So basically
NXT = POS (PIECE OF SHIT)
NXT = POS (PIECE OF SHIT)
Hahahaha, oh man, I've never heard that one before.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 950. (Read 2032274 times)
Hahahaha, oh man, I've never heard that one before.
Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely? Is this a true statement?:
The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.
If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens. Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.
The interesting thing here is that Nxt is the only implementation of an m-of-n oracle I have seen in the wild yet. see multigateway.org. Please, point me to a bitcoin implementation.
I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market. I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people. This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now. Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times.
Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test. The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value? This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so. I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold. Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases. The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral.
Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test. The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value? This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so. I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold. Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases. The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral.
Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely? Is this a true statement?:
The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.
If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens. Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.
The appcoins appear to be further along in development. As a test on the btsx platform, I successfully sold 124 btsx for $5(bitusd) on Sept 11 and then sold that $5 for 134 btsx on sept 15, keeping in line with overall market prices. This was all done completely in a decentralized system with btsx as the underlying collateral and enforced automatically by a smart contract, keeping the entire trade in a trustless, yet collateralized environment. Once I can do this with bitcoin I will definitely take notice. Perhaps I already can and just don't know about it? Gold (bitgld) can also be traded.
Obviously this is in the early stages (alpha) of development and this design has never been tried before so plenty can go wrong. The client is also buggy at this version. I am all for a working solution and if devs can make this happen with bitcoin then that would be great. I own both.
Well at least there is an actual explanation as to why this is not possible with java: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=5388.msg102789#msg102789
Try this:
Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.
cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig
If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.
The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.
Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files. I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:
$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67
Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.
cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig
If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.
The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.
Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files. I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:
$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67
Deterministic builds in java are possible by modifying the build script: http://gary-rowe.com/agilestack/2013/08/08/how-to-create-a-deterministic-jar/
Quote
the worse case scenario is for the US to block the internet here to stop Bitcoin to defend the USD's world reserve status.
I dont think most citizens would allow them to screw over the internet that badly. It would cause alot of trouble to stop btc, it was hard also to stop peer to peer file sharing and I believe that is still going. It was only the centralised parts of programs like napster which were targeted, clones and various infrastructure carried on anyway.
There was a clone coin this year based on the image of a rap star, he brought in lawyers and sure he won, caused trouble but all the same that network is still going I think though its not popular to use
CFB's long reply... putting jeff to shame..
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488
I saw nothing especially shameful. For my part, if I cannot compile the compiler I'm not happy in this day and age. It's cumbersome and barely worked with JDK last time I tried it, and the thing is so bloated that I have very limited confidence that the kinds of issue which would concern me would be spotted in code. Last time I put JDK on my throw-away Windows machine it caused so much weirdness that I re-installed the OS itself. And again, this was my throw-away machine!
Well at least there is an actual explanation as to why this is not possible with java: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=5388.msg102789#msg102789
Try this:
Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.
cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig
If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.
The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.
Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files. I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:
$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67
Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.
cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig
If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.
The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.
Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files. I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:
$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67
CFB's long reply... putting jeff to shame..
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488
Except that it contains the same bullshit "Java bytecode is sourcecode" thing and dodges the calls for deterministic builds and secure procedures once more without really giving arguments as to why this is not done. (Except that "it is not necessary, trust us or decompile the code", which completely misses the point.)
Who needs soap operas. Can't wait for the movie.
Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?
Hashes don't have to match. Jeff just found that out with first-hand experience
It'll be curious to find out what further research by Jeff reveals
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511930314977853442
CFB's long reply... putting jeff to shame..
https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488
The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.
If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens. Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.
We have already this kind of situation. IMO anoncoins (drk, xmr, xc, bbr, etc.) are kind of pointless, because bitcoin + Darkwallet does everything, anoncoins offer, better.
Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?
Hashes don't have to match. Jeff just found that out with first-hand experience
It'll be curious to find out what further research by Jeff reveals
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511930314977853442
Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?
we know that China and Russia are doing what they can to undermine the USD.
Hedge against it's certain death
here's a counter 51% argument from someone i respect very much, sgornick:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2gjkpv/is_this_the_reason_the_bitcoin_price_is_not/ckjs5l6
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2gjkpv/is_this_the_reason_the_bitcoin_price_is_not/ckjs5l6
That argument can apply to the internet itself.
this is the argument.
i've always argued that the internet has been built to handle a nuclear blast wiping out a significant part of the country. it will route around that kind of damage. the worse case scenario is for the US to block the internet here to stop Bitcoin to defend the USD's world reserve status. even in that unlikely event, Bitcoin should be able to route around the damage via other countries. let's see how the banking system fairs with that.
we know that China and Russia are doing what they can to undermine the USD. they've headed towards gold as their strategy. for all the arguments i've made since Gold: I smell a trap, i doubt that will work. point being, cooperation with the US to block Bitcoin seems very unlikely. as long as a few countries accept it, Bitcoin should survive.
at some pt you have to make an assessment of what is likely and plausible.
I only post what I think is very plausible and put my money where my mouth is.
I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market. I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people. This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now. Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times.
Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test. The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value? This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so. I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold. Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases. The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral.
Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test. The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value? This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so. I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold. Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases. The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral.
Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely? Is this a true statement?:
The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.
If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens. Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.
That argument can apply to the internet itself. Its decentralised but easy to argue it can be attacked, it is on a daily basis by various collectives ? Does it fail easily, or would BTC collapse; I think in both cases it would reform and redistribute more thinly, processing times would suffer and difficulty would have to change
Jump to: