Topic: I'm dumping Nxt and here's why you should too - page 3. (Read 21314 times)

Funny that you don't have to cite articles with scientific proof when you raise your concerns that to having known devs is better than having anon devs  

All your facts are subjective at best. It's not clear how they contribute to "to have known devs is better than anon devs"


subjective. If he was not a liberal statist you would trust him and not be on guard?



BULLSHIT. Code quality is the most important criterion of a dev. Nice try evading an argument.


But the best is, we have known devs, but since some of them are anon, it's all bad, right?  

Well the evidence can directly be obtained by reviewing the source code itself and the subsequent changes.

Many well versed programmers have confirmed the shortcomings of Satoshi's code so it isn't just my opinion:

http://diginomics.com/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/



http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/nakamoto-what-do-we-know/



Now we could begin to argue about the stylistic preferences with programming notation but any competent programmer who has worked collaboratively on a development project can attest to Satoshi's programming style is the exact opposite of what is desired, especially for a decentralized worldwide open source project.

I will try and be more patient to accommodate miscommunication, but I don't think that is the problem here. Do you understand the difference between a comparative analysis and simply stating anecdotes of security breaches? Since there are strong hints and accusations of impropriety with NxT already that isn't a good example.  

A good argument would be citing a research article that discussed the propensity in security breaches of open source projects that had anonymous developers vs non-anonymous ones, or at minimum if you cannot cite this than cite some long-term open source projects with anonymous developers that have better security than your average open source project with known devs.

The latter.



It's not word games, English is not my mother tongue, maybe something was lost in translation.

Well, here is another example - Satoshi VERSUS http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/20/bank-of-england-payment-system-crashes (I can bet that BoE programmers weren't anonymous).
Google hints http://www.pcworld.com/article/2060760/healthcaregovs-enrollment-system-crashes-monday.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment_hack.

What is the question that you need to be verified. That over 60% of the code has been changed or that Satoshi's code was shit?


This was my mistake, as I mistook Luke-Jr reference for Jean-Luc, as your comment was not a valid comparative analysis and I was expecting one. I assumed you were comparing a NxT dev to a Bitcoin dev.


You are avoiding the question still, so I will rewrite it for you if you enjoy these word games:

Now it's my turn to ask you for a proof. It's very far from being "no secret".



First, Luke-Jr is not anonymous. Here is some info about him - https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/868-industry-candidate-luke-dashjr/. Here is how he looks - https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/1095675?v=3&s=460.

Second, I don't say that anonymous devs produce better code. I say that anonymous devs lead to more secure systems because their deeds are scrutinized with greater effort.

What type of argument is that? It is no secret that Satoshi's code was shit despite his genius, that is why over 60% of it had to be changed.

The question is, can you provide data that shows open source projects that are written by anonymous developers tend to be more secure and bug free than open source projects written in a transparent manner? Not, Luke-Jr vs satoshi, a ridiculous statement because you are comparing 2 anonymous developers so it completely ignores the central premise of the question.

Compare Satoshi's code and Luke-Jr's code.

I am aware of this and have much higher standards of security than what NxT provides.


Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?

We don't have to aim for the targets that you set up for us, we can also argue why "to be known" is not a prerequisite in a transparent dev process.

Your facts:

• Higher accountibilty when (=after) something goes wrong -> Does not protect you from something going wrong.
• make better informed judgements as to the motivations of certain developers -> Motivations are not relevant, could be money, could be ideology, could be anything
• the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency -> So does the quality of the code they write

Nxt already uses (not utilized fully) TaPoS-like approach. It's called Economic Clustering.

I'm advocating TaPoS to be added to Bitcoin and would turn my back on Bitcoin at a moments notice if it lost its fundamental principles or something better came along. NxT isn't there yet , and you should take any valid criticism as helpful advice to strengthen your project.

That was the 1st step to show that known identity of a developer is a disadvantage. People start trusting him and at some point become scammed. Anonymous devs keep people suspicious and hence better protected. In short, anon devs better than non-anon ones.

I don't move goal posts, I help you to find flaws in your own logic by making to admit some points and finally become trapped. After that point you can't use tricks that are usually used to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

But people are afraid of change, that's why there are so many "concerns" against Nxt.

Non-sequitur, as we are discussing other security weaknesses and you are moving the goal posts.

Additionally, you are presenting a false dichotomy even after I bolded:


Hint:
A rational argument would present evidence which reflected increases in overall security weaknesses from a transparent development process to counteract my claims.

NXT is still probably several years ahead of Bitcoin, even after 1 year has passed. The original source has been changed a lot by Jean Luc as I understand it. It is okay to give BCNext credit for his vision, though. His mark on crypto will be remembered forever.

I see yet another flaw in your reasoning. You assume that a known identity helps to protect a system against scams, but history of cryptocurrencies shows the opposite. Have you even heard of Pirate@40? (And should I mention Josh Garza?)

I would agree with you in a perfect world where all the end users are capable of compiling the jar from source and could instantly scan and detect any bugs or malicious code without effort with every version.

In the real world, less than 0.1% of users will compile from source , even if they are capable and any programmer knows that thorough audits take time and don't give 100% confirmation that malicious code isn't present.

Having a transparent development process with known developers absolutely does not eliminate all bugs and malicious code from entering in the software, but what it does allow is a higher level of accountability if something does go wrong and it allows people to make better informed judgements as to the motivations of certain developers and gives preemptive clues as to what to watch out for from certain contributors to the source. Additionally, understanding the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency based upon other projects they have worked on.

The fact that we can research who Jeff Garzik is , and what companies he worked for in the past is very helpful in understanding his motivations and biases.

It is frightening that I have to explain this to you and anyone else reading with a critical eye should be similarity warned. Using the big bad government as an excuse to stay in the shadows is not a good enough excuse when dealing with Fintech with peoples life savings and there are plenty of other Anarchist developers that have the courage and moral fortitude to reveal themselves. I am not saying that all developers need to be transparent but with Fintech it is a completely different matter with different stakes.

So if BCNext wants to pull a Satoshi that is fine but the code should be developed in a more transparent manner after he has stepped aside.

Your phrase requires IQ above 90 to get the meaning you put into it. Next time provide a version understandable by majority of BTT users, please.

simple fact: open-source projects don't need known devs

simple fact: there's a way better chance not be the target of defamation, threat or hitmen if you stay anonymous (as a crypto dev)

simple fact: no developer commits every piece of code locally changed in real-time, ergo there is always private parts. (And with the current release cycle of Nxt I really don't see any reason to claim that there is something in hiding)