Proposal for "transfer message function" and "Public address"

Sabreiib 2014-10-11 02:05:36 UTC #1

Public address is address/adresses which is multisig-controlled by larger NSR holders. This is NU(DAC)'s company asset. Those NBTs in these address can only be moved/transfered by motion voting.

We store our profit/revenue in those Public addresses in future. So the next question is where is our profit from? One of them can be “encrypted mail” which is actually a transfer message. You see when we send some amount of NBT to soneone, we wirte his address and the NBT quantity, why not add extra text information below? The text information is encrypted by receiver’s public key. If the information is too long we charge more fee and perhaps we can store those text information in another blockchain aside from NSR(side chain?), use zip tech to minimize the size.

1)We provide “bitmessage” function in our wallet. And in this way, spams attack avoided bucause everytime you send mail, you must spend 0.01NBT. Nu is actually a “paid version” of bitmessage and maybe lots of people just wanna send private messages and download our wallet.

2)We make profit by charge transfer fee. We don’t destroy transfer fee just collect them into public address as company’s profit.

3)Since Nu address can be anonymous, so is message.

[Discussion] Defining Tier 0 liquidity

GLock 2014-10-11 03:46:16 UTC #2

I really like the idea of integrating a messaging system using the blockchain, I think it would solve also another problem like broadcasting updates and other relevant information to any NuBits user in a decentralized fashion

CoinGame 2014-10-11 14:08:48 UTC #3

I like this line of thinking. As I’ve stated before I think the best thing we can do to for long term health of the supply is to increase the utility of transactons, parking, and burning. While mechanisms like burning NuBits to increase NuShares supply may be good in an emergency I don’t think it will be healthy long term if there isn’t intermediary mechanisms to avoid it unless really needed. I’ve made similar statements here

and here

As these services and the network grow it could have a huge impact on the destruction of NBT. The disparity in use of the internet from 1995 to 2005 is massive, and I believe we’ll surely see a similar change in regards to crypto transactions. One penny to provide a service is extremely cheap. We know bitmessage is constantly failing for people. Messages won’t show up for weeks sometimes. If I could assure you that the message you send will get to the indented destination within seconds encrypted and anonymous for one penny it would certainly be worth the cost. We’ve seen several coins move to the top 10 in market cap simply because they offer those three features but for coins. We could see the same use response for messages.

The more services we can provide that contain a transaction fee the better. As use increases more NBT is destroyed faster. This could provide more opportunities for custodians in the future because they will have to act more often in regulating the supply. A constantly faster decrease in supply due to use will also need a constant increase in supply to keep the peg. I think over time as use increases we would see a really great equilibrium form. To me this is a much healthier long term approach than focusing on emergency supply destruction by burning for NuShares or whatever similar approach seems to be the main focus of discussion.

We should certainly have that capability in an emergency. We should also be equally focusing on ways to completely avoid that at all costs. Right now transaction fees are the only mechanism we have that truly removes NBT from the network forever. Adapting the utility outside just NBT transactions into other areas such as proof-of-burn, proof-of-park, or encrypted messaging is (I believe) a very powerful means that should have more focus.

So I really like your idea because it generates a new service for the network, but I don’t think we should keep the transaction fee as profit. I think it would benefit the network more to destroy it the same as every other kind of transaction.

NuBits vs BitUSD (Bitshares)

masterOfDisaster 2014-10-11 14:23:14 UTC #4

I really like the idea as well!
Adoption is one of the challenges Nu needs to face. A more reliable (than Bitmessage) message exchange system that keeps all the advantages of Bitmessage sounds great. What I also like is the aspect that you suddenly have ways to communicate that are distributed and that are part of the NuBits/NuShares concept.

And I see no big difference between sending the fee to an address or destroying them. Each NBT that is destroyed can be accounted as profit.

Ben 2014-10-11 14:30:22 UTC #5

If the fee per message sent is appropriately high (say, 0.05 NBT for a single message, or 1.00 NBT for a group message), you can severely limit both blockchain bloat and maximize the ability for messages to get sent. This prevents the network interruption that we experienced recently with Bitmessage.

Those rate suggestions are intended as a discussion starting point, but personally I don’t find them terribly too costly at this point in time. The protocol could be updated to support adjustable rating based on usage, priority, etc.

CoinGame 2014-10-11 14:39:30 UTC #6

Beautiful.

masterOfDisaster 2014-10-11 15:44:33 UTC #7

Taking into regard that the Bitmessage client 0.4.4 can handle messages up to 256 kB whereas the previous release was able to send attachments up to 180 MB the message size seems to be one of the reasons that made spamming the Bitmessage successful.
As long as there are only text messages allowed and they cost a certain amount of NBT this serves as protection against spamming attacks.

I wonder if it would be better to separate the message transfer from the NBT/NSR block chain. I try to explain what I mean.
The messages that are sent (if it would be done Bitmessage style) are not meant to be saved somewhere forever. A small block chain or other concept that allows temporarily storing data would be sufficient. Something like a kind of round-robin block chain would be sufficient. Maybe this idea http://cryptonite.info/wiki/index.php?title=Mini-blockchain_scheme might be a concept to lean on.

Just like you can distribute dividends to Peercoin addresses (execute transactions in the Peercoin block chain) from the Nu client, you’d be able to distribute messages to the NuMessage (did I invent that right now ?) block chain.
You are allowed to execute transactions in the NuMessage block chain from the Nu client if you have paid your fees.
I don’t really know how to limit the transactions in the NuMessage block chain to ones that are originated by the Nu client, though. I can think of the need to sign the messages with a NuBits private key in order to send messages to a NuMessage public address. Maybe this can be used to limit transactions.
But I don’t know how to keep messages from modified Nu clients out of the NuMessage block chain; clients that use different settings in terms of fees once the Nu client code is open source

The reasons for a separate temporary store of the messages are quite clear:

The NuMessage block chain could be pruned according to the needs.
The Nu block chain would stay as small as possible by having a separate store for the messages.

Maybe this is silly and technically not possible, but I wanted to share that idea

Sabreiib 2014-10-12 07:42:20 UTC #8

What about side chain(auxiliary chain by SK)? It is said that SK’s side chain is for data application. Can we store “Nubitmessage” in a side chain?

In future, in every transaction you can leave some words to receivers and in every message you must pay some NBT. NBT and message always be a pair. If you synchronize your NBT bolckchain, you get all the accounting information but those" transafer message" is missing until you synchronize Nubitmessage side chain.

Is this feasible?

Absolutely!

NSR holders can vote the message fee according to message size, and raise fee to a very high level such as 1NBT/messgae when being attacked by hostile parties who prefer spend some money to destroy our service. And attackers are wellcomed! Thanks for your giving–our profit. LOL

CoinGame 2014-10-12 09:57:45 UTC #9

How do you manage this address? Who has access to this address? How is it created? Does it change? When can it be used? There are so many technical questions when you make such a huge change to the design. Destroying the NBT at transaction time follows the current design that any newly introduced coins will always come from a custodian. You don’t have to change a fundamental component of how the application works or introduce new potential failure points. There’s huge difference in how the process would be handled if you create some sort of profits account, or simply leave the design as is.

masterOfDisaster 2014-10-12 10:40:42 UTC #10

I made it not clear, but I was thinking of economical aspects when I said that I see no big difference between sending the fee to an address or destroying them.

You’re absolutely right about the technical questions. That’s why I’d like to avoid this and rather account each NBT that is destroyed as profit.
Economically you can create the balance of all NBT that have been granted custodians and the money supply (currently 2240448.56870). There’s no need to transfer those fees. Destroying them should be the way to go!

CoinGame 2014-10-12 10:43:15 UTC #11

Ah I see. I misunderstood. Sorry about that.

masterOfDisaster 2014-10-12 10:48:04 UTC #12

No need to be sorry for that. Looks like I paved the ground for this misunderstanding and it’s good that there has been some light thrown on it. I try to be more precise next time

Ben 2014-10-16 15:13:39 UTC #13

I moved 11 posts to a new topic: Decentralization to Minimize Custodial Risks

Sabreiib 2014-10-19 03:41:34 UTC #14

SK’s reply on sidechain.

Sabreiib 2014-10-24 01:02:41 UTC #15

@Ben
So, we can build a message side chain of Nu and charge 0.01NBT on every message?

Decentralization to Minimize Custodial Risks

henry 2014-12-02 09:55:24 UTC #16

I think it is possible that someday this forum will be closed by government.
I strongly support the idea of Nubits message function. Not only for profit like transaction fee, but also for broadcast proposal and actions in a anonymous and reliable way.

Proposal for NBT/BTC dual-side liquidity provider on next NBT exchange

desrever 2014-12-02 10:39:37 UTC #17

Good point .

Bitmessage is now more than one year old and having still major problems. It simply carry messages, I don’t want to imagine how complex could be to build a reliable bulletin forum on the blockchain.
I am pretty sure we don’t have the resource necessary for doing that, but would be an open source project worth investing in.

Anonimity can also be reached within the boundaries of discourse with plugin extensions that somehow allow anonimous messages to be posted by signing a message with one’s private key.

However, to protect against censorship, a fully distributed p2p solution is required.

What is the state-of-the-art of altcoins in regards to this? I am pretty sure I read of multiple alts implementing a chat in the client, but I stopped catching up a while ago.

Decentralization to Minimize Custodial Risks