I have given you an answer, Joshua.
It's a very clear one: I don't answer to thieves.

If you want to link me to these frauds, which you do not even name and describe, I invite you to do so and face the inevitable consequences for bringing false charges.

Libel, slander and false accusations are crimes. You have linked these not to an anonymous person, but to me personally.

Excuse me, Joshua Zeidner,

It is well established, that when confronted with an aggressive person who thinks "no" means "yes", and who furthermore is already established as a thief and a liar, you don't play their games.

The operating word of the articles is "IF", you should notice.

So, now I am going to say it one last time: I will not answer your questions, you thieving bastard.
You have no jurisdiction, and my refusal to answer your questions is based on your proven track record of being a manipulative person.

You have proven, for all to see, to have no scruples, twist the truth, steal, defraud and basically to be what we term "a bad person".

I do not negotiate with known thieves, so I will not negotiate or talk any further with you, Joshua Zeidner.

My, you are a persistent one.

I am claiming nothing. Yóu are trying to force me to make claims.
I rather take exception to that.

I am not going to indulge your little games any more.

You are accusing me of crimes, protecting criminals, bringing crime into my work and betraying people's trust.

The buck stops here, Josh.

You either take your accusations to the proper authorities and let thém find the truth, or you quit your libellous charges.

Good luck in your endevours.

What ever gave you the idea I am in charge of anything?

I am a Buddhist, I raise funds, and I am not involved in any money laundering scheme.

It's rather sweet to see you stringing a few facts together into something yóu want to appear.

You want to prove I am involved in money laundering: go ahead, it's yóur call, not mine.

Saying something is so, doesn't make it so.

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here, Joshua.

The short and simple answer is "no"

Nice, he got my job wrong, too

Still, that shop could do with some advertisement, so that's alright.

That's why I am staying out of any discussion about what actually happened here until I have more data

You dó realise that this is exactly the same as Bitcoin advocates make towards Nxt and all other 2.0 platforms? 

I think forks definitely can have a function, if only to provide a relatively low-risk environment in which to test things.

I also think they are inherent in the crypto system.

People may not wánt to work within Nxt or any other system, but want to work on their own for whatever reason, and this is valid.

I find your comment somewhat disrespectful towards all the work these people have put in over the last months.

I am not defending the last situation at all, but to call another coin "shit" when so much work has gone in, is just callous.

Yup, that's a big problem, and I agree.
The problem here isn't just someone dumping. The problem is having a system where it's even possible.
That's basically why we are into crypto in the first place: remove any and all single points of failure and make it impossible to do this kind of thing.

Trust in crypto is hard to earn and easy to lose. I have known these people for a long time and, as I said, I really do not envy them at this moment.

I've been interested and invested in NHZ since the very start.
Been running one of the first few nodes from the start, even before this topic existed:  NHZ-3AB4-UM8D-6RAV-8AWYM

I hold about a million and will continue to do so.

Is a dump like this in the manner it was done bad? I think it is. It's not an action a developer can take on his own.
NHZ has long since passed the point where a single person should be allowed to affect the whole infrastructure like this.
The fact that he cán is bad.

Does it hurt NHZ? I don't really think so, íf the aftermath is handled correctly.
It should simply not be possible to take some out and dump it. Safeguards for this apparently were not in place, which at this point makes it clear there is a single point of failure possible.

I do not envy either the devs or the other people managing this.

I also am not going to make their job any harder as it already is, but am hoping for a message from them here that explains how events will unfold from now.

It's not sad, it's a very concious choice against name squatters

Any Asset that is not issued with an ID and issuing account is not to be trusted.
So if you see them, álways ask the person offering them for clarification, and if he or she doesn't make it clear, never buy it. It's sure to be a false one.

There has been a very long and good discussion in the Nxt community about this, and having squattable Asset names would have been far, far worse.

Also my last post on the subject, again much more related to the way of debating than to the content.

"Every" PoS guy? Sorry, but that's just a unsubstantiated generalisation. Personally, I've never felt any pressure. So that's me out already, and I know many more that weren't feeling it either. That does not take away the fact that others díd feel it. Like it or not, a community is not run by computer processes, but has a social context, too.


This is a leading and suggestive question. There are several other reasons why people may have reacted negatively. Pure anger could definitely be one, for instance.

Your answer to this question, which leads directly to the point you actually want to make "Bitcoin doesn't care about those things" isn't really valid as it needs the support of your own leading question.
That's just bad arguing, I am sorry to say.

Nothing wrong with people completely disagreeing with how Nxt handles things. Nothing wrong with rather seeing it gone.

I just don't like a debate that is held by using techniques that aren't really aimed at addressing the (valid) issues, but instead seem to be about proving that a personal point of view is right.

That goes for the Bitcoin ánd for the Nxt side of this debate, by the way.

Yes, of course it was controversial, and rightly so.
However, controversial does not necessarily mean "bad".
Bitcoin has quite a long history behind it, and has had it's fair share of tense situations.
How you weather these situations are what's important.

You take the position that even considering it is inherently bad. Fine, that's a position.
Other people, including me, take the position that these testing grounds are a way to learn and determine who and what you are.
I find that much more important that aiming at an ideal situation that is arrived at by not having a choice at all (once more, in this specific situation), especially in the crypto space. 

The whole situation has lead to a fierce and good discussion in the Nxt Community, as it should be within a young community, according to me.
There are definitely people in the Nxt community that take the same position that you take here.

I, in *this case*, am glad that the choice was offered, for the reason valarmg gave:


It lead to a fundamental discussion in any new coin community about where you stand.
In an ideal world, every crypto community would be made up of people who actually know anything about the ideals and ideas behind crypto.
However, this is not the case, not in Bitcoin and not in Nxt. To think otherwise is not wanting to look the facts in the face.

So this discussion and testing is necessary, and I am very happy that it turned out as it did. If there would have been a rollback, I would not be in the Nxt community anymore at this point.
However, to force that ón the community, is crossing a line that should never be crossed, IMO.

Erm, no they haven't.
This thread has been especially created for keeping an open community line to the bitcointalk community.

There is no need to force anyone to switch to the Nxt forums if they don't want to. 

Please don't equate the forum community with the people that forge Nxt, either.
There were two levels of decision making here, and it was reflected on both the forums and in the forging.

The forums are not always a reflection of the Nxt Community, just as BCT is in no way a reflection of the Bitcoin Community as a whole.

In PoS, it's the stakeholders that make the choice. Otherwise, we could just hold votes on the forums.

The devs provided a choice. Not providing that choice in this case would also have been a means of control.

As this was the first time something of this magnitude happened, there is no clear roadmap and it's important to offer the choice.

I really cannot see how it's better for the dev team nót to open up that choice, even if it means the possibility of opening up a can of worms.

The devs did not push for a choice either way: the forgers had freedom to choose. They chose not to roll back.

Only releasing a patch after you know it will be accepted by conventional consensus on a forum (!) is just silly.

lol.

Likewise, I don't consider myself a PoS guy.
Don't see the need to take those kinds of positions.
If a technology fills a need, that's good.

Sorry, but that is just a cop-out answer.

You asked a question that you could have quite easily have answered yourself.

The hashes are always posted on the nxt forum: https://nxtforum.org/nrs-releases/nrs-v1-2-8/ ánd in the Nxt thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587007.msg8672358#msg8672358

Instead, you throw the question on Twitter, knowing full well how much clout your name has.

An unbiased question could easily have been phrased differently, for instance by providing the source.

It wasn't the asking of questions that was commented on, but the manner in which this question was asked, combined with the person asking it. Every comment has context. To deny that is just silly.

Aren't wé ambitious! 

Just dropping in from over the Nxt forums to say hello and that I like GB.

Roadmap looks good and even thought the market may be irritatingly manipulated, I've always believed that value trumps speculation.

I hold GB since the start and am not worried. Keep up the good work!