Is someone squatting on Emule in the new forum?
Well at least the username...
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 169. (Read 2761645 times)
Is someone squatting on Emule in the new forum?
Well at least the username...
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
Any comments from developers?
I don't comment nonsense...
A developer of another coin is making accusations against Nxt on Let's Talk Bitcoin and you don't care?
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
see NxtMyths, https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtM3g1cU1VSHZtTGM/edit
pages 17 and 23
Quote
Eventually, the intent is to move both toward making the checkpointing system more decentralized and reducing its power and PPCoins come to be owned by a larger group of people.
As usual, Nxt again came with right solution: Merged mining. Thanks to this feature centralized checkpointing system will never be a problem in Nxt.
As usual, Nxt again came with right solution: Merged mining. Thanks to this feature centralized checkpointing system will never be a problem in Nxt.
Quote
Nxt’s true original invention – Transparent forging – brings the revolution in the world of Proof of Stake currencies. It solves the problem of forked chains in other altcoins like Peercoin, Namecoin, Mastercoin or Ethereum. Nxt doesn’t have to use centrally inserted checkpoints.
Is someone squatting on Emule in the new forum?
Well at least the username...
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
Any comments from developers?
I don't comment nonsense...
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
PoS checkpoints are used in Peercoin etc. Nxt solved this problem, it doesn't use checkpoints...
Ok, well this guy is saying that Nxt isn't really decentralized because of this. Someone needs to correct him.
cos i feel so loved here 
hey pinarello, alles goed met je ?
godverdomme*
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
PoS checkpoints are used in Peercoin etc. Nxt solved this problem, it doesn't use checkpoints...
I propose that 2Kool lock this thread at page 2500 and we do a mass migration over there.
-1. This thread on Bitcointalk is a massive free advertisement of Nxt
If you use SSL, at least you are protecting the client privacy from the ISP and anyone who can spy along the route.
This is very easy to attack. A simple correlation between a SSL encyrpted HTTP package of matching size and the timestamp of the transaction will let a third party correlate a transaction with the originator IP. You also have to trust the node operator, since he owns the SSL certificate.
For forums and wiki SSL is indeed essential, unless we all start signing each of our posts and PMs with GPG.
+1
It does make sense to protect the Wiki and forum with SSL (I previously missed that you have to login into the Wiki) and as such, I think InfCom should fund the SSL certificate. The NRS nodes should however not use SSL.
Users of Wesley's client that sign transactions client-side will have their privacy compromised without SSL, even though the transactions and their password will be secure (assuming he is verifying the bytes before signing). I do see the value of SSL in this use case, because it is much simpler for the end user than setting up tor, and we are targeting users who presumably are not sophisticated enough to be running the Java server themselves.
I beg to differ:
- Their privacy is easily compromised to 3rd parties even with SSL (see above).
- Their privacy is always compromised to the node operator since he owns the SSL certificate, thus this is still not a trustless solution.
- If privacy is needed, Tor can deliver.
- I've added support for Tor in my client in like 2 hours (version not yet released). It will come with the tor.exe client and my NXT client simply starts the Tor client if Tor is not running already and shuts it down again on exit if it was started by my client.
All the end user has to do is set the checkbox to use Tor. I also have proposed a bounty for client developers who implement support for Tor (https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issue/33/tor-enabled-capable-nxt-clients) since this would solve the privacy issue very efficiently.
....and we are targeting users who presumably are not sophisticated enough to be running the Java server themselves.
Well, then we exclude these users from forging, since we can't really encourage them to send account secrets to public NRS nodes (even with Tor and SSL used).
I fear that the secretPhrase parameter for forging will backfire on us some day. IMHO, forging (and anything else that needs a secretPhrase parameter) should only be possible when the request comes from localhost.
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
+1
can you lock this thread so only mods can comment? i think this thread is important for advertising to people on btt.. perhaps the mods could just post links to new threads on nxtcointalk? that way anyone that mainly uses btt can keep this thread in there watch list to keep up to date with new nxtcointalk threads?
If the thread here is locked, it's locked for good.
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
Do you wanna say the developers are not working on Nxt? Wow
OK, everybody, your favorite dictator rickyjames here, flapping my gums wildly once more.
We've coming up on 2500 pages on this Bitcointalk thread. What an accomplishment!!! Woo Hoo!!!
We have a new forum that is Our Very Own at nxtforum.org . Go ahead, enter it into your address bar of your browser, it works and it's a Simple Machine forum just like this one at Bitcointalk. You'll feel right at home.
I've created a thread there called NXT Pub Thread - 2500 More Pages Here Or Bust
http://107.170.117.237/index.php/topic,91.0.html
I propose that 2Kewl lock this thread at page 2500 and we do a mass migration over there.
It would be nice, neat, poetic closure. And a new beginning.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQbLz7AoYc
C'mon, everybody. Think Nike. Just do it.
+1We've coming up on 2500 pages on this Bitcointalk thread. What an accomplishment!!! Woo Hoo!!!
We have a new forum that is Our Very Own at nxtforum.org . Go ahead, enter it into your address bar of your browser, it works and it's a Simple Machine forum just like this one at Bitcointalk. You'll feel right at home.
I've created a thread there called NXT Pub Thread - 2500 More Pages Here Or Bust
http://107.170.117.237/index.php/topic,91.0.html
I propose that 2Kewl lock this thread at page 2500 and we do a mass migration over there.
It would be nice, neat, poetic closure. And a new beginning.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQbLz7AoYc
C'mon, everybody. Think Nike. Just do it.
www.nxtforum.org
Some guy from Mastercoin says about Nxt "Their proof of stake algorithm for consensus depends on developer checkpoints so without the developers it doesn't work"
Any comments from developers?
OK, everybody, your favorite dictator rickyjames here, flapping my gums wildly once more.
We've coming up on 2500 pages on this Bitcointalk thread. What an accomplishment!!! Woo Hoo!!!
We have a new forum that is Our Very Own at nxtforum.org . Go ahead, enter it into your address bar of your browser, it works and it's a Simple Machine forum just like this one at Bitcointalk. You'll feel right at home.
I've created a thread there called NXT Pub Thread - 2500 More Pages Here Or Bust
http://107.170.117.237/index.php/topic,91.0.html
I propose that 2Kool lock this thread at page 2500 and we do a mass migration over there.
It would be nice, neat, poetic closure. And a new beginning.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQbLz7AoYc
C'mon, everybody. Think Nike. Just do it.
We've coming up on 2500 pages on this Bitcointalk thread. What an accomplishment!!! Woo Hoo!!!
We have a new forum that is Our Very Own at nxtforum.org . Go ahead, enter it into your address bar of your browser, it works and it's a Simple Machine forum just like this one at Bitcointalk. You'll feel right at home.
I've created a thread there called NXT Pub Thread - 2500 More Pages Here Or Bust
http://107.170.117.237/index.php/topic,91.0.html
I propose that 2Kool lock this thread at page 2500 and we do a mass migration over there.
It would be nice, neat, poetic closure. And a new beginning.
Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUQbLz7AoYc
C'mon, everybody. Think Nike. Just do it.
SSL is needed to ensure that javascript client is not manipulated during transmission
Right. But the user is getting the javascript from nxtra.org, which I presume is under Wesley's control. If so, user has to trust him (and still use SSL so it is not modified in transit), but he already is trusting him that the client he maintains is not malicious.Now, if there is a copy of Wesley's javascript available for example at https://wallet.nxtcrypto.org, which is not under Wesley's control, we are back to where we started, the user has to absolutely trust the owner of nxtcrypto.org, as indeed even the javascript could have been modified.
I have a bug report!
This is happening, since I can remember.
If I unlock an account at the node, the blocks are always kept updated. (0.7.x+)
But if I unlock more than one account, the blocks are retarded and need to restart every 24 hours to be updated.
I'll make logs, so they can see if something special happens.
Greetings!
This is happening, since I can remember.
If I unlock an account at the node, the blocks are always kept updated. (0.7.x+)
But if I unlock more than one account, the blocks are retarded and need to restart every 24 hours to be updated.
I'll make logs, so they can see if something special happens.
Greetings!
I'll would create a topic on the new official forum to avoid lost track of your bug. It is messy here and not the place to post bug:
http://107.170.117.237/index.php
I have a bug report!
This is happening, since I can remember.
If I unlock an account at the node, the blocks are always kept updated. (0.7.x+)
But if I unlock more than one account, the blocks are retarded and need to restart every 24 hours to be updated.
I'll make logs, so they can see if something special happens.
Greetings!
This is happening, since I can remember.
If I unlock an account at the node, the blocks are always kept updated. (0.7.x+)
But if I unlock more than one account, the blocks are retarded and need to restart every 24 hours to be updated.
I'll make logs, so they can see if something special happens.
Greetings!
Jump to: