Topic: Closed Thread - page 384. (Read 677687 times)

so is that way of saying currently its insecure? because it sounds like it

i agree with simakki all this should have been done way before launch not after or at least have a half decent working wallet.

Was the code atleast decent or were there any suspicious parts ? I still do not know how to feel about this project. There are something odd in the PR, distribution and development. Do not see What's was the whole point launching NODE before working client, exchanges etc. Basically we have monetary system built up but no ways to use it.

The first version of the wallet shipped with "packed" but non-obfuscated code for the backend.  I linked to the original code earlier in the thread, but here is the link again for reference: http://pastebin.com/a7JzU7kv

The new version was obfuscated using jscrambler, so it seems they spent additional time, effort, and $35 to $95 this week to try to better hide their source.  To what end, I'm not sure.

I didn't try much to reconstruct the obfuscated source.  Given that we have the first version and there were likely not heavy code changes in-between it should still be relatively easy to get the version 2 source, but I probably will not bother.

how do you know that? are you just speculating? they have not released any code that i am aware of so it can be new code or a copy of nxt. neither are a bad thing for node, nxt is a good platform but its mainly the services and uses which give a coin value. correct me if im wrong tho

nxt multigateway is the most sensible way forward in such a situation.

taken from nem thread.. its the smartest and cheapest way forward.. (no trading fees bar transaction fees)


3 people will be in control of a server each.. as long as you trust that the 3 members will not collude to steal the funds with in the servers then your coins are safe.. as far as i know, all three servers would need to be hacked simultaneously in order for someone to steal the coins.. its not entirely decentralized, but it is magnitudes safer than traditional exchanges... preferably you get people with a vested interest in the said currency/platform to be in control of the servers.

for example in nxt, its going to be james, the owner of nxthaus (new nxt exchange in the making) and cant remember  who else.. the reason these were chosen as the right people is because they all have a huge vested interested in not stealing the coins.. james has coded the damn thing and has a reputation to protect and is also heavily invested in nxt and multigateway assets and therefore has to protect the interests of the buyers of MGW asset.

the owner of nxthaus would never mess with servers as he has a vested interest in being seen as trustworthy, cos if hes not, no one will use his new exchange. the same applies for the other guy ie. high vested interest or is very trustworthy already.

you only have to trust that 2 of the 3 wont collude.. one malicious server maintainer cannot steal the funds alone.. he may be able to fek up multigateway so it stops working but funds cannot be stolen or accounts miscalculated. so even if one entity isnt trust worthy your coins are still safe..

if centralised exchanges used multigateway for their back end stuff, the odds of these hacks stealing millions would not be a concern any longer..