really can not understand what we talk here
nem foundation tell that will have 2 chains
thats is final
why all here now talk for 1 chain
nem foundation tell 2 chain so these is it
lets see now when catapult will be out
because if we talk here 2 months more
is not good
1 Like
the decision is not yet final!
as i got muiple times the feedback im talking is always impossible solutions i point to one starting point for research what would work on bitcoin and ethereum can work on NEM technology stack too and as we all know bitcoin also dont provide smart contract engine
that our tech team isnt brave enough in such areas can have only the reason that we not really have cryptografic experts involved yet we should add instustry experts on this tree of sience research if we want to claim to be one of the top10 technologies for blockchain future
cross chain value transfers is a fact that happens already on many chains with bridge protocols such bridge protocolls can be developed to connect nis and catapult and also other future other chains belong to our broad ecosystem
the logic exists already the code need to be adapted a bit to but its by far not impossible
we can even upkeep the decision to not supporting free programmable smart contract on our chains and make it part of code on base code level
utilizing treshhold encryption supernode networks and nems superior multisig constructs are mighty resources to make this happen even on our technology tree
a hint for starting research
2 Likes
âAny tokens that are not claimed by the Nemesis block will be placed under a legal entity with transparent by-laws/trust deeds and leadership team, to be claimed post go live up to an as yet to be defined deadline - it should be years long, so is likely to be significant in nature and it is probable; a new entity will be created for this purpose and legal analysis is underway to guide this, we will provide further information when it is known. It is imperative that this entity has clear, transparent and legally enforceable rules which bind its management to work for the ongoing health of the NEM ecosystem for the future. This will take some time but is worth getting right.â
Is anyone else concerned about the above? What about all the dead wallets and people that have no idea what is going on thinking they are in a long-term hold? So all the coins in dead wallets which may be very significant will become centralized on the Catapult chain under some new authority? This sounds like a massive re-centralization of outstanding supply that has been previously priced in by the market as non-circulating.
Another simple burn approach that could be considered is burning only 0.75 old XEM for every new Catapult token issued. This would maintain sufficient liquidity of old XEM to operate the NIS1 chain. This should solve the only major concern against a burn approach. We could even hold a vote on all possible approaches including bridging an even the amount of old XEM that should be burned for every catapult token issued.
Or how about using the Silver fund to maintain old XEM liquidity and burn everything that opts in to the swap?
On naming, who will determine the name of the ticker if a new coin is introduced? Committee, NF, agency?
I hope the community is allowed to have the final say on this with a POI vote, and not a 3rd party with no vested interest.
Even if itâs just a list of approved names to vote on with the option of keeping the XEM ticker for Catapult and renaming the old coin âŚ
Please refrain from writing delusions.
The only problem with the two-chain system is the tax issue.
In Japan, many many people were investigated by the NTA(ĺ˝ç¨ĺą). The tax issue is serious.
In the case of BCH & ETC, the acquisition price was zero. In other words, when BCH and ETC were sold, they were fully taxed.
There were no exceptions.
But this is a NEM update. I want to take over the current XEM unrealized gains and unrealized losses to catapultXEM. But it is impossible. In particular, those who have lost money in the old XEM should not be taxed in the new XEM.
So I want a way to dispose of the old XEM whenever I want.
We need a way to prove to NTA that the old XEM has been destroyed. we need A method other than selling at an exchange is required.
If we can provide proof of selling 0sat to the National Tax Service, we can offset the gain on the sale of the new XEM.
sorry for poor English.
I think the best option is a 2-way bridge as cryptonit proposes. No change in ticker, supply and we maintain 1 XEM market. So 0 tax or legal consequences.
1 Like
How about making a 2-way bridge run by a program that operates between both chains? Letâs say Nemesis block hits on Catapult and all 9 billion tokens are minted and entered into 1 wallet. A new NIS1 XEM migration wallet could be created by this program as well. In order to migrate tokens from NIS1 to Catapult you send a transaction to the NIS1 XEM migration wallet with a message that contains the destination address for Catapult tokens on the new chain. The program sends the same amount of tokens received to the catapult wallet and just holds the tokens it received from NIS1 in the migration wallet. Conversely, the program would receive catapult tokens to the Nemesis block wallet with a NIS1 address in the message field and then send old NIS1 XEM to the designated address from the NIS1 migration wallet. In this way FUNCTIONAL supply is 9 billion with no burning necessary and minting is limited to the Nemesis block. So people can move between the chains whenever they want, value is maintained and only 1 XEM market is necessary. Also exchanges will have no pressure to upgrade as either wallet works for XEM.
Sorry, but I donât see how treshold ecdsa is relevant to this discussion. Could you elaborate more?
What if NF did agreement with some exchange to list old xem for few years and set up mega buy wall for lowest possible price?
That should be feasible and cheap.
Idea on how to incentivize supernodes to stay on NIS1:
They could be rewarded by XEM from NIS1 supernode fund + cataXEM supernode fund.
Catapult will not use the supernode rewards anymore iirc so this fund can be used to reward NIS1 supernodes.
threshhold encryption multisig and a p2p network of independent consensus forming nodes can power a bridge technology
treshhold encryption can be used that for example from 400 supernodes over 67% need to agree on a bridge action
a bridge action would be freeze coin ammount X on nis chain and release same ammount of coins on catapult chain
this is basically how bridges work
the allow transactions accoss chains by lock on one chain and enable on other chain
basically u have 9 billion xem active on nis chain and 9 billion xem inactive on catapult chain
now similar to a normals transaction from address A to address B u can make croos chain transactions
instead of 1000 XEM send from A to B
u can have a send 1000 XEM from A on nis to B on catapult
in case one simple A to B
A balance lose 1000 XEM B balance gain 1000 XEM
in case Anis to Bcatapult
A balance lose 1000 XEM
nis chain bridge lock 1000 XEM
bridge consensus P2P layer (for example supernodes which run nis node and catapult node and bridge protocol on same server) decide if they find a consensus that this is a valid transaction (if not funds return to Anis
if yes catapult side of bridge unlock 1000 XEM and send it to Bcatapult destination address
Bcatapult add 1000 XEM to its balance
its not much different to a normal transaction beside a bridge protocol layer and consensus
and the bridge consensus can utilize treshhold encryption
which take care that in fact such a bridge is more secure then bitcoin mining
because its not 51% hostile hashrate but in fact more then 67% of the nodes would have to act hostile to create unsecure situation
treshhold encryption is a technology that allow split knowledge of key that can signate transactions between multiple owners and that any combination of 67% of the knowledge owners is enough to successful sign
its not rocket sience the logics power this are based on stuff that is dicussed since many years and implemented in party in many protocolls
the only new developemnt needed is teach nis and catapult the lock unlock of coin mechanics in such by treshhold encryption secured spaces and adapt the api logics to let supernodes P2P layer with both chains and act as bridges
in case of NEM its maybe even possible to do it full without treshhold encryption if we can set up 300 of 400 multisig constructs and add and remove addresses to this as supernodes go on and offline in a valid state
300 of 400 is just a example number basically its a 2/3 +1 of 3/3 (all valid supernodes)
to give bridge as additional supernode must run service and also make it mandatory to run supernodes on both chains would help a lot to secure both chains
in such a szenario i would adapt required XEM for run a supernode towards for example 1 million on nis side and 2 million on catapult side
which means we can maintain same number of supernodes if supwernode owners just move 2/3 of their coins towards catapult chain
there is no reason or fear to leave coins on nis chain in such a szenario
because 1 XEM is 1 XEM no matter if on nis or catapult chain
2 Likes
The name of the Catapult new token should not be decided solely by the migration committee. You should collect ideas from the community or present some choices and vote.
Crypto world is âtrustlessâ.
All Exchange cannot be trusted.
An official means of exchange is required.
if XEM == 1sat ,Nem Foundation should prepare a 90BTC and Mega Buy wall.
I have no problem with the community putting forward suggestions regards branding, I think its best left to marketing experts to help out in this field. Im sure they will come up with suggestions that the community can vote on.
3 Likes
what you are proposing is to give untransferable power to group of public keys owned by some group of people to control genesis account, that would be able to send out xem to any account at any time.
there is big reason to fear to leave coins in such system. that would be worse than EOS proof of skype.
you think like there is some verifible source of truth in âworld of computersâ outside of single blockchain network. there is not.
saying âit is not rocket scienceâ in kind of funny in this situation. It is like rocket science, but 60 years ago: building system of not fully known dependencies and consequences with 0 margin for error.
the bridge you want would require special smart contract running on catapult and nis1 and special layer of oracles able to read balances on both chains. oracles would need separate consensus with separate incentives. Corner cases would have to be worked out: like - as lots of nis1xem move to cataxem, nis1 would be vulnerable to 51% attacks âŚ
Tokenomics of such system would be insane. Time to implement such system would be far longer than what anybody here is able to wait.
2 Likes
looks like alt season is coming after all. Foundation should launch massive hype campaign about catapult air drop.
increased price will stop this âI fear to loose all my moneyâ discussions.
Also foundation should set up official way to âbuy outâ old xem for free, so governments dont rekt all nembers that actually bought their xem for more than 0.
Than we can all move back to âwhen catapultâ discussions.