Author

Topic: | Nxt | Blockchain Platform | Proof of Stake | Official - page 460. (Read 941287 times)

sr. member
Activity: 380
Merit: 275
As far as the distribution problem is concerned, it seems to me like you can't really compare BTC to NXT because NXT was created all at once whereas BTC is still being created. Even though BTC mining itself is pretty concentrated and monopolized, other people have a fairer shot at obtaining "free" BTC, whereas the way things stand now, nobody has a shot at obtaining free NXT. (please don't bother mentioning faucets, I am aware of their existence).

Pretty much everything you stated is fine except for free btc. Both require an investment. You either buy Nxt or you buy mining equipment and pay electricity. In addition miners do break, pools occasionally fail to find a block and don't forget forks etc... I currently have a 50gh mining contract i purchased in December and i must say my money would have been better invested into Nxt than the btc mining roi.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1001
After spending some time for research I totally reconsidered. I admit that I was just a very stupid person throwing all those meaningless arguments around. Nxt is the best thing ever happenned to the whole crypto world and I was just a stupid troll.

Now we're talking.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
Thank you for you polite post. I appreciate and respect your position albeit I cannot share it. And if this proves to me to be the state of ALL significant altos, I will understand even clearer why there's absolutely no progress made 5 years plus after bitcoin. And will not invest in it, of course. I do expect though to find "honestcoin" where the distribution is both fair, intelligent and by all means, compensatory for both the creators and the visionaries that invested in it... but not to the point of absolute control and, even worse, non-premeditated manipulation.

Good luck with that search, but as happens in life, early investor get richer if the project is sucess. This doesn't just apply to crypto. This applies to everything in life (facebook, google, apple, microsoft).  People who were mining bitcoin in 2009 had no idea what will happen in 2014. They could have been just wasting time. Same applies to Nxt IPO investors.

"A world with the money can not be perfect"'
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
It was, you would probably admit, "abruptly interrupted", as has been stated for months, by a lot of people. But the problem, from where I stand, is not the apparently dubious distribution chosen (after so much care was evidenced by BCNext in  making sure that the distribution was as wide as possible), that would be a problem in and of itself. The problem is the current concentration of coins and the range of problems that it can cause.

I am answering people here because some are quite polite and not argumentative or offensive. I have just a very small interest in the coin and will dump it at any moment because my decision is made and I won't participate in what looks to me like a scam or, at the very least, like I have explained before several times, a coin manipulated in extreme even if there is not intention to manipulate it. I mark it scam and move on. Period.

Sorry that I cannot be convinced that anonymous individuals, next to loads of money, with total lack of accountability, are going to do good. This thread itself is full of scammers with their schemes already on the AE and about to surface there, as an example, so...

DRK, as I stated, is next under the radar.

I and others accept that the distribution of NXT could have been better but accept it, maybe we are all idiots, maybe not.

I also accept that some people in the community will be untrustworthy but what I can say when this has become apparent they and their scams have been neutralised and in many cases victims have been compensated by other community members.

There is vast amount of information now generated by the community so to someone new to it, it can seem impenetrable, from the original 2600 thread to the nxtforum, and google hangouts (also on youtube) where many members of the NXTcommunity are easily identifiable (in RL terms).

Even 5 years on with bitcoin is struggling to get mainstream adoption and the major holders of bit coin are owners of assets valued far higher than NXT largely unknown and unaccountable.

I accept that you can make these points but these points apply to ALL digital currencies, even ones which aim to achieve a level of 'respect' with 'named' investors suffer in the same way.

True the top 10 accounts own a lot of NXT but some day they will sell, its an investment for them, are they likely to perpetrate an attack - no, by the time they sell could someone else - I doubt it - it will take a lot of cash to buy it then...

I also resent the unfounded conclusion that you come to with no evidence in your earlier statement that this thread is full of scammers and so is the AE, I see no evidence other than the criteria you are using to come to this judgement are wholly unrealistic for an ecosystem that is 6 months old and essentially a financial wild west, no one actually denies this and many community members actively warn and advise new members openly in the forums.

The development and innovation that the community is undertaking is transportable and we now have some 'clones' following NXT trying to resolve the initial distribution problem.

If one of the original stakeholders or a group were to damage NXT I am fairly sure the community would take the innovations, create a new coin, distribute it and carry on and seek to take all of the current investors/holders with them - the beauty of PoS is this can be done easily and it would not take long.

So I fail to see what an attack would achieve other than being incredibly disruptive for a time.

Finally I will repeat that  I refute your claim about the community completely - yes we may have a few untrustworthy members, all communities do but to tar this community with such a broad sweeping statement is completely unjustified - your 'radar' needs to go deeper as at the moment it seems rather superficial.

Let me be absolutely clear in this: I did not imply, in any way, that the NEXT community is full of scammers. I don't know how you could have that impression. The ones I have called so are two, specifically, that have been quite active in questioning me today and that it so happens, have schemes going on at AE that I consider quite scammy. I have found others there, that are too, in my opinion.

But neither the actions/words of those two individuals, not the scams present or future at AE can in any way be representative of the community at large.

I understand that you "fail to see what an attack would achieve" and I have addressed that position earlier. I will do it again: You admit that it would be "incredibly disruptive for a time". That is precisely the point. Deep pockets would be very easy to benefit big time from such disruption, especially if caused by them for that precise purpose.

Thank you for you polite post. I appreciate and respect your position albeit I cannot share it. And if this proves to me to be the state of ALL significant altos, I will understand even clearer why there's absolutely no progress made 5 years plus after bitcoin. And will not invest in it, of course. I do expect though to find "honestcoin" where the distribution is both fair, intelligent and by all means, compensatory for both the creators and the visionaries that invested in it... but not to the point of absolute control and, even worse, non-premeditated manipulation.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
As far as the distribution problem is concerned, it seems to me like you can't really compare BTC to NXT because NXT was created all at once whereas BTC is still being created. Even though BTC mining itself is pretty concentrated and monopolized, other people have a fairer shot at obtaining "free" BTC, whereas the way things stand now, nobody has a shot at obtaining free NXT. (please don't bother mentioning faucets, I am aware of their existence).

It's still a lot cheaper to "buy" nxt then to buy mining gear to mine BTC. So chances to get both are about the same.

Also, don't forget http://hashrate.org/

So it's possible to even get Nxt by "mining" via multipool

legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
As far as the distribution problem is concerned, it seems to me like you can't really compare BTC to NXT because NXT was created all at once whereas BTC is still being created. Even though BTC mining itself is pretty concentrated and monopolized, other people have a fairer shot at obtaining "free" BTC, whereas the way things stand now, nobody has a shot at obtaining free NXT. (please don't bother mentioning faucets, I am aware of their existence).

The point of the argument is that mining leads to better distribution than forging, which apparently isn't even a possibility without massive quantities of NXT to begin with. You can get mass quantities of BTC without having to pay actual dollars, but that isn't yet a possibility with NXT. Yes, this problem can be solved by the exchange itself but the point is, ALL of this future NXT to be distributed has to come from the same 20 people...

Having said that, I am impressed with the mindbending array of potential real-world applications for the NXT platform. The community really seems to have it together in terms of goals, creating professional-looking products and getting the word out.

I think these kind of arguments are good for NXT because they help put it to the test. Please by all means, feel free to correct my many misconceptions. I want solid reasons to believe that this won't inevitably fold to the human forces of weakness, temptation or greed.
legendary
Activity: 1526
Merit: 1012
Are there forging pools working nice for NXT ?
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1004
but many more continue adding coins by forging massive amounts

no the total NXT in circulation does not increase.  The money supply is constant.

-bm


So those people with 40-50 million coins, they don't forge more?


they do forge BLOCKS and they get the TX FEES as payment for doing so.  So the NXTs only circulate from USERS to STAKEHOLDERS via transaction fees.

it's quite different than Bitcoin.

-bm


I understand that but, assuming they havent sold a single coin, a guy with 50 million would have considerably more than 50 million nby forging right now, right?

yes, but that is true for everyone only forging and not selling. What is your point?

My point is that if only 20 wallets control probably 80-90% or more of NXT, how does that situation makes a 51% attack "impossible" as claimed in the NXT documents?

Clearer: There's a huge distribution problem -extensible to forging- in this coin. Or I am totally wrong?

You are wrong.  There isn't a huge distribution problem.  Distribution is already way better than bitcoin's and continues to get better. 

I appreciate your confidence but, sorry, you don 't dispute any of my points. Again: 20 wallets got a total of 1 billion coins. Even after presumably massive dumping, still a bunch of those wallets and a few others, control 90% of the coins. How is that not a massive distribution problem? SWhatever the situation on BTc notwithstanding?


check the distribution here: http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=34
BTC has a worse distribution. Don't make bad assumptions please.
Yes,static is much persuasive
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Read the whole thread. On second or third page, the max was fixed to 1 BTC.  Everything is in public record. How the coins were distributed is also public and variable as you can see the hashes on blockchain info and coins were distributed accordingly and verifiably.

It was fairest IPO as the developer's stake were zero. And rules were same for everyone -- no exceptions for the developer.

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

But, if it was true, it was a MONUMENTAL mistake and counter totally to his initial purpose. Regardless... the resulting fact is that a few people got an insane amount of coins, situation that remains now, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what his initial intent was and the inevitable consequence is the permanente manipulation of the market as those with the millions of coins dump them at will upon the market.

Never mind that they make of "forging" a ridiculous mockery.

we all know this argument. we all feel the same way you do about it. some of us however feel that some of the other advantages outweigh this legitimate criticsm. however if you do not than you are totally welcome to that opinion. if you dont like it than just dont buy any nxt. ezpz

As I have stated repeatedly, I will not beyond the very few I got initially that I will liquidate, for profit, any moment now.



ok.......? cool story?
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1004
Is this cool?

@all

100 k bounty from ideenfrische to the one putting the Nxt sticker to the posted position (naked & screaming loud).





beautiful sticker.
sr. member
Activity: 952
Merit: 253
It was, you would probably admit, "abruptly interrupted", as has been stated for months, by a lot of people. But the problem, from where I stand, is not the apparently dubious distribution chosen (after so much care was evidenced by BCNext in  making sure that the distribution was as wide as possible), that would be a problem in and of itself. The problem is the current concentration of coins and the range of problems that it can cause.

I am answering people here because some are quite polite and not argumentative or offensive. I have just a very small interest in the coin and will dump it at any moment because my decision is made and I won't participate in what looks to me like a scam or, at the very least, like I have explained before several times, a coin manipulated in extreme even if there is not intention to manipulate it. I mark it scam and move on. Period.

Sorry that I cannot be convinced that anonymous individuals, next to loads of money, with total lack of accountability, are going to do good. This thread itself is full of scammers with their schemes already on the AE and about to surface there, as an example, so...

DRK, as I stated, is next under the radar.

I and others accept that the distribution of NXT could have been better but accept it, maybe we are all idiots, maybe not.

I also accept that some people in the community will be untrustworthy but what I can say when this has become apparent they and their scams have been neutralised and in many cases victims have been compensated by other community members.

There is vast amount of information now generated by the community so to someone new to it, it can seem impenetrable, from the original 2600 thread to the nxtforum, and google hangouts (also on youtube) where many members of the NXTcommunity are easily identifiable (in RL terms).

Even 5 years on with bitcoin is struggling to get mainstream adoption and the major holders of bit coin are owners of assets valued far higher than NXT largely unknown and unaccountable.

I accept that you can make these points but these points apply to ALL digital currencies, even ones which aim to achieve a level of 'respect' with 'named' investors suffer in the same way.

True the top 10 accounts own a lot of NXT but some day they will sell, its an investment for them, are they likely to perpetrate an attack - no, by the time they sell could someone else - I doubt it - it will take a lot of cash to buy it then...

I also resent the unfounded conclusion that you come to with no evidence in your earlier statement that this thread is full of scammers and so is the AE, I see no evidence other than the criteria you are using to come to this judgement are wholly unrealistic for an ecosystem that is 6 months old and essentially a financial wild west, no one actually denies this and many community members actively warn and advise new members openly in the forums.

The development and innovation that the community is undertaking is transportable and we now have some 'clones' following NXT trying to resolve the initial distribution problem.

If one of the original stakeholders or a group were to damage NXT I am fairly sure the community would take the innovations, create a new coin, distribute it and carry on and seek to take all of the current investors/holders with them - the beauty of PoS is this can be done easily and it would not take long.

So I fail to see what an attack would achieve other than being incredibly disruptive for a time.

Finally I will repeat that  I refute your claim about the community completely - yes we may have a few untrustworthy members, all communities do but to tar this community with such a broad sweeping statement is completely unjustified - your 'radar' needs to go deeper as at the moment it seems rather superficial.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
AKA jefdiesel
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Read the whole thread. On second or third page, the max was fixed to 1 BTC.  Everything is in public record. How the coins were distributed is also public and variable as you can see the hashes on blockchain info and coins were distributed accordingly and verifiably.

It was fairest IPO as the developer's stake were zero. And rules were same for everyone -- no exceptions for the developer.

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

But, if it was true, it was a MONUMENTAL mistake and counter totally to his initial purpose. Regardless... the resulting fact is that a few people got an insane amount of coins, situation that remains now, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what his initial intent was and the inevitable consequence is the permanente manipulation of the market as those with the millions of coins dump them at will upon the market.

Never mind that they make of "forging" a ridiculous mockery.

we all know this argument. we all feel the same way you do about it. some of us however feel that some of the other advantages outweigh this legitimate criticsm. however if you do not than you are totally welcome to that opinion. if you dont like it than just dont buy any nxt. ezpz

As I have stated repeatedly, I will not beyond the very few I got initially that I will liquidate, for profit, any moment now.

legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Read the whole thread. On second or third page, the max was fixed to 1 BTC.  Everything is in public record. How the coins were distributed is also public and variable as you can see the hashes on blockchain info and coins were distributed accordingly and verifiably.

It was fairest IPO as the developer's stake were zero. And rules were same for everyone -- no exceptions for the developer.

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

But, if it was true, it was a MONUMENTAL mistake and counter totally to his initial purpose. Regardless... the resulting fact is that a few people got an insane amount of coins, situation that remains now, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what his initial intent was and the inevitable consequence is the permanente manipulation of the market as those with the millions of coins dump them at will upon the market.

Never mind that they make of "forging" a ridiculous mockery.

we all know this argument. we all feel the same way you do about it. some of us however feel that some of the other advantages outweigh this legitimate criticsm. however if you do not than you are totally welcome to that opinion. if you dont like it than just dont buy any nxt. ezpz
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
I miss Emule  Cry
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

There is nothing to believe. Coins were distributed to hashes submitted. The rules were same for everyone. If BCNxt used sockpuppets everyone else could have done the same too, as rules were the same.

There is no "belief" or "faith" involved here as this is all  verifiable.

legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1001
C'mon people, just stop talking to the asshole and he'll disappear. Don't feed the troll and he'll find another thread.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
It was, you would probably admit, "abruptly interrupted", as has been stated for months, by a lot of people. But the problem, from where I stand, is not the apparently dubious distribution chosen (after so much care was evidenced by BCNext in  making sure that the distribution was as wide as possible), that would be a problem in and of itself. The problem is the current concentration of coins and the range of problems that it can cause.

That's not his fault. The traffic on this forum was 1000 times less back then, and IPO was open for 2 months. There was no scam.  Plus even if he had 10000 stakeholders, the word population is 7 billion, so even that would be considered "unfair" by the rest of 7 billion.

Satoshi himself controls 10% of BTC and litecoin and peercoin have the same issue. 60 addresses control something like  90%? of peercoin? That's life. What matter is future distribution and adaption by large general public.

There is no scam, as your initial idiotic claim.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1000
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Read the whole thread. On second or third page, the max was fixed to 1 BTC.  Everything is in public record. How the coins were distributed is also public and variable as you can see the hashes on blockchain info and coins were distributed accordingly and verifiably.

It was fairest IPO as the developer's stake were zero. And rules were same for everyone -- no exceptions for the developer.

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

But, if it was true, it was a MONUMENTAL mistake and counter totally to his initial purpose. Regardless... the resulting fact is that a few people got an insane amount of coins, situation that remains now, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what his initial intent was and the inevitable consequence is the permanente manipulation of the market as those with the millions of coins dump them at will upon the market.

Never mind that they make of "forging" a ridiculous mockery.
Jump to: