delegate.republicans. Voting one party in over another means that party has control of the network.

you may forget that btsx is an international network .. i guess country politics will have their problems becoming an active delegate ..

I don't mean that literally. I mean we'll have the BitShares equivalent.

[xeroc]

"What happens if 51 delegates collude?" is going to be a common question, no matter how small the likelihood of it actually happening.

I can imagine a time when delegates are part of a political party. You'll have the BitShares equivalent of delegate.democrats and delegate.republicans. Voting one party in over another means that party has control of the network.

you may forget that btsx is an international network .. i guess country politics will have their problems becoming an active delegate ..

[Method-X]

"What happens if 51 delegates collude?" is going to be a common question, no matter how small the likelihood of it actually happening.

I can imagine a time when delegates are part of a political party. You'll have the BitShares equivalent of delegate.democrats and delegate.republicans. Voting one party in over another means that party has control of the network.

[oldman]

Define "Instant"...   on average a BTSX transaction takes 5 seconds to clear... with a small tweak we could reduce that to 2.5 seconds. 

Any chance 5s or 2.5s can be implemented prior to the first big marketing push?

I agree that 10s vs 5s vs 2.5s is meaningless in actual usage, and based on using the platform I am comfortable that 10s is more than fast enough for anyone.

But confirmation time is a big sore spot in the crypto space right now and is one of the main roadblocks for wider adoption of Bitcoin.

Fast confirmation times is one of the critical features everyone is looking for in the next big thing. My suggestion would be to throw down.

At the very least:

"Faster than a credit card and safer than a bank."

Would get some serious attention.

[oldman]

That's just it though, an attacked would not to have any stake in BTSX.. or barely any, just enough to be allowed to run a delegate.  Then he maybe he spends some money convincing people to vote for him or giving giving back 100% of transaction fees to those that vote for him, or whatever.  Given that people can vote for multiple delegates, a lot of people will vote for these delegates who are willing to work for free.  Once the attacker gets the bottom 51% of delegates, he locks down the network.. and 51% attacks and you hurt trust in Bitshares, even if you do fork the blockchain.

If a single attacker went this route it would be akin to a public official getting elected to 51 different offices simultaneously. Yes, it would be technically possible to create 51 delegate IDs and contrive to have them all elected. But damn, I can't imagine the time and effort involved. Not to mention the end result being a collective shrug and a fork.

It is also conceivable for a person or group to coerce 51 delegates through force or other means, but again managing that would be a nightmare. The global logistics of doing this are mind boggling. Perhaps a government, but even then jurisdiction is going to be a big problem. And good luck doing it quietly. That is a lot of victims and a lot of laws being broken. And still, the end result is a fork.

Not going to say it can't/wont' happen. But the impact/probability ratio is very, very low. And if user assets are not at risk, how many are really going to care? It's kind of like the response to the 51% attack in Bitcoin. 51% has been hit by a single entity multiple times. People are still using Bitcoin.

We are talking about an investment climate where folks are exposed to defaults, bail outs, bail ins, rigging and rampant systemic corruption.

If the worst that can happen are some minor disruptions to service (not even sure there would be a disruption) while delegates implement the fork most investors are not going to be concerned.

Which pretty much negates the whole point of the attack.

Again, I think this is a valuable dialogue that should be captured and marketed in the FAQ or similar.

"What happens if 51 delegates collude?" is going to be a common question, no matter how small the likelihood of it actually happening.

[bytemaster]

Oh and I'm in close contact with the guy working on Instant Transactions, which is what initially drew me to Nxt, it is definitely taking too long, it's a big project though and until about a month ago was working a full time job and doing this in his spare time.  Apparently just switched over to full time though.  And it scales very nicely.. entirely world could switch to Nxt and the instant transaction system would scale. Other parts would break first.  The other thing is that it apparently somewhat depends on Transparent forging, which isn't due until November, to be released on Nxt's first birthday.

Sounds too good to be true, to me.  I'd be interested in knowing THE bytemaster's take on this.  You know if he believed in it, he'd be busy integrating it into BitsharesX.

The technology behind it is being developed in secret...  so there is no way to evaluate it until after it is released. 

Define "Instant"...   on average a BTSX transaction takes 5 seconds to clear... with a small tweak we could reduce that to 2.5 seconds. 

With a bit of work it would be nothing for the *next 5 delegates* to sign the transaction and commit to rejecting anything that would invalidate the transactions. 

The biggest "unknown" is how they claim to scale vs how BTSX scales.     

Overall it takes 10 seconds to process a credit card swipe / print / sign.  BTSX can already be faster than credit cards... so how "instant" do you really need?