gweisoh, I've missed you! No updates on your "inside information" for the last 6 or 7 hours! Did you get hit by a bus?

No subsequent issues. Looks good.

How many confirms for BTC deposit do you need for my funds to be available for trading? (Please also post the answer in the FAQ section of poloniex.) Thank you.

I can't reach Poloniex. Anyone else getting a timeout?

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/02/13/the-mathematically-secure-way-to-accept-zero-confirmation-transactions/

Can someone more technically adept than I am (that would be any of you guys) comment on this, please? The claim about zero confirmations seems to imply that short times between blocks is far less important than network hashing power regarding prevention of double spending. Is his analysis correct? And are there implications for NXT?

I am not a developer, but would be interested in investing in the reboot version of this concept. Please put me on the notification list for when you create a new thread.

Also, I am not too familiar with the concept, but XCP seems to have had a fair and successful launch with proof-of-burn. You might want to take a look.

Can someone explain (or point me to a page that explains for the non-programmers) what trustless mixing is? My understanding of the mixing services of Fedora is that it is not trustless, i.e., people who run nodes that do the mixing can potentially have access to the transaction trails of any incoming-outgoing coins. They are, therefore, a location of potential compromise. How can we know that only "the good guys" will be hosting mixing nodes?

The mixing services that Zerocoin and others have been working on do not have such a point of access. Even those running mixing nodes would not be able to trace transactions.

I do not know whether artos's proposed mixing service is trustless or not.

Can someone with more knowledge please respond to these hypotheses? 

Which exchange are you going to put your whale dump on? I want to get my bitcoins there now.

One of the most interesting things you've written, CfB. I like NXT even more, now.

This is helpful in the distinction between decentralized and distributed: http://ripplescam.org/

This is strange.
If they are already founders, i.e., they have already sent in money, then you have no incentive to reward them additionally. This appears to be an attempt to appeal to potential founders. Why would you do this? You could get all the funding you need - just look at all the posts from people who would love to be a part of this, including me - if you just front up with some code or a whitepaper or proof of your identity.

This thread reminds me of my family reunion.
Lots of drunk uncles here.

"Hey, why is everybody talking about Quark?"

"Oh, because everyone else is talking about Quark."

Here are a couple different appeals, not all of them congruent.

Appeal to potential investor greed:
The tone of the appeal needs to more more forward looking than backward looking, more focused on the possibilities to be enjoyed by investing now, rather than justifying BCNext's decisions. This appeal targets speculators.
"If you believe that NXT offers the possibility of significant value appreciation, then it might make sense for you buy a stake."
People who buy shares of Bekrshire Hathaway do so because they believe that its value will increase from this point forward more than other things they might invest in. But I don't think they spend a lot of time condemning Warren Buffet or any of the early adopters for having made enormous gains already.  

Appeal to development integrity:
This appeal targets long-term investors.
BCNext closed the funding period because he accumulated exactly the amount of startup funding that was necessary for the project. Taking on more funding would have, in his view, corrupted [this might not be the best word] the development process. The goal was always, and continues to be, developing the best cyptographic architecture. It is common these days for corporations to reward stockholders at the expense of sound product development principles. BCNext is old fashioned in that he always places the integrity of the product above the financial rewards of his investors. But, as we all know, if the product is excellent, the money will find it.

Do any of these appeals help us think about the audience we might be writing to, and the way we want to position the NXT product/process?

Too bad about the OP.

The idea, however, is quite interesting and still alive. Certainly someone else can implement the logic and code to make such a two-level currency work. I would love to invest in such a project if it were backed by a real person and a whitepaper with a few pieces of evidentiary code.

Has anyone seen this idea mentioned in other threads or forums?

How much do you think you need to get this project started, and how much do you have pledged at the moment?

Any reason for today's price jump? I mean, there's always a reason. But does anyone know what it is?

Holy Jeebus, that's a lot of help! What a community!
Now if we can just get Graviton and Bter to get an id... Probably illegal without a warrant, but I won't tell.

Thank you, plasticAiredale, for noticing this this transfer. I had given up on it.

And thanks again, RickyJames, for tracking the transfers and contacting the exchange owners.

salsacz, I am sorry, but I didn't know you were so instrumental in identifying EpicThomas. And so I didn't thank you, but I am doing it now. I really appreciate the way that you have contributed such a crucial piece to this investigation.

I think this is a tactical mistake. If you get people to sell you their NXT, which you then sell for BTC, this will put downward pressure on the NXT price, which will disincentivize development of NXT, i.e., development of NEX. If you want NEX to succeed, you should do everything you can to be sure that your development team (aka, the NXT development team) keeps working hard.

I'm in on un Fairness.

Can my dog get some FRX, too?