Topic: NXT innovation -gets a special mention at the end of my Crypto educational Blog - page 4. (Read 9114 times)

I posted a link......thats all. How on earth, are you reading anything more into it? You need a holiday.

Have you been socialising with bluemeanie 

If there's one thing I learned from this forum, its that there's absolutely no association between intelligence and wealth anymore. Maybe there was at one point, but now they have become decoupled and there is no correlation here anymore.

Just because you have money, it doesn't mean you are smart... simplified it for all the self-proclaimed rich people out there

You're starting to get seriously incoherent, Di.

you might be able to comment more - but i see it as a great code of "none essential stuff"  somewhere between   web front and something that you don't care if the "NSA" has a million back door in? 

Java is the perfect language for mediocre programmers. It's easy to find programmers who can produce working code, a bit like Visual Basic if you knew it... Ask in the developers forums what they think about Java, so many programmers hate it.

There's a lot of bad code but it's not a problem because Java allows you to produce bad code that you can't do in C and C++.

But Java is really easy to make and maintain extremely large enterprise applications, that's why it's popular and many enterprise projects are done in Java but many enterprise projects were done in Visual Basic too, no it's not a reference...

well KindlyDan  you see i run them all though virus total first and then make sure they are on a useless system.

https://www.virustotal.com/ro/url/c6bd5bd5a69c0607011a7bba0b890d9eac0b55fe5fbe1117a9ac5d1ce7990d04/analysis/1404249592/

this one comes up the goods - its nothing personal you know , its a NXT thing.

Good piece.....should be required reading.

http://bitscan.com/articles/what-are-you-trying-to-prove

um.. who are you talking to?

are you still talking to me?

yes i agree it up to the market to decide if the 1 Billion to 73 "shareholders" + plus made up own exchange, is a good system or not.

that's what you said and that's what i said.

so you see , we said the same thing WE ARE FRIENDS YOU AND I !  : D WE ARE INTERNET FRIENDS !

IMO, the devs are entitled to do what the hell they like and the market's equally entitled to deny that coin a valuation if it's unhappy with the asset or if it thinks the asset lacks financial integrity for any reason.

Ethics doesn't come into it as long as deception hasn't taken place.

If the dev kept all the coins for himself while "pretending" to the market that they were sold to genuine 3rd parties then that would constitute deception and would be a problem, but you'd need to come up with some evidence of it.

Also, at the time the IPO took place, the coins weren't worth anything, so all this stuff we're discussing now would have been hypothetical back then.

I encourage you to update this thread and your blog with Nxt progress.  I appreciate all your work to promote Nxt, keep it up digitalindustry!

What your basically saying is that in a reasonable POW difficulty profile, the dev cannot "create" the coins out of thin air - 3rd parties have to "draw" it into existence and, as such, are subject to the 1 CPU 1 vote rule. Whereas with NXT, the dev basically mined the whole lot himself and sold them off for "peanuts" to early adopters (and possibly keeping a whole pile for himself) which makes a mockery of the POW philosophy.

What I'm saying is that it's for the market to decide if that's ok or not because - even in the case of POW - only the market can give those coins value.

If the market gives the coin a valuation over the long term, then you've got to look again at your reasoning because you either got something wrong somewhere, or your simply not looking at it in a broad enough context (and last but not least - you might just be green with envy).

The reason this aspect of it is important is because your judging a historical event on the basis of a current valuation which is where your "scam" accusation lacks integrity. At the time the NXT IPO took place, the altcoin world was a whole different landscape. LTC had been trading for less than a dollar only weeks before and "2nd Gen" alts were unheard of - no more than a bedroom coding experiment.

If you're going to lay "blame" on anyone (not that I know even now what crime has been committed to justify blame, but you seem to sure have a problem with it) then blame the markets, not the devs. Without the markets this would all have been no more than a 21 BTC bench test prototype and you definitely WOULD have a scam on your hands because those stakeholders would have turned bagholders. As it is they did pretty well out of to and so has everyone since that invested. If you're saying that the 71 were all "in on it" then:

a) you'd better have some evidence of it given the amount of accusations you've let fly

b) your better start a list because there's a few thousand more where those 71 came from and they've all benefitted to a greater or lesser extent

trust me its a term of endearment, not an insult, socks a furry and cuddly.

so this conversation is over then?

"It's a matter of opinion whether it's "ok" or not."

It's a matter of opinion whether it's "ok" or not.

What it categorically isn't is a "scam".


Feel free to check my posting history of you think I'm a "sockpuppet". That isn't much of challenge given that you've spent a significant acrage of forum space over to maligning, without much basis, a perfectly good crypto currency project which now has the input of hundreds of creative hands and is traded fairly on the open market.

indeed my rational sock puppet friend.  is it ok if i call you that?  it seems like "EvilDave" was the "friendly" sock puppet the other one was the "threatening" one ha ha, and you are the "rationalizing" one?

so you are trying to "rationalize" that :

1 Billion NXT units given to 73 addresses is ok?

BLOCK    :   2680262203532249785
Timestamp   :   24.11.2013 13:00:00
Height   :   0
Next Block   :   6556228577102711328
Previous Block   :   0
Pay Load Length   :   9344 B
Num. Transactions   :   73
Total Fee   :   0
Base Target   :   100.00 %
Total Amount   :   1,000,000,000 NXT
Generator Account   :   1739068987193023818
Generator RS    :   NXT-MRCC-2YLS-8M54-3CMAJ
Version   :   -1
Perma Link   :   Show
Block SIgnature : 69d426c498b70ac6d1678180356527c1fee030ad732fbf7672c2266d166a4c08cf8fdeb4524fd1b 496bbcaab03fa6e67760f6da452251402249015486c487211
Generation Signature : 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Previous Block Hash : n/a
Payload Hash : 72c8a92efffbd8695a866eabb13ca460a2f7cdf3283b82efb163360d6eec9469

what i'm saying is that PoW distribution that tries to adhere to the "one CPU one Vote" principal obviously avoids this sort of obvious scam.

you are trying to somehow confuse and "Rationalize" in PoS - where i'm not talking about PoS at all, its flawed indeed but thats not what is at issue here.

i'm talking about making 1 Billion units of something and "fake" giving it to yourself.  then doubling down and making your own exchange (Wall St Style) and bidding it up.

i was wondering when you would come to that ?

by replying, you are bumping the topic to the top of the front page and thus exposing your scam to many more people, this is not the best way to conduct a scam.

a gypsy trick like this one will need to be much better hidden.

Sakoshi Nakamoto said that, and I don't have any problem with it. It is the philosophy that underpins the Proof of Work algo, but it doesn't underpin the basis of money in general.

That's where we possibly differ.

POS coins are no different from plastic tokens at a funfair - valueless until adopted as an accepted token of monetary exchange, at which point they acquire monetary value, just the same as any other token would whether it be a tally stick, funfair token, govpaper, or chewing gum card.

If you're saying that the fact that POS breaks the one CPU one vote principle is the basis for your accusation of "scam", then I think you're on very weak ground, for 2 reasons:

 - that principle only applies in the domain of POW crypto currencies
 - the common understanding of the word "scam" is an unequal exchange. i.e. I take your money and in exchange give you a commodity of significantly less value that you are **not able to trade away**

That's where I think you are unjustified in maligning other cryptocurrencies on this basis, because this is demonstrably not the case and has never been so.

Why the fuck am I wasting my time reading you guys in this thread? (I already put digitalindustry on ignore)

@Toknormal,

Why did you waste your time elaborating such a nice post in the thread created by a mentally ill individual? Did you see his answer to it? Hope you learn the lesson...

BTW, why the fuck I am wasting my time right now? 

i'm happy with "sudo" but thanks for the tip ! i will fix that! 

now maybe i can help you learn? :

"one CPU one vote"

who said it?