Mijin and NEM's Relationship

General Discussion
#21

I hold XEM too.

I don’t hold Mijin, but Mijin should be open source when it is complete. In fact, it is.

I am not a dev. You will note from my involvement since day 1, that I am a real world technopreneur, and I maintain as one. I don’t have much say in what NEM does, although I do contribute quite a lot of my full time on it, and I hope that devs, and some community members will take up my suggestions on how NEM should be built. Devs may not build NEM the way I would like it to be, or, they may listen to my suggestions and build it. Often, they take my suggestions and I am always pleasantly surprised that they build more than what I have suggested. These are class developers.

I believe in NEM and I believe that NEM gives us all the necessary tools to make the best out of it.
I also believe that devs would not do things that do not benefit NEM as they have the highest stakes in the game.

Please note that I never started this topic. Hence, I am giving my 2 cents as well.

I always believed that mainstream will want their own private blockchain. I have no privy to Mijin being built as a private chain. I was just as surprised as you when Mijin was launched. In fact, it was part of my agenda to have a private chain, and I thought the time wasn’t right to do it yet as we have yet to develop that part of the business. But Mijin was built anyway and with faster transaction throughput. That fits my agenda.

My agenda is primarily Dragonfly Fintech and Crypto Apex. And it still is. Fortuitously, the Mijin engine of fast transactions fits into my agenda. I never once said that Mijin is the holy grail. Mijin makes up a component of my very own holy grail. And to each, his own.

I am speaking as an technopreneur and I have an intention to make use of the platform to create utility. I do my part to make NEM recognised by way of using it to do something that is different from the norm of the crypto land.

While I am not ignoring NEM, others in the community should also do their part to spread the word of NEM. If you note, most in the community are speculators and a vast majority are hoping that something big will happen by watching on a few to make it happen.

NEM needs a holistic approach. And many more in the community should be working on it to make it happen.

XEM should not be a speculative commodity but more so a long term value that is created by a rich ecosystem.
I am of the opinion that the long term value of XEM relies on multiple parties to create it.

If you look at the Linux model, there is no such thing as a merger between Linux and Redhat/suse, etc. They are separate entities. Linux project is not a legal entity but an open source community. Hence, you cannot merge, as there is nothing to merge.

The value of Linux is created by profit entities like Redhat and the community of Linux developers and users. Likewise, the value of NEM is created by profit entities and the community. But the NEM community, as in most of crypto initiatives, are devoid of people who’d make it a world class ecosystem.

The only hope is to see it being utilised by profit entities to bring it to the forefront. Nothing Else Matters!

I don’t own NEM or Mijin but I work on making things happen with NEM and/or Mijin. As a community member, I care for NEM. As a technopreneur, I work on using NEM to make a business out of it. In the end, that is how I see the success of my business(es) will contribute to a better NEM. If you have better ideas, you are more than welcome as a community member to do your part. There is only that much I can do as one person.

Like all crypto projects, we have no control over how the value of the crypto will pan out. The only thing we have control of, is to make it work for us. Even that, there is still the question of uncertainty ahead.

1 Like
#22

i want to utilize NEM in my projects and i need smart contract or at least the escrow abilities to make it happen

i dont think im the only one who wanted to create business on top of NEM

but cant with only namespace and assets without more added bitcoin 2.0 abilities

NEM devs should read analyze the posibilities designed here
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Contract
and paths to create such behavior inside NEM

this opens the gate to lot lot possibilities and business ideas

#23

First, I think this is a wrong chat topic to present your case.

Second, I believe you should do some thorough investigation and come out with a well thought out design specs/user requirement of what you want specifically.

Devs will want specific instructions on what to build. Asking them to read “everything smart contract” under the sun is too tall an order.

Lastly, as I have said earlier, smart contract is not so easy to build. Ethereum spent 2 years and $15 million (or thereabouts) and still have not come out with something solid enough.We have discussed about it off and on internally and it appears that it is not so simple. The biggest issues are:

Blockchain bloat
Turing completeness (Ethereum’s is a workaround, based on gas running out rather than a true turing complete program, unless someone can prove to me otherwise).
Node processing power.

With the above 3 show stoppers, it appears smart contract is a wishlist. It is better off being served by a central smart contract solution, which NEM can do very well as it is now.

2 Likes
#24

our main usecase would be escrow

so we have great multisig abilities at NEM

now try to add the tool to easy set up this
special the creation and share keys in a way needed to set up something similar to this kind of escrow
ideal would be if NEM make it as easy as possible to create such kind of escrow and key exchange of multisig addresses as part of transactions:

Example 2: Escrow and dispute mediation
A buyer wants to trade with somebody he doesn’t know or trust. In the common case where the transaction goes well, the client doesn’t want any third parties involved. If something goes wrong though, he’d like a third party to decide who gets the money - perhaps a professional dispute mediation service. Note that this concept can apply to either buyer or seller. The mediator might request proof of postage from the merchant, for example.

In other words, one wants to lock up some coins so a third party has to agree in order for them to be spent:

Agree with the merchant on a dispute mediator (e.g., ClearCoin).
Ask the merchant for a public key (K1). Ask the mediator for a public key (K2). Create a new key for yourself (K3).
Send the merchant K2. The merchant challenges the mediator with a random nonce. The mediator signs the nonce with the private form of K2, thus proving it really belongs to merchant.
Create a transaction (Tx1) with an output script as follows and broadcast it:
2 3 CHECKMULTISIGVERIFY
Now the coins are locked in such a way that they can only be spent by the following methods:

Client and the merchant agree (either a successful trade, or merchant agrees to reimburse client without mediation)
Client and the mediator agree (failed trade, mediator sides with client, like a charge-back)
The mediator and the merchant agree (goods delivered, merchant gets client’s coins despite the dispute)
When signing an input, the contents are set to the connected output. Thus, to redeem this transaction, the client creates a scriptSig containing zeros where the other signature should be, signs it, and then sets one of the slots to his new signature. The partially-complete transaction can then be sent to the merchant or mediator for the second signature.

1 Like
#25

It is better you create a new chat topic for this. This topic is about Mijin and NEM’s relationship.

1 Like
#26

If NEM will be adopted widely, One chain’s TPS can’t satify with need,so there must be private chain which is Mijin. of course every private chain wants to communicate each others, so there must be a common chain which is NEM.

1 Like
#27

What is the current relationship anyway? How did Mijin manage to use NEM’s technology? Is Mijin paying something to NEM for this?

#28

Can’t you guys make use of Mijin as a sidechain of nem? You guys should find a symbiotic way of directly benefiting NEM stakeholders. Just forking out NEM to Mijin doesn’t sound good at all. Someone gave me the example about Linux and Red Hat, well Linus Torvalds didn’t get a dime for creating Linux and that never sounded fair.
Those who invested in NEM should get compensated for supporting this risky venture, and if you guys are creating a separate entity from which to profit yourselves is ethically questionable and a big FU to the community.

#29

Think u hit it on the head piluso. I’ve been trying to ascertain the benefits to NEM thus far and I find it hard to understand.

#30

I would also like to see Mijin chains get cross chain transactions with NEM, and maybe for a mijin chain to enable cross chain interactions there has to be special namespace bought. I’m suggesting maybe a “namekey” instead of namespace, which would be an expensive transaction but recognizes a node on a Mijin network that is halmarked where one the mainchain can interact with it, or maybe a namekey could set up a payment channel like in the lightning network that ran in between the mainchain and mijin chain.

I would imagine that this would be done by making one node that ran both an NIS on the mainchain and an NIS on the Mijin chain all wrapped together in one package running on one special hall marked node that I would call a namekey node. This one node because it held both a main net NIS and a Mijin NIS could somehow connect them with a payment channel. Allowing for assets to be destroyed removed from one chain and created on another.

This hallmarked namekey node would be the certified gateway for crosschain transactions between that node and the main chain.

#31

It would also be interesting if some Mijin implementations would be open sourced. I know a lot of major companies are not going to do that but it should be encouraged anyway IMO. Even if it were just snippets to show how some things can be done by using the API’s it may be enough to convince someone looking into NEM to get on board.

If code is available it will be possible to see how the NEM Tech/API’s can be used to achieve practical implementations since there are usually many solutions to resolve a problem.

Apart from that it would be great if you could include in the license that a reference to the NEM tech stack is required for applications :sunglasses:

#32

I am totally with you there. Although I don’t fully understand the technical side of things, the whole story has a bit of a fishy aftertaste. A corporate entity grabbing a community-funded and community-developed technology for their own profit. As they are running their own blockchain and not using NEM I can’t really see how all the Nemsters benefit from that.
Maybe someone can elaborate on that?

The idea of crypto (and why I got so excited about it) was always decentralization, community-control and decisions, democratization of the financial system. How does a bank gaining a competitive edge over other banks help that? As long as they don’t actually use the public blockchain?

#33

From the way I read the Mijin website, which isn’t very clear to me is that it will be open-sourced but with a dual license. I’m not quite sure what a dual license is. Hahahaha. But I can imagine lots of different possibilities.

#34

usually this means there is an open viral source license, requiring that you publish your code using the published software under the same license, and a commercial (usually paid) license qhere this requirement is dropped.
Such an example is virtualbox, see bullet 3 in their licensing FAQ: https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Licensing_FAQ

#35

Another fair idea is to issue mijincoins or Mijin’s equity to Nem stakeholders 1 to 1.
That would be the fair thing to do, as Mijin has been developed from our initial financing.
But I doubt that Makoto will agree to that

#36

It’s not up to makoto to aggree to that.

#37

Reading the conversation i get the feeling that people haven’t really looked at mijin (I know not many details as of yet anyway) yet are the first to ramble on about how shitty this is. Let me try - with the limited knowledge about the project that i have, that doesn’t contain any infromation that is not public - to clear some things up.

Mijin is not just for banks. It’s a permissioned blockchain system that could be used by anyone who needs consistent data across multiple perhaps globally spaned databases. You fellas need to get out of the mindset of financial transactions - which is what cryptos have been catering mostly thus far - and see the blockchain for what it really is in it’s most basic form. It’s a fancy cryptographically secured way of keeping databses consistent. Maybe the people involved in mijin can give some information on what kind of companies have signed up for the mijin trial.

NIS would have been open-sourced sooner or later at which point anyone could have used it for whatever they wanted. Now which sitation sounds better - mijin being built without any influence by the NEM team whatsoever or mijin working together with the NEM team so that improvements can be shared by both codebases ? I also don’t think that the devs didn’t get anything for their work on mijin so mijin isn’t really taking a community project and deploying it commercially. They had to adapt the code pretty hard to make it usable because completely decentralized public blockchains don’t scale shit. Now I’d rather have the NEM core devs do those adaptions and also use some of those optimizations for the NEM main chain than some company just using the code and not working together with NEM at all. I’m guessing that in that case the APIs wouldn’t be 100% the same either. If a company can’t afford mijin and they are okay with the limitations of a public chain then they just use NEM without changing their code that they wrote for mijin.

I do agree that the benefits for NEM are kind of sparse and - for the most part - really hard to grasp at this point.
Things do need clearing up but I’m sure there will be more information release when it’s possible.

Maybe it is a raw deal and maybe the benefit will net to exactly 0. It’s too early to tell and without more information it’s imho useless to speculate further. The people can’t talk about it - allegedly because of NDAs - so we’ll have to wait and see. Even if it turns out to suck for NEM - aint nothin you can do about that.

#38

Why do you feel you financed mijin development?

Until now devs have delivered and done things right. They have quite some credit I think, and I hope they continue to care about nem and don’t switch full focus on mijin. At the same time, if mijin development flows back to nem or if it prevents devs loosing interest in nem, it is a good thing. I just hope they know what they do and that it benefits nem in the end.

#39

This is Makoto’s effort to launch Mijin as a commercial endeavor.
In fact, Makoto is involved in all the private companies: Dragonfly Fintech Pte Ltd (as cofounder), Tech Bureau (as “Chief Blockchain Officer”).
How much time does he have left to attend the core NEM project?

With Makoto evidently in his own private affairs, I think we need some assurances that the rest of the NEM team are still fully focused in NEM and that Makoto is not divesting if not diverting their attention from normal core NEM development.

If the core developers are using NEM to launch their derivative projects utilizing their time (the most valuable resource) in projects that only will benefit themselves and not the community that supported it, the worst case scenario is that NEM will become abandonware and only the forks will survive (and continued to be innovated on), while everyone who funded it cheering this project for being extremely egalitarian will be fucked.

We need clear explanations about this.

#40

@piluso nem devs can do whatever they want. If anyone disagrees, the best thing to do is getting involved in nem activities to influence it. Being vindicative will lead you nowhere…