happy to be on it if you're so blind that you cannot see the problem with this. If you ask 10k people to set up an account what number of them will use no password or their first name as a password? The silly software will then merrily send their coins to someone else.
Don't get emotionally involved with your coin choice.
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 53. (Read 2761629 times)
No password = no account number. How is that not simple in software?
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
Just follow the security advise on the site. It clearly says 30 digits password.
Noone was able to lose his coins in a way like you. It is your fault for not double checking if you entered the right password..
Fine, I'm stupid. Can we move on now?
WHY DOES THE SOFTWARE SHOW AN ACCOUNT NUMBER THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Because you entered a passcode that belongs to someone else.
That will happen thousands of times over globally. Think man. There needs to be more safeguards than a simple password.
Don't think I'm getting through to you guys. This system as it stands will not work for mass adoption. There are people far far dumber than me that will try this software.
No password = no account number. How is that not simple in software?
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
Just follow the security advise on the site. It clearly says 30 digits password.
Noone was able to lose his coins in a way like you. It is your fault for not double checking if you entered the right password..
Fine, I'm stupid. Can we move on now?
WHY DOES THE SOFTWARE SHOW AN ACCOUNT NUMBER THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE?!?
Because you entered a passcode that belongs to someone else. In this case, you didn't enter a password and the account # that was shown was associated with that account. When you open a Nxt wallet you have a passcode that generates your Account #. Why wouldn't you write down your Account # and verify before sending Nxt?
No password = no account number. How is that not simple in software?
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
Just follow the security advise on the site. It clearly says 30 digits password.
Noone was able to lose his coins in a way like you. It is your fault for not double checking if you entered the right password..
Fine, I'm stupid. Can we move on now?
WHY DOES THE SOFTWARE SHOW AN ACCOUNT NUMBER THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE?!?
No password = no account number. How is that not simple in software?
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship. That should've been found and weeded out last year.
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship. That should've been found and weeded out last year.
But it is not "no password", it's more an "empty password" as so still a "password".
No password = no account number. How is that not simple in software?
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship.
Just follow the security advise on the site. It clearly says 30 digits password.
Noone was able to lose his coins in a way like you. It is your fault for not double checking if you entered the right password..
No password = no account number. How is that not simple in software?
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship. That should've been found and weeded out last year.
If john smith for instance uses his name as his password(not smart) the chances that someone else has used that password increases exponentially with adoption, but the software won't warn the 37th john smith of that and will merrily send john smith(#1) all of the other john smith's coins. Correct?
This system sucks. If this basic stuff hasn't been worked out in april of 2014 then these programmers are knuckleheads and everyone should abandon ship. That should've been found and weeded out last year.
Yes copy and pasted got it wrong and I just happen to have sent 1593 from cryptsy yesterday and that less 1 in transaction fees was sent by cryptsy.
This thing is a failure. Total failure. Bye guys, thanks for the help. RUN. AWAY. This thing will never ever work for mass adoption. Those are the first coins of any type I've ever had stolen and I have a dozen blockchains downloaded. Grandma won't have a clue what hit her.
This thing is a failure. Total failure. Bye guys, thanks for the help. RUN. AWAY. This thing will never ever work for mass adoption. Those are the first coins of any type I've ever had stolen and I have a dozen blockchains downloaded. Grandma won't have a clue what hit her.
well that's too bad, it should be your fault if you didn't double check, if you tried to do a international wire transfer and put a wrong account account no. you won't get it back, and you won't have anyone to blame.
crypto is new stuff and still in development, its not really super user friendly at this stage, i would have tried sending 1nxt just for testing it out first, unless i don't care if i had lost 1,000nxt then i would have send 1,000 at first try..
if its a account collision then its a whole different story but i doubt this is what happened.
Actually, Reed Solomon format (if we had implemented it yet) would have saved him from copyi and pastie error.
Once again, basic must to do stuff is very slow in coming,
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
It warns you clearly by telling you "that a too short passphrase will result in your coins stolen".
I have personally verified this a minute ago.
...then it boldly displays someone else's account number. Brilliant.
Seriously, this is a grade school programming error. I wouldn't trust the author of this software with a dime.
No, it has been programmed on purpose.
The idea behind the whole this is, that account numbers are not connected to your computer, but connected to your password. This way you can use NXT from any public computer on the go spontaneously, without having to import/export any keys whatsoever.
Every password has it's unique account number attached to it.
If you pick a short passwort (or no password) other people will be able to guess it, and take your coins.
That's exactly why you are adviced (clearly in text form) to use a very strong password, that nobody else will ever guess or type in by accident.
But I agree with you: This point must be made clearer in the software, maybe some gauge should be used to indicate the currently typed in password strength, etc.
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
It warns you clearly by telling you "that a too short passphrase will result in your coins stolen".
I have personally verified this a minute ago.
...then it boldly displays someone else's account number. Brilliant.
Seriously, this is a grade school programming error. I wouldn't trust the author of this software with a dime.
They weren't stolen though. They were sent to someone else because next software sucks.
Absolutely stupid that the software would display someone else's account number on my screen as though it were mine. This will not test well amongst the uninitiated.
Keep up with the cognitive dissonance guys, this is a serious problem with this software if you ever expect mass adoption. If months of testing hasn't made this plainly obvious, then just run away.
Absolutely stupid that the software would display someone else's account number on my screen as though it were mine. This will not test well amongst the uninitiated.
Keep up with the cognitive dissonance guys, this is a serious problem with this software if you ever expect mass adoption. If months of testing hasn't made this plainly obvious, then just run away.
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
We should put this guy on our dev team, he's obviously a genius and has found a new bug that not even a child has yet to discover.
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
It warns you clearly by telling you "that a too short passphrase will result in your coins stolen".
I have personally verified this a minute ago.
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
I, for one, subscribe to Darwinism. Frankly, society protects the inept from themselves too much. Pay attention to what it is you're doing. Sheesh.
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
How would the software know that it needs to warn you?
The account without a passphrase is a valid account.
FOR ALL OF THE NEWCOMERS - WE HAVE MOVED TO A NEW FORUM!
https://nxtforum.org/
JUST SO YOU DON'T GET DISCOURAGED BY LOOKING AT THIS THREAD.
DEVELOPMENT IS STILL GOING ON!!
https://nxtforum.org/
JUST SO YOU DON'T GET DISCOURAGED BY LOOKING AT THIS THREAD.
DEVELOPMENT IS STILL GOING ON!!
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
What was your password? Which software did you use?
Why doesn't the software just warn you and *NOT* show an account number? How would I know it's someone elses?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
This is the most rudimentary of safeguards we're talking about. People have been bashing on btc for not being simple enough for the uninitiated for years, yet btc 2.0 is even worse?!?
Why does the software allow that?!? Why does the software show an account number then?
This is not an evolution of bitcoin if it lacks even that basic safeguard. Hasn't this thing been around for months?!?
This is not an evolution of bitcoin if it lacks even that basic safeguard. Hasn't this thing been around for months?!?
Jump to: