Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 948. (Read 2032274 times)

It's not a claim, it's math. Purchasing 1% of all available NXT drives price 10% higher, from observations of the bter market. If you start buying NXT to get a sizeable portion (51% of all available supply), you'll quickly drain all supply at exchanges and drive the price through the roof and still won't get enough.

Yeah, DeathAndTaxes presented the same 'argument' about hacker dumping NXT. Well, my answer was, the hacker could do it in two ways: 1) all at once, which would drive the price to ~200 satoshi and there all the 50m would be bought in 1 day, as at that price and all the way to 200 satoshi would be the daily trading volume of NXT in Bitcoins. 2) gradually, 1m per day which would depress price for a couple of months at most.

The second scenario obviously would hurt more as it would be prolonged, but even that wouldn't be dramatic. After all, whales have been dumping for 9 months now, and NXT has survived that, although the price doesn't go much higher due to that extensive selling. The hacker could not do anything to the security of NXT itself, he could only hurt the price temporarily, and he realized it's best to get Bitcoins which could be mixed easier, even though he would only get a small number of Bitcoins.

what's even more ridiculous is your claim of $50 bln.  lol.

if the hacker had dumped that much NXT on the open mkt, the price would've tanked.

lol, the bter hacker was under pressure, this wasn't a normal purchase of NXT, it was Bter paying the ransom. It's notable that you guys twist facts to your advantage like that. It means there is really nothing you can find to attack NXT with and catching at straws here.

That's a month's rent in NYC:
http://observer.com/2014/07/5-nyc-apartments-that-rent-for-more-than-100000-a-month/

Yes.  As I said,


It is important for the community to demand this of themselves.  The community must get into the habit of rigourously checking each release.  "Anyone can check for themselves" is not sufficient, because in practice, people are lazy and do not check before 10000x users have downloaded and run the new release.  Cross-check before massive download.  Anyone in the community can do this.  You do not have to be a developer.  The critical point is establish the habit, the process of protecting users with a cross-check prior to general release.

If you rely on after-the-fact checking, the release manager (NXT's Jean Luc?) could be infected with malware and be producing an infected jar.  Many users would be impacted, before the problem is noticed.

Set up processes to protect users.


Quite true on both points.

That's why the community must have a quick cross-check of the release manager's output before opening up to large numbers of downloads (and potentially infecting large numbers of users).

The software protects Real Money, people.  It must be held to strict security and accountability standards.  For any project, bitcoin, NXT or anything crypto-finance, you must be able to (a) prove the developers are not backdoor'ing you, by reviewing source code + checking build output, and (b) fire the developers (by forking) if they add something unexpected that the user base dislikes.

Reading "I trust JLP!" posts on the NXT forum just makes for one big facepalm.  The processes should be in place so that the community doesn't have to trust.

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.

Weird, I see Counterparty & OT as more tried, tested and proven than NXT, and they seem to do plenty.  Very fit for purpose. 
What are these NXT features already implemented that you haven't found elsewhere?

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

It's much easier for multiple parties to verify java classes. This doesn't have to come from Nxt core developer. It could be independent third parties, forum members, and even you. Here is how


Why would the verification have to come from multiple core developers? Lets have volunteers/independent third parties who verify it, as it's much easier/trivial with Java

To repeat for the cheap seats:  Wrong.  This is irrelevant, because the majority of users do not do this.  The majority of users just run the pre-built jar (which is what the NXT readme instructs them to do anyway).

A reproducible build process is helpful because...


Closed dev process.  As I noted the source code snapshot is published, but not live commits and open feedback/criticism like normal open source projects.  NXT is ivory tower.

Apparently the project has bounced between open and closed source at least once.

This whole argument about deterministic builds is pointless.  The only reason it exists for Bitcoin is because compiling Bitcoin is a PITA! Especially on windows, I have never been able to get a working statically linked binary on Windows.. its a very time consuming and complicated process.  The deterministic build process is a great solution to this problem by allowing regular uses to download precompiled binaries and be pretty sure its safe due to several devs producing the same result.

But with Nxt the compilation is so simple, once you have the JDK installed, its a matter of running the ./compile.sh, and in 2-5 seconds you have your binary.

In fact its easier/faster to do a git pull; ./compile.sh than it is to download the binaries and install from the website!

Given he now has the source code, he should try to confiscate mine to demonstrate his claim that Nxt can be hacked. Otherwise he was blowing hot air.

confiscate his NXT 

Yeah, but what do you do with guys who outright lie and make up stuff? This guy is bitcoin core developer?  That's really shameful.

Guys there is really no point in keeping on with this here, it is accomplishing nothing. We can come back once supernet is up and operational and discuss what is a scam then.

I didn't see bitcoin closing down its open source model just because there were IPO scams whatnot? I think if NXT is truly closed source its a very telling telltale that its not what it seems. Either the devs dont have the foresight to understand what open-source means or better yet and more importantly they are similar to what Ripple was trying to do.. own a large portion of the supply and sell P&D style... meaning a total scam. Devs cant really join can they if its closed source? So who would you hand off to after the dump is over?

Although I think https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/src/d9e338ed12c19712bafa3e1ab48c542a7da95939?at=master is the open source repo.. just the thought that they would keep it closed source even for a while tells me alot.

It decentralized crypto. The "marketers" are almost all regular users on bitcointalk who invested in it.


The IPO was open to everyone, and it was open for 2 whole months, and it all happened in public on this exact forum: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nxt-descendant-of-bitcoin-303898 and the coins were distributed to everyone who invested, with zero stakes for developer.


So was Satoshi.


The development repository was open for months. The problem started when clones started releasing new features and untested code before Nxt official release. This was done purely to deal with with that problem, and some of the clone IPOs were outright scams.


Every official release is open source and can be compiled and run. It is also possible to verify that precompiled class files  match your compiled version as it's NOT obfuscated. This isn't C++.  


Your criticism was NOT technical. You lied and claimed that Nxt was closed source. You also implied (last month) that the reason it was closed source was that it got easily hacked when the source was open. Both of these claims were lies.


That's absolutely nonsense and more shameless behavior.

Valid criticism is one thing, but your behavior is absolutely ridiculous.

This is just wonderful. Thank you for your work, it is very reassuring to know bitcoin's core think that way and I hope many more weigh those words.
Let's not loose sight of the objective.

edit: for the kudos ^^

In his defense, the commentator did say 'certified' diamonds. The average diamond is worthless. This article is from the Atlantic Monthly and goes all the way back to 1982. An amazing but VERY long read about how to create, develop, control and manipulate a market; in this case, the diamond market, with the perpetrator being De Beers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/