State of NuBits - what are the next steps?

It is said that the same group of people are pumping ethereum, just like what they did on bitshares, look out the pump & dump scheme.

I don’t think ethereum price rise is natural and healthy, BTW, I don’t believe it’s a good idea to store everything in blockchain, in the end the bloat blockchain will scare the public.


This is why dropping the mint reward would be death to our minting difficulty, which is already suffering. On the contrary, mint rewards should go up with lowering mint difficulty.


They do!
The mint reward per block stays the same, but the reward per time is increasing with declining difficulty, because minters will be successful more often per time frame compared to a higher difficulty

Imagine an alternative scheme: each block the block reward is 0.01/D where D is the difficulty from 10 blocks ago. So if D is 0.00025 then the reward is just like it is now. However, a difficulty like .0002 would give 50 nsr per block. This would give incentives to nsr holders to mint if only to reduce the mint reward for everyone else.

The issue is that competition breeds dirty tactics. People could ddos other minters to increase their own mint rate. However, this is also a problem with the current system: minters already have incentive to sabotage each other. The same is true for bitcoin miners: you can substantially increase your share of the mining rewards by for instance getting the US to bomb large swaths of china and (coincidentally or not) wiping out big mining farms.

1 Like

This sounds like a change that could/should applied together with frequency voting.
At least I think frequency voting would be able to mitigate downsides of people minting just for the sake of minting (while not configuring votes or registering fata feeds).
If doing those two changes in one update is considered too dangerous, I’d say that frequency voting is a prerequisite for dynamic minting rewards.

How does BCE help solve the problems of scalability and the very long confirmation time of bitcoin ?

A decentralized voting architecture could enable the real time voting (as in BCE) of co-signers of multi-sig wallets that would store the nubits.
This is intended to be accomplished by the escrow system of BCE.
But how do we make sure that tx (settlement) is instantaneous?
A sole escrow system cannot enable that in itself.
As a matter of fact, I think we need some kind of servers that process requests very rapidly.
The problem is that those servers would introduce some kind of single point of failure.
However, cannot those servers be choset and managed by a voting system based on Nu?
I believe this was the idea behind Teehe

B&C uses native trades. One could in theory make a string of unconfirmed txns if one trusts the B&C signers and trade rapidly, then use a smart system to settle some of those trades off-chain and move only what’s required per block. That way, the only time you’d have to wait for confirmations is on withdrawal and deposit (and deposit only because we dont trust customers not to double spend like we do the signers).

As BCE is used as kind of “settlement network” for the trades, only the confirmation times of the BCE blockchain are limiting the speed of (verified!) transactions - unless you can even speed that up by having a system that allows off-chain trades (how to make that both fast and secure?).

I think it might be possible to make 0-confirmation trades, but it will be important to care for edge cases. If withdrawing funds from an account is only possible after the trade, that brought the funds to the account, has some confirmations, not much can go wrong.

But maybe I’m just lacking imagination how to attack such a system.

I am not aware of anyone working on this. @TomJoad has done things like that in the past. @Sentinelrv may also be interested in helping. Any volunteers to approach the Augur community about this?

One other matter I neglected to mention in my previous post is that it seems like implementing fixed cost liquidity as first envisioned by @Nagalim would be a major improvement in liquidity operations for a modest effort. @desrever, @woolly_sammoth @Nagalim: what would it take to see this on Poloniex and other exchanges?

This is done. It’s in ALP v2 (as crfc, which can esaily be run as fixed cost by using a target of 0 nbt). We’re waiting for the NuBot release.

(If we decide we cant wait anymore, other pool operators are free to use the file in my repo. I can help anyone figure it out that needs it.)

1 Like

@tomjoad actually posted before that he had contact with them some months ago. Maybe we should do a follow up just to maintain contact with them about it. We shouldn’t take their previous response for granted. I think it would be best to show shareholders continued interest in working with them. Maybe a thread in their forum where NuShareholders can introduce themselves to the community, offer our services and ask what they would need from us in the future so that we can prepare. It helps show them we are taking the initiative. Here was Tom’s quote by the way…

So just to be clear, the ALP v2 server software is already completed by Woolly? We’re only waiting for Des to finish testing NuBot compatibility? Also, fixed reward was abandoned and not included in ALP v2 correct, only fixed cost?

1 Like

Something like that

CRFC (Combined Reward Fixed Cost) has been implemented in ALP v2. This implementation should give us the best of both worlds, where we have fixed cost when the pool is above target and a form of fixed reward when the pool is below target. The biggest difference when the pool is below target is that the buy and sell side will combine to form a fixed reward, but the reward will be given to both sides equally such that even below target there will be a balancing incentive.

I do believe our B&C signers can put up voting pool and implement fast & off-chain micropayment.

@JordanLee Can we develope a B&C version “Open Transaction” if sufficient fund is collected?


I am more and more convinced that we should make Nubits as desirable currency as we can (user friendly wallet, liquidity providing, fiat exchange services, incentives for merchant acceptance, offchain transactions, Loyality gifts and interests and all kinds of profitable and non profitable offchain centralized or decentralized services) to the point that Nu is as good deal as paypal or better.

Then we should depend on Volume-dependent Transaction Fees to profit from the big chunks settlment transactions.
So answering @nagalim question; yes we are a settlments network for the wealthy (blockchains can’t be more than that), but we achieve that not by being a multinational super corporation, but by offering a real commonly used currency with the offchain efforts of the shareholders.
The question is, would that fees ever be enough? Not if we can have other revenu streams because I can’t see we have other choices.


I don’t think hosting a i7 desktop machine 24X7 is costly, leave along several raspberries. Perhaps we can buy cheap outdated SHA256 minting rig to speed up off chain transaction?

BTC has been wasting 99.99% hardware hash rate. PoW = low efficiency.

I still very much feel we should look into expanding to include money lending to our business, I feel it could be a very relevant and profitable business for Nu. I’ll quote myself on this:


This, especially the automation of important processes, will be easier with B&C Exchange.
It’s already possible, but only feasible for rather big sums due to the manual efforts.
It reminds me of thoughts I had regarding leveraged trading on B&C Exchange :wink:

Margin trading is most definitely a feature we should push for B&C, I asked Jordan about it a couple of weeks ago but he made it clear (and also in this thread) that while most likely possible it will require a lot of time and funding. My opinion is we should do an BKS token sale a few months after B&C is live and hopefully trading at higher than current levels to easier fund the feature without diluting shares to much.

Money lending however is something we could set up right now, the scheme I described should be fairly easy to get rolling and we could probably automate large parts of it. I could try to work out more details for how I envision it if shareholders are interested.


That would probably be the best time to do it if we’re going to raise more funds. All eyes will be on the exchange once released and the share price will most likely be a lot more than it is now, if not experiencing a surge in demand. Any funding raised can be converted to NuBits to sustain its purchasing power. And as I said above, we can always buy back the shares and destroy them with the profit B&C brings in.

1 Like

Can you start a dedicated thread to lay out rationale and operation concept so people can discuss with a focused goal?