"In its heyday, bitcoin’s value soared passed $1,100 (£650). But last month it was revealed that the currency’s price had plummeted." "Revealed"? As in, "Displayed in real time by the exchanges"? Oh, Daily Mail... In other news, anyone care to comment on this analysis? (Not mine) http://bitscan.com/articles/btc-update-11-may-has-btc-formed-a-bottom. EDIT: include the full stop at the end in the link |
|
|
|
Congrats to the devs, it's been a long bumpy road, you did a great job !
+1440 Good job guys |
|
|
|
"My religion is right and yours is wrong" is the leading cause of war and hate in the world.
Nonsense. Quite. Your debating skills are impeccable. People of different religions coexist quite happily in many circumstances - usually when there is a degree of prosperity.
I'm surprised you bothered to type that weak statement. It's a half truth and doesn't address my point. I could just as easily say the opposite and be as impotently and vaguely semi-factual as you. I said war and hate. War and hate. Just because 2 religions coexist doesn't mean they can't, one or both, pump out hatred and call it love. Like hating not only other religions but hating other DENOMINATIONS in the same fucking religion. Like fomenting hate for women, gays, blacks, (name your flavour). Like supporting human slavery. Like ordering the death of people who say naughty things or don't follow arbitrary rules. You know, hate. Religion is just a convenient peg to hang discontent on when there is deprivation. This is why any credible peacebuilding strategy must include economic regeneration and equality (Northern Ireland, South Africa, Israel/Palestine...). Saying that religion is the cause itself is akin to saying skin colour is the cause of war and hate.
Or, religion does cause war and hate but it simply looks like a convenient peg to you. Your strawman efforts with regard to skin colour is ineffective and amateurish. I never said religion was "the" cause, and skin color *is* a cause for hate and war, like it or not. Here's a recent war over skin color: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/06/mali-war-over-skin-colourReligion is listed as 1st example of irrational causes of war: "The Reasons for Wars – an Updated Survey"; 2009 Matthew O. Jackson: Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/war-overview.pdfReligion was the cause for these wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_warIf it tickles your fancy, argue with me that religion isn't the 2nd biggest cause for war and hate beyond resources, as I stated, but trying to argue religion isn't a cause of war and hate only makes you look uneducated. Your deprivation argument doesn't hold up either so you may want to abandon it before I bring up the Holy Roman Empire or perhaps George Bush's Crusade. Oops... I'm sorry, but your thinking isn't just woolly, it's dangerously lazy. Jorge has made a few points about this (I'm in the awkward position of agreeing with him about something). But quoting a Guardian article to support your case - when the article itself acknowledges the real problem is unfair distribution of resources and oppression? That just makes you look bad. |
|
|
|
"My religion is right and yours is wrong" is the leading cause of war and hate in the world.
Nonsense. Quite. People of different religions coexist quite happily in many circumstances - usually when there is a degree of prosperity. Religion is just a convenient peg to hang discontent on when there is deprivation. This is why any credible peacebuilding strategy must include economic regeneration and equality (Northern Ireland, South Africa, Israel/Palestine...). Saying that religion is the cause itself is akin to saying skin colour is the cause of war and hate. You were bang on the money (pun intended) about the warnings against amassing wealth, though, which was the point I was gently trying to make with the comment about monotheism in the first place. |
|
|
|
Thanks! Actually I was hoping for a little more detail  The address is something like sha256(curve25519(sha256(key))). It is presumably as easy or hard to bruteforce this regardless of whether an account has been verified. If you know the key, you have access to the account. You must be talking about an intermediate step - a way of sending funds from an account without using its private key? I don't think this got replied to. As I understand it, that's not what an account is in Nxt. In Nxt an account is only the first 64 bits of the hash. That's why it's relatively weak. It's also why it can be expressed in 21 digits, where Bitcoin needs 34 alphnumeric characters. So account collisions are much more likely in Nxt. When you first send from a Nxt account, your public key is registered to the account, and that brings the security back up to 256 bits. Thanks - that's helpful. I think I understand it now. It rules out conventional cold storage, unfortunately. You can create an account on an offline computer, send some coins to it, then create a transaction signed on the offline computer, move that transaction to an online computer, and broadcast it. That gets your account associated with a public key without the private key ever being exposed an online computer. I say "you can" but I don't know if the wallet software to do this exists yet; if it doesn't it could (and should!) be written. It'd work pretty much the same as Armory, except with the need to create that initial (offline) transaction. Account control will allow you to lock your account, preventing any outgoing transactions that will add good security. Post in the nxtforum account control subforum and come-from-beyond will pick it up. Cool, thanks for both replies. How would account locking work - separate password? The main attack I see happening on NXT is malware/keystroke loggers. I really like the all-offline solution of bitcoin cold storage because it's so elegantly simple and powerful. Wondering what the NXT analogue is. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the help - will check when I'm back at my computer. Deleted and reinstalled - seems fine now. Thanks for the help. Great client, by the way, can't wait to see the AE up and running. |
|
|
|
Thanks! Actually I was hoping for a little more detail The address is something like sha256(curve25519(sha256(key))). It is presumably as easy or hard to bruteforce this regardless of whether an account has been verified. If you know the key, you have access to the account. You must be talking about an intermediate step - a way of sending funds from an account without using its private key? I don't think this got replied to. As I understand it, that's not what an account is in Nxt. In Nxt an account is only the first 64 bits of the hash. That's why it's relatively weak. It's also why it can be expressed in 21 digits, where Bitcoin needs 34 alphnumeric characters. So account collisions are much more likely in Nxt. When you first send from a Nxt account, your public key is registered to the account, and that brings the security back up to 256 bits. Thanks - that's helpful. I think I understand it now. It rules out conventional cold storage, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the help - will check when I'm back at my computer. |
|
|
|
Scary moment there. I updated (blockchain was stuck) and it welcomed me to my "brand new [and empty] account". Balance turned up a few seconds later and the blockchain is now updating. Phew... Hmm it shouldn't say that if the blockchain is downloading. I think the blockchain is stuck. It's been over an hour. At what block are you stuck? Very low number - 18000 or so. |
|
|
|
Scary moment there. I updated (blockchain was stuck) and it welcomed me to my "brand new [and empty] account". Balance turned up a few seconds later and the blockchain is now updating. Phew... Hmm it shouldn't say that if the blockchain is downloading. I think the blockchain is stuck. It's been over an hour. |
|
|
|
I wish I could have a diversified portfolio of religions to make absolutely sure I wasn't going to hell.
Most will prefer you go 'all in', I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone know how long a blockchain download should take?
|
|
|
|
Let me reprhrase this then... Bitcoin bulls go one step further to tell you not only is Bitcoin risk-free but that if you aren't holding bitcoins, you are taking a risk because holding fiat is risky and bitcoin is clearly the way out of that risk. So bitcoin is not only risk free, but acts as an inverse risk. It is the infallible investment made in heaven and you you need to buy buy buy or die. They are not only going to quell your fears about holding bitcoin but make you fear NOT holding bitcoin. Because bitcoin is the solution for the apocalypse and when the system fails, bitcoiners will become filthy rich. It is the DESTINY. Bitcoin is like a rapture and you need to be on board or be left to perish.
Pretty much correct. Unlike most religions, however, you can choose to invest whichever portion of your assets you like, and trade the position in an out as you wish. This flexibility makes it difficult for traditional religions to compete. I think it's called 'monotheism'. |
|
|
|
Scary moment there. I updated (blockchain was stuck) and it welcomed me to my "brand new [and empty] account". Balance turned up a few seconds later and the blockchain is now updating. Phew... |
|
|
|
distributed gave me a small seizure! That is so cool. |
|
|
|
|
Do we know what changes will happen in the client when the AE goes live?
|
|
|
|
Which client to use with Asset Exchange? Will be Wesleys client ready?
Yes wesleys client is now the standard nxt client and comes with the latest downloads and is asset exchamge ready So what will change in Wesley's client when the Asset Exchange goes live at block 135,000? |
|
|
|
We need some regularly updating graphs of distribution to answer this perennial complaint. (I've seen one infographic but it will be out of date now.)
Do we have figures on how many people use NXT? Clients running would be a start though obviously not the whole of it. And/or a blockchain analysis to find out how many addresses are in use.
I guess these things are fairly easy to do but I'm not sure how to go about it.
This would be something it would be great to track to measure adoption, anyway.
I like the charts over at nxtcrypto: http://charts.nxtcrypto.org/cDistributionTopAccount.aspxThank you. I guess these show things are fairly badly distributed - or perhaps that simply there aren't many NXT owners yet, because it shows numbers (top 100, 1000) instead of proportions. Hopefully things will improve as more people adopt. |
|
|
|
|
We need some regularly updating graphs of distribution to answer this perennial complaint. (I've seen one infographic but it will be out of date now.)
Do we have figures on how many people use NXT? Clients running would be a start though obviously not the whole of it. And/or a blockchain analysis to find out how many addresses are in use.
I guess these things are fairly easy to do but I'm not sure how to go about it.
This would be something it would be great to track to measure adoption, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
