@mczarnek - the biggest problem I see with your proposal as that each forger is being asked for a "random" number - how are you going to be sure of that?

I think that for the "ticket" (which currently is looking to be the forging hash of the block 1440 in the future) could have extra entropy by something more simple like the sum of the number of bytes in each of the 1440 blocks together with the # of transactions (and maybe several other such things so that trying to "construct a block" to benefit becomes so difficult it wouldn't be attempted).

I think also adding this amount of entropy helps because your ticket "isn't" just the forging hash (which could lead to people calling out *rigged* if a forger skips its turn).

I left Beijing and now live in the south of China - the air pollution was a major reason for leaving (and you might have seen the reports of how bad it has been there recently - so I think I left at the right time).

Not since last night - but my understanding is that "my prototype" is at least 50% translated into Java (maybe more).

I have made a few posts tonight on the new forum (whether they are of any *value* or not is something for others to decide).

BTW - I dislike 9-ball and much prefer 8-ball with the "straight pool" method of *calling* (i.e. ball and pocket but not *how*) - I ran a pool competition in Beijing for over 2 years (that was one of the most popular).

The only problem I found with the "straight pool" calling approach is what is known as "dead-lock" (if the black is covered by the opponents ball in a pocket).

It only happened though *once* in those two plus years (so not such a big problem IMO).

The bar looks pretty empty - at least you won't have to wait to get a drink.

Want to play a game of pool?

The browser plugin approach used by blockchain.info might be advisable (and would be useful for CIYAM as well - there is in fact a task I had put on CIYAM Open for this which I could re-open if there is interest).

From what I read in the code only a 2 of 3 is *standard* currently.

The main problem would be *backup* when you are considering .js (storing in localStorage).

So even if you were to do this you'd need to display the multiple words or random characters (better multiple words IMO) for when the user changes browser or computer.

In regards to pass phrases I think people should understand that we are reaching a point in time when they will simply have to be replaced by things like yubikeys (or better still by QR code from an air-gapped permanently offline device).

You shouldn't be "trying to remember" them you should be using software to do that for you (there's plenty around for that).

Understand that if something is going to be able to "read your clipboard" it is just as likely that this *something* can read your keystrokes also.

It has nothing to do with 1440 blocks ago - the next "best" forging account is according to the hash of the last forged block (which is weighted by the account balance).

You don't need "at least 50" - these are numbers that are just being thrown around (and getting bigger it seems) rather than base upon "math" unfortunately (but yes a brain wallet cannot be a small pass phrase).

At least 50?

I think that is going *way to far* why not at least 100 then?

(i.e. why do people just *pluck these numbers out of thin air*)

@mindtomatter - it is planned that users will be able to "lease" their forging rights (without giving out the "keys to their account")

Yes - now you are seeing it - we have *real* competition who are courting "big business".

If we want to "thumb our noses" then we will "pay the penalty" of doing that.

It's up to the community how it "wants to be perceived".

So now that the "fatal flaw" has been discovered I think it is time that we realised that we really need to "pull together" or risk losing to a "clone".

Well done - you nailed it!

BTW - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=397183.msg5842463#msg5842463

and congrats to Evil-Knievel.

This makes no sense - each Asset *is* a new listing so it is nothing to do with "one time".

True - but I see even people in very poor areas *using mobile phones* (hard to find any Chinese person that doesn't have a *smart phone* these days).

So creating a "company" for the price of "sending an SMS" seems a little "too cheap to me".

I think the "lemon stand" is maybe going a little far isn't it (had to dry my tears also)?

I agree that "market forces" though should determine fees in the end - so even if we start with high fees we should be looking to lower them to the level that works most efficiently.

I get that - but do we *need* to *start with that* as most people haven't even *heard* of Nxt.

Anyway - I'll not try and stop the fees being lowered but just think me might want to do that "in steps" (as it gets wider adoption).