No coin days,  so miners can game the system since with what they call 'transparent mining'  they know beforehand if it is there turn to mine,  so they can move around their coins to the miner that is going to get its turn.

So to game this system, you have a bunch of say N miners and then you have a balance of M that you move around to the miner that will be mining next. So effectively you get N*M more profitability.

I'm sorry, but it's too dangerous to accept burns from just any ol' client: counterpartyd is extremely strict when it comes to how it constructs its transactions so there is no ambiguity in how any given transaction should be interpreted. I would really like to avoid facing the problems that other projects have come up against that are a consequence of having a poorly defined protocol. The Counterparty team is working hard on getting some trusted members of the community on board who would be willing to buy XCP on your behalf. For now, if you can't get counterpartyd running yourself, you'll have to wait to invest.

I've disabled that feature for now, as it opens up a whole can of worms. (How can Bitcoind still not have coin control?!)

EDIT: Seriously, though, sorry for the mixed messages. I was being overeager.

The latter.

Two different projects with different approaches.

Scheme, proposed by BCNext, is a straightforward simulation of PoW. Each coin is just a small mining rig. Other PoS schemes work in other way and require workarounds based on PoW.

I agree that these are fundamental questions, and are the only reason why I wanted to look into the code, or have some specifications. This coin advertises itself as the first 100% proof-of-stake system, without revealing anything about how they solved the problems that prevented others to create one.

Looking into the code I couldn't find anything addressing the usual concerns about 100% PoS. (or is this one of the "injected" bugs? the part of the code securing PoS is simply missing?)

Answer to (1) is pretty much the same as Bitcoin: it just builds a chain of blocks, stores everything, cross-checks new blocks with old ones. It adds some spin to how accounts and public keys are stored, but there is no real innovation here.

(2) and (3) are more interesting. The algorithms seems to be the straightforward PoS: From the previous block it creates a hash. Each second it creates a (hash('time elapsed since last block' ,  'own account key') * 'amount of coins on account') which it calls "target", and that determines whether the account has the right to create a new block or not. Additionally 'amount of coins' is zeroed out if the account has created a block within the last 1440 blocks.

I spent only around 30 mins reading the code, so at this point there are three options:
- There are somewhere else some additional rules to make the scheme actually secure that I haven't found.
- This is one of the purposefully injected bugs.
- The PoS is insecure and doesn't even attempt to address the issues that prompted the creators of other coins (such as peercoin) to also incorporate PoW to fix the shortcoming of PoS.

I agree w/ most of your points, but if the code quality is not good, any flaws can be exploited, you don't have find the one he injected.

Next few weeks will be interesting to watch, I keep my fingers crossed for those with high stakes in NXT.

Among other things. As someone who has a nice amount of money invested in Nxt, I'm not that happy this days about how many thing going with Nxt.
But screaming at the devs without offering anything constructive, is less than pointless, unless he have an agenda.
And if I remember correctly, it's not even the first time he seen the code, he posted last week on btt and on reddit already about it, after he decompiled it.
So this is pretty much rehearsed bashing.

Don't worry FreaktionLess I have hired some of the best developers (who happen to be my friends too) to make this brilliant innovative algorithm into a real software project (along of course with Jean-Luc who is the leader dev atm).

See you around I hope to review their code too

So your are admiting that this indeed is not the 'real source code' but some variant of it that doesn't really work.

I thought the purpose of releasing source code is to have other people to review if it is correct.

Well... I may just create a much better NXT.   Something that

(1) Has a very clear specification of the distributed consensus algorithm that people can review for flaws.
(2) Follow best practice Java coding standards.
(3) Gone through extensive static code analysis.
(4) Have a battery of unit tests to exhaustive test out the code.
(5) Ensure that tests perform 100% test coverage.

but unfortunately none of that exists for NXT.   It is just a high school project that some folks invested 21 BTC to get a stake on it.

I normally don't call people trolls, but:

1) It is clear you have not been following anything related to NXT. Injected flaws (in an otherwise working base code) with bounty payouts is meant to encourage people to take a very hard look a the code. Also, read the 1st post again, c-f-b explained this.
2) Bashing how "clean" the code looks. Really? If you're so good at this, why didn't you come up with a better NXT first? It's probably because you can't (hence you have to fork NXT's code... how ironic).

True, though a bit off topic for this thread.

I do hope CfB (or one of the developers) will answer him.

But he is having some valid points.

Ah, if u need only distributed consensus algorithm then u could read about Bitcoin's algo. They r the same.

Ok... so if you are investing on the algorithm.... then were can I find a specification of the algorithm?  (if you answer look at the source, then it is clear that you have no specification)

Have you ever been in a code review?   The criticism I am providing is actually quite tame.

My assessment,  throw this garbage out and start again correctly.

I am curious,  is the NXT algorithm described anywhere?

A paper somewhere,  a specification or a simulation?

Or perhaps we are just making this up on the go?