Hello guys,
on m'a dit de participer au topic. Donc je le fais.
Le Weekend, il faut boire des bières et sortir. Ca permet de ne pas se prendre la tête. Ça permet même d'avoir des idées de business pour NXT.
Keep cool. And have fun !
Ludom
PS : for the non frenchspeakers, Google translate is your friend
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 336. (Read 2761645 times)
James, please send me a PM documenting in one place how much from NXTcommunityfund you want to go to who.
88888 blocks reached!
But you are talking about trusting the other part you deal with,not an intermediary or someone who holds your money.It is your responsability who you make deals with.
good point
Hello, my name is James.
I rebooted and feeling much better
Thanks to all the generous donators!! I am feeling very optimistic today.
For all the controversy the "coin that shall not be named" has created, at least people now are seeing NXT for what it can do. The idea of a middlecoin that pays out in NXT is a very good one. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5694336
I authorize 20,000 NXT from NXTcommunityfunds for this bounty.
I would also like to authorize 50,000 NXT to wesleyh for his fantastic web GUI. With matching amounts up to another 50,000 NXT for any directed donations to NXTcommunityfunds for him. Just send donation to 13776816462073143763 , post txid, amount and that its for wesley.
We need more testing. The first of the testing bounties:
antanst should get 10000 NXT for crashing testnet
l8orre should get 5000 NXT for making freerider that will help others crash testnet
James
I rebooted and feeling much better
Thanks to all the generous donators!! I am feeling very optimistic today.
For all the controversy the "coin that shall not be named" has created, at least people now are seeing NXT for what it can do. The idea of a middlecoin that pays out in NXT is a very good one. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5694336
I authorize 20,000 NXT from NXTcommunityfunds for this bounty.
I would also like to authorize 50,000 NXT to wesleyh for his fantastic web GUI. With matching amounts up to another 50,000 NXT for any directed donations to NXTcommunityfunds for him. Just send donation to 13776816462073143763 , post txid, amount and that its for wesley.
We need more testing. The first of the testing bounties:
antanst should get 10000 NXT for crashing testnet
l8orre should get 5000 NXT for making freerider that will help others crash testnet
James
Hey james, thanks a ton for your recommendation! I haven't asked for it, but it would of course be fantastic to receive this amount as I have put a ton of work in my client already
Thanks again.
All of NXT benefits from an easy to use client.
I estimate that it easily boosts the value of NXT by 2%, realistically a lot more as it brings NXT to the mass website using public. How many people use websites, but are not comfortable with downloading software, loading blockchain, etc.?
The 50,000 NXT is around 2% of NXTcommunityfund
NXT peoples, lets reward people who deliver software that boosts the value of NXT. This will set a good precedent and show others that if they deliver software that boosts NXT, the NXT community will reward accordingly. It is this message that I want to reinforce.
James
Huh, at the end it allways come down to a matter of trust...
But you are talking about trusting the other part you deal with,not an intermediary or someone who holds your money.It is your responsability who you make deals with.
I am assuming that it is possible to configure firewalls to only accept incoming connections on specific ports to a list of specific IP addresses.
Could somebody confirm (or deny) this assumption?
I want to create a set of guardian servers that are the only ones that accept connections from random clients. The servers that actually do the "money" work, would only accept incoming connections from these guardian servers. This would isolate the pool (and multigateway) servers from the internet and I think provide good protection.
This way, we can make doing a Ddos attack require attacking all of the guardian servers. Since these guardian servers really only need to run a very small validation and relay layer, there is no reason the work of the guardian servers couldnt be spread across a large number of servers. Not quite fully decentralized, but a lot less vulnerable than having a single pool server.
James
Could somebody confirm (or deny) this assumption?
I want to create a set of guardian servers that are the only ones that accept connections from random clients. The servers that actually do the "money" work, would only accept incoming connections from these guardian servers. This would isolate the pool (and multigateway) servers from the internet and I think provide good protection.
This way, we can make doing a Ddos attack require attacking all of the guardian servers. Since these guardian servers really only need to run a very small validation and relay layer, there is no reason the work of the guardian servers couldnt be spread across a large number of servers. Not quite fully decentralized, but a lot less vulnerable than having a single pool server.
James
yes, any hardware based firewall or freebsd/linux pf/iptables can do this
I dont want to mess with iptables, but I will write the software so it is easy to figure out what the approved connection paths are
James
You still have to trust the employees. So never truly trust-less.
Also don't get fooled into thinking that having a company's balance sheet assets kept on AE would be a silver bullet. Companies are worth way more than their book value, and even book value has such vague assets as "goodwill" which cannot be liquidated.
Also don't get fooled into thinking that having a company's balance sheet assets kept on AE would be a silver bullet. Companies are worth way more than their book value, and even book value has such vague assets as "goodwill" which cannot be liquidated.
I suppose you could reduce the need for trust if the company used NXT's voting system for the shareholder votes and if the majority of the company's balance sheet assets were held on the AE platform.
If I am not completely mistaken, complete trust-removable can be achieved when the company is a DAC. The only thing you need to trust/check are the algorithms.
Huh, at the end it allways come down to a matter of trust...
I suppose you could reduce the need for trust if the company used NXT's voting system for the shareholder votes and if the majority of the company's balance sheet assets were held on the AE platform.
Now, that would be gamechanger...
Huh, at the end it allways come down to a matter of trust...
I suppose you could reduce the need for trust if the company used NXT's voting system for the shareholder votes and if the majority of the company's balance sheet assets were held on the AE platform.
It looks like there should be good connection in the wallet between Assets <-> Messages <-> Voting in one "package" to cover all these needs around buying shares and be able to comunicate and vote directly with the firm.
I'm talking about client side in memory (in the user's browser in my case).
As I said, prepareBytes also validates server side. It checks to see if the asset you are placing an order for exists, if you have enough money to pay for that asset etc.. If you try to sell, it checks to see if you have enough if the asset exists, if you have enough of the asset to sell of, etc.. As you can see, prepareBytes takes just 1 API request, whereas another client would have to do multiple (check if asset exists, check if enough of asset to sell, etc). If the client does not do error validation this it will always think it returns successfully (broadcastTransaction does not verify).
So I am dumbfounded as why you would want to disable this, since it may actually result in _less_ api calls. Also I think there should be no made up words like "ultralight" and "light" clients.
As I said, prepareBytes also validates server side. It checks to see if the asset you are placing an order for exists, if you have enough money to pay for that asset etc.. If you try to sell, it checks to see if you have enough if the asset exists, if you have enough of the asset to sell of, etc.. As you can see, prepareBytes takes just 1 API request, whereas another client would have to do multiple (check if asset exists, check if enough of asset to sell, etc). If the client does not do error validation this it will always think it returns successfully (broadcastTransaction does not verify).
So I am dumbfounded as why you would want to disable this, since it may actually result in _less_ api calls. Also I think there should be no made up words like "ultralight" and "light" clients.
oh well in that case the original question doesnt apply if the client doesnt sync the blockchain and actually forge. And I do see your point now on less server load - that does make sense. I do still like the ultralight term for a client though, especially since now it seems like not so bad of a thing anyways.
Huh, at the end it allways come down to a matter of trust...
Of course.
But you can choose whom you trust.
Huh, at the end it allways come down to a matter of trust...
That is correct. However, there is no jurisdiction backing up his claim.
If a company doing an IPO on NXT isn't legally incorporated in a state or country, I'd stay the hell away from that investment.
Yep.
That is correct. However, there is no jurisdiction backing up his claim.
If a company doing an IPO on NXT isn't legally incorporated in a state or country, I'd stay the hell away from that investment.
And even that will not save you from potential lossess. Just look at MtGox.
But you have to take the risk if you want to make big money. Otherwise put your money on a bank account, that´s pretty safe, yet.
That is correct. However, there is no jurisdiction backing up his claim.
If a company doing an IPO on NXT isn't legally incorporated in a state or country, I'd stay the hell away from that investment.
Everything else is pure speculation.
+1440
Only risk what you can afford to loose.
If some firm will sell shares in Nxt Asset Exchange and I will buy 20% of the shares. Then how would I know that the same firm won't sell the same shares in another asset exchange platform? Then I will end up with 10% .. 5% .. 1% shares for example in no time.
No way to know this, you must trust them...
Not exactly. As a shareholder you should be able to vote on such matters. This isn't always the case, as some companies have different classes of equity which have different voting rights, or some companies are majority owned by a few insiders.
You should only invest in companies where you have the insight what´s going on. You should only invest in COMPANIES not in "projects" and not in "people" who have great ideas as they most probably will run away with your money.
We are planning to use the Nxt Asset Exchange to sell shares in the new project our company is going to work on. We are a registered company, the owners are known, the management is known, we will be available for Q&A and and will provide a business plan as well as our financial results so far. I think this is the minimum someone should provide before asking for investment. Everything else is pure speculation.
Edit: we are currently in the process of working out how it would be possible to have a contract between our investors and us, enabling them to stay anonymous.
Jump to: