Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 947. (Read 2032274 times)
going to challenge the old high:
incredibly relentless. no problems here:
I must LOL at the conversation brought by cipherdoc here. Are you trying to say something at all or are you doing it for the sake of trolling?
I expected higher standards from a "legendary" user of the glorious Bitcointalk Forum.
At least, yesterday's Garzik posts agains NXT had some (tiny) valid points.
I expected higher standards from a "legendary" user of the glorious Bitcointalk Forum.
At least, yesterday's Garzik posts agains NXT had some (tiny) valid points.
Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.
As I understand it, JL is a core dev right? He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.
So what are you looking for exactly? "Ok boys, JL wasn't responsible. Therefore the whole project is a farce and a sham and we should just shut the whole thing down and pretend it never existed. Move along, nothing to see here."?
People make mistakes and do what they think is right in time pressure situations. What's done is done. The project is still up and running, the codebase is still solid, the value is increasing after a long serious of blows that have all been survived, the community is now stronger and have a deeper sense of their place in this ecosystem, and some of the strongest innovations I have seen in the space are right around the corner. It's time to move on my friend.
Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.
As I understand it, JL is a core dev right? He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.
I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs which is just as bad when dealing with what is supposed to be currency.
But my point still stands. When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered. Don't pretend your patch wasn't controversial.
Yes, of course it was controversial, and rightly so.
However, controversial does not necessarily mean "bad".
Bitcoin has quite a long history behind it, and has had it's fair share of tense situations.
How you weather these situations are what's important.
You take the position that even considering it is inherently bad. Fine, that's a position.
Other people, including me, take the position that these testing grounds are a way to learn and determine who and what you are.
I find that much more important that aiming at an ideal situation that is arrived at by not having a choice at all (once more, in this specific situation), especially in the crypto space.
Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.
I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.
But my point still stands. When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered. Don't pretend your patch wasn't controversial.
Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.
And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.
The roll backs or reversions in Bitcoin were due to code bugs and not simply wanting to rewrite history.
That's great, and there was no rollback of nxt either so it's time to stop hanging on to something that never occurred, or was even close to occurring, just because one lone man offered a choice.
I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.
But my point still stands. When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered. Don't pretend your patch wasn't controversial.
Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.
And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.
The roll backs or reversions in Bitcoin were due to code bugs and not simply wanting to rewrite history.
I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.
But my point still stands. When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered. Don't pretend your patch wasn't controversial.
Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.
And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.
I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs which is just as bad when dealing with what is supposed to be currency.
But my point still stands. When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered. Don't pretend your patch wasn't controversial.
Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption. A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT 
The whole situation has lead to a fierce and good discussion in the Nxt Community, as it should be within a young community, according to me.
There are definitely people in the Nxt community that take the same position that you take here.
I, in *this case*, am glad that the choice was offered, for the reason valarmg gave:
And how is giving a choice a bad thing? You think the devs should have made up their mind and decided to hell with the community, I don't like this, so I won't allow it? No, a better idea was offering a choice in this extreme case. And the Nxt community decided overwhelmingly against invalidating that single transaction based on precedent. Shows a strong mindset and commitment to the ideas of cryptocurrency. Without the choice, you wouldn't have had any idea what they'll do in Nxt. Now you know .
.It lead to a fundamental discussion in any new coin community about where you stand.
In an ideal world, every crypto community would be made up of people who actually know anything about the ideals and ideas behind crypto.
However, this is not the case, not in Bitcoin and not in Nxt. To think otherwise is not wanting to look the facts in the face.
So this discussion and testing is necessary, and I am very happy that it turned out as it did. If there would have been a rollback, I would not be in the Nxt community anymore at this point.
However, to force that ón the community, is crossing a line that should never be crossed, IMO.
I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?
It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption. A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT
I don't understand. Where was the principle of a fixed supply ever in question? The question was about reorganizing the blockchain so that the single transaction was invalidated.
There has been talk about blacklisting addresses in bitcoin which is a similar idea.
And how is giving a choice a bad thing? You think the devs should have made up their mind and decided to hell with the community, I don't like this, so I won't allow it? No, a better idea was offering a choice in this extreme case. And the Nxt community decided overwhelmingly against invalidating that single transaction based on precedent. Shows a strong mindset and commitment to the ideas of cryptocurrency. Without the choice, you wouldn't have had any idea what they'll do in Nxt. Now you know
.
Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption. A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT
User705,
You read that wrong. I meant as an investor in cryptocurrencies in general.
You read that wrong. I meant as an investor in cryptocurrencies in general.
Please don't equate the forum community with the people that forge Nxt, either.
There were two levels of decision making here, and it was reflected on both the forums and in the forging.
The forums are not always a reflection of the Nxt Community, just as BCT is in no way a reflection of the Bitcoin Community as a whole.
In PoS, it's the stakeholders that make the choice. Otherwise, we could just hold votes on the forums.
The devs provided a choice. Not providing that choice in this case would also have been a means of control.
As this was the first time something of this magnitude happened, there is no clear roadmap and it's important to offer the choice.
I really cannot see how it's better for the dev team nót to open up that choice, even if it means the possibility of opening up a can of worms.
The devs did not push for a choice either way: the forgers had freedom to choose. They chose not to roll back.
Only releasing a patch after you know it will be accepted by conventional consensus on a forum (!) is just silly.
There were two levels of decision making here, and it was reflected on both the forums and in the forging.
The forums are not always a reflection of the Nxt Community, just as BCT is in no way a reflection of the Bitcoin Community as a whole.
In PoS, it's the stakeholders that make the choice. Otherwise, we could just hold votes on the forums.
The devs provided a choice. Not providing that choice in this case would also have been a means of control.
As this was the first time something of this magnitude happened, there is no clear roadmap and it's important to offer the choice.
I really cannot see how it's better for the dev team nót to open up that choice, even if it means the possibility of opening up a can of worms.
The devs did not push for a choice either way: the forgers had freedom to choose. They chose not to roll back.
Only releasing a patch after you know it will be accepted by conventional consensus on a forum (!) is just silly.
I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..
Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used
Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used
i routinely check binary hashes
as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled. i think it's a telling lesson. the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %. i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism. the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch. it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs. what if 51% of users accepted the patch? what would the community have done then? the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch. with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions. eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC. and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome. i see it as a failure.
what you state here is pure censorship and reveals that you don't understand that the nxt community prefers THE CHOICE instead isolated, above driven decisions,
jean-luc (nxt core dev) did great here. he saw there are voices and therefore demand within the community. as a result he provides (btw, superfast) the tools for an independent,
consensus based FREE decision, based on common sense by the community. i call this a demonstration of strength, with a healthy portion of common sense, exactly as it has to be.
isn't this at least one reason why we are here cypherdoc, able to make free decisons?
i routinely check binary hashes
as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled. i think it's a telling lesson. the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %. i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism. the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch. it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs. what if 51% of users accepted the patch? what would the community have done then? the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch. with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions. eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC. and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome. i see it as a failure.
The consensus method was releasing two versions of Nxt, one patched to reject the 5% theft, one not. All stakeholders/investors in Nxt then had a choice, stake on the patched or unpatched version. This used the proof of stake as consensus which makes perfect sense for a PoS coin. If 50%+ of stake had switched to patched version, that would have become the main chain. As it turned out, no where close to 50% voted with their stake for the patched version so the blockchain reorg didn't happen.
I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..
Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used
Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used
i routinely check binary hashes
as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled. i think it's a telling lesson. the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %. i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism. the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch. it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs. what if 51% of users accepted the patch? what would the community have done then? the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch. with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions. eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC. and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome. i see it as a failure.
Jump to: