Author

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1736. (Read 2761645 times)

full member
Activity: 266
Merit: 100
NXT is the future
Nxt Client for Android -- 0.5.0 Updated 2014.1.9

New feature:
Alias assign/check
You can check a alias, see if it was registered by other people.
Assign a new alias or update the uri of your alias.
All transactions are encrypted in local.


https://nextcoin.org/index.php/topic,797.0.html

This is a project that deserves a donation from the fund, not a link aggregator that's just a copy of already finished app for another cryptos, where for some strange reason he didn't need 25 BTC (0.00005 BTC per NXT) to complete and release them - I'm sorry but I had to say something as it seems ridiculous to me (I'm talking about this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4383060 just for NXT Wink)

Don't get me wrong, I understand that the community needs as much projects as possible, I just can't understand why would anyone give so much NXT for this "app" when there are actually other projects that are truly made for the community not just because of a bounty.

+1. Maco is creating a clone Nxt Android app that he will look the same as several others he's created.  I won't be supporting and I don't like his bounty/hostage mentality either.

+1
full member
Activity: 266
Merit: 100
NXT is the future
Guys, I want maco to get rewarded full for his project from the 13M unclaimed coins.

If not I will stop promoting too and just pay my dev team (mainly to get experience so we can get involved in other projects too in the future).

Me, bybitcoin and 2-3 other stakeholders are the only ones paying for bounties atm.

What about BCNext? And the other stakeholders? Not to mention the 75M of Graviton to whom we must feel obliged of course because he is still in loss from the dgex business...

I don't like this..

+1 Thanks for your support Klee!! I am trying to release the app for everyone... but its like I am not motivated really... You are the main mover for this (which is backed by bybitcoin as well).. and nifty for 1k.. no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app

Screenshots for the (unreleased Preview) of the NXT Mobile/Tablet Applications
http://imgur.com/a/7qbOd


Could you release the app for 250k ? I could probaly persuade some others to chip in. 500k is too much, imho.


I second this, the logo's are outdated, and the app is the same creation as for all the other alt-coins.

Pin
hero member
Activity: 1039
Merit: 507
If only we could figure out if this is a dogecoin app or nxt app.
^
 Grin he supports all sides in this coin war

I'm guessing making an app is almost as easy as making a bitcoin copy&paste knock off, just with a little more pasting... I may be wrong though.. but gotta assume by now there has to be dozens if not hundreds of easy app guides out there;brb

edit
15-30k for an app?  Roll Eyes I needa quit my day job
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1001
... no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app
- what is your Nxt account # ?
I'll donate a little
Think you should release it and afterwards profit some,,, maybe..?

Yes, exactly. Do it because you want to. Not because you expect something. This witholding until you get payment business isn't a popular tactic.  Prove its worth first. Release it and let the community decide. If it's a solid piece,  then you can be sure the compensation will come.

Yeah. There are lots of unclaimed coins and CfB said we can start a poll to decide who gets bounty and how much that would be. So just make the community happy and you'll be rewarded.
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
Total badass, low-cost, always on, client / hallmark node for the home:



Dual-Core ARM, 2Gig RAM, 8Gig fast Flash onboard, GigEthernet, sub-100$
http://docs.cubieboard.org/products/start#cubietruck_cubieboard3

Curious, where can you get one for under $100? And how hard would it be to set up a node on it?

I have ordered it last night and I will get it in hand tomorrow.

Presently I am running a Raspberry PI node, however, it's very slow, especially I need to VNC connection to launch the browser to unlock the account to forge. As some guy may know, some special characters including "(" can't be handled with curl to call the API in the linux console.

CT(cubietrunk) has 2G memory. It should be fast.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
... no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app
- what is your Nxt account # ?
I'll donate a little
Think you should release it and afterwards profit some,,, maybe..?

Yes, exactly. Do it because you want to. Not because you expect something. This witholding until you get payment business isn't a popular tactic.  Prove its worth first. Release it and let the community decide. If it's a solid piece,  then you can be sure the compensation will come.
If only we could figure out if this is a dogecoin app or nxt app.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4383060

Almost smells like a scam... charge an insanely high price for something he just cloned? Are we sure he even has it? (Didn't check if the doge one was ever completed, anyone know?)
legendary
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
... no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app
- what is your Nxt account # ?
I'll donate a little
Think you should release it and afterwards profit some,,, maybe..?

Yes, exactly. Do it because you want to. Not because you expect something. This witholding until you get payment business isn't a popular tactic.  Prove its worth first. Release it and let the community decide. If it's a solid piece,  then you can be sure the compensation will come.
If only we could figure out if this is a dogecoin app or nxt app.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4383060
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
As i understand it the signing is handled by a c++ library.

(one that i cant get to work for the life of me and its making me want to pull my hair out)

I was referring to how our passphrase gets stored in Java memory in certain situations, but I probably didn't get it out right.

From the way I have understood it... even if we were able to unlock so that we forge with this second block signing key, the existing security threat with Java memory and our current passphrases will remain the same.

No biggie if I am missing something... my NXT friends will clear the fog quick!!!   Cheesy

Ok so if there is a leak, that would only effect transactions. Using your account to forge would pose no risk. The block signing key would probably be stored in plaintext honestly because no one would have any incentive to want to steal it so long as there was rule saying that tx fees must be payed to the address holding the stake.
hero member
Activity: 1039
Merit: 507
... no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app
- what is your Nxt account # ?
I'll donate a little
Think you should release it and afterwards profit some,,, maybe..?
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1038
... no one else is helping me obtain more NXT so I can release this app
- what is your Nxt account # ?
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

+1... but the security threat will still be there because of the infamous Java memory issues in regard to transaction signing.   Undecided

But hey... I wouldn't mind being able to use my block signing key independently AT ALL!   Wink

As i understand it the signing is handled by a c++ library.

(one that i cant get to work for the life of me and its making me want to pull my hair out)
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

I completely agree with this. I have 8,000,000 NXT i'm too scared to leave up on a computer....

i found it! 13695941894527713484  Grin very impressive horde.
legendary
Activity: 896
Merit: 1006
First 100% Liquid Stablecoin Backed by Gold
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

This is an interesting idea, let's discuss it and implement if it's really good, the whole community should take part in the discussion. No need to ask BCNext, Jean-Luc or me.
It always felt sort of right that some were willing to risk forging and therefore got that reward for doing it and some could chose not to risk it and keep coins cold so to speak.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 505
The Last NXT Founder
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

I completely agree with this. I have 8,000,000 NXT i'm too scared to leave up on a computer....
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

This is an interesting idea, let's discuss it and implement if it's really good, the whole community should take part in the discussion. No need to ask BCNext, Jean-Luc or me.

The big drawback is that would reduce the total number of transactions that could fit in a block. I wonder how significant the impact would be.
full member
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
Total badass, low-cost, always on, client / hallmark node for the home:



Dual-Core ARM, 2Gig RAM, 8Gig fast Flash onboard, GigEthernet, sub-100$
http://docs.cubieboard.org/products/start#cubietruck_cubieboard3

Curious, where can you get one for under $100? And how hard would it be to set up a node on it?
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.

This is an interesting idea, let's discuss it and implement if it's really good, the whole community should take part in the discussion. No need to ask BCNext, Jean-Luc or me.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.

What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.

perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.
hero member
Activity: 600
Merit: 500
Nxt-kit developer
How about peer cleaning? Now I have 800 active peers. It is too much for my little node

1380 active peers.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
How do I look up a NxT address to see how much NxT that person has?

http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=1

Jump to: