Just to let you guys know that I will be "unwatching" the topic shortly.

It has certainly been an interesting ride but it has been made clear to me that "software engineering" is not wanted by those writing the software and therefore I feel that I have nothing more to contribute.

I wish you guys all the best.

I have decided to move further discussion about AT to CIYAM Open:

http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20140228080813138000&ident=M100V120&chksum=ba3b7b5c

It's free to sign up for an account (and CIYAM Open supports OpenID so you can use a gmail account or the like) so don't be shy!

I think as it is being planned currently you could just use a setting (like testnet) to select "which chain" the NRS will use at startup (i.e. no different code - just a different blockchain).

You do realise that Nxt *doesn't have a wallet*?

Agreed - unfortunately people don't *think* or bother with things like *math* here - instead they just pluck numbers like 35 or 50 "out of thin air" and make it a *rule* that must be followed.

Great stuff - I hope some donations are sent for his efforts.

@mathcl - I think I found a spelling error:

...then the system should be able to fence off the attack by other means, which we shall not discuss in tis note.

(probably should be "this paper" instead).

Strange - it's still working for me.

I thought it was higher than that - but I don't have any exact figures (maybe check with the math guy on that).

I'm not sure of the exact balances - but yes I do think they were "set aside" and will stay there no matter what happens "with the price".

When you look into the design of TF it certainly favours larger accounts and I don't think that was "by accident".

TF is going ahead the way it was planned regardless so why not take these pointless discussions to a new topic?

You missed his later post where he stated that the Instant Transactions *needs* TF and was proceeding to implement TF as per the plan.

That was part of the plan and modifying the plan is something the people in this topic simply can't agree on so I don't think that there is any point in you bringing that up *again* (it has been brought up several times before).

I hope you do realise that CfB is simply proceeding with the plan and ignoring all of this discussion (and personally I think he is making the right choice in doing so).

Don't take my "lack of interest" the wrong way - but we have literally hundreds of pages of "ideas" being suggested.

I myself had put up quite a lot of ideas which I've now simply decided are not worth fighting over.

The project simply can't move forward if we have to spend every day discussing every idea that is being brought up (whether they be good or bad ideas isn't relevant).

It's actually quite *easy* to come up with good ideas but it's rather a different thing to turn ideas into a working product which is what Nxt needs to be focused on primarily.

Here's how well things are going in regards to trying to get things done (for Nxt AT):
http://ciyam.org/open/?cmd=view&data=20140220164742097000&ident=M100V137&chksum=065ecf7d

So in the Nxt AT project there is currently 1 person doing anything (myself) and a total of 0.009 BTC available for the project to allocate (I won't complain about payment as I have received some BTC directly for my contribution).

Agreed - but if it wasn't "in the plan" then I don't care if we do it or not.

I think we have shown that it is *impossible* for the people in this topic to ever come to a consensus about anything at all (and perhaps a few of you actually work for Ethereum to ensure exactly that).

I am willing to say "let's just go with the plan" (because it is obvious that we'll never work out another plan).

They can be but they shouldn't have to be is the point that is being made here.

Understand that the whole reason to say have a China chain is because they won't be able to work with the main chain at decent speeds because of the GCF (so of course they wouldn't want their chain being dependent upon the stake holders in the main chain).

In regards to the main chain being fast - that is what TF is all about and that is the very point of "the plan". It makes less sense to me for the main chain to be the slower one.

BTW - these same conversations just keep going in pointless circles every day.

Personally I think we just "stick with the plan" and get on with it (otherwise you guys will still be debating in 2015 about what to do by which time Nxt will be irrelevant).

One of the reasons for wanting parallel chains is to address the "initial distribution problem" that has lead to clones.

So although it could be something a parallel chain could do I would not at all want that to be mandatory (in fact the parallel chain should be able to use PoW rather than PoS if it likes).

No - there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about parallel chains - they are not "connected together" beyond perhaps "checkpoint" AMs being sent to the master chain.

Think of it like Bitcoin and Litecoin - so people talking about "spreading the load" across chains are actually saying that you would go to buy something with 1 BTC and say 100 LTC - personally I don't think any vendor is going to want to bother with that so such ideas are not helpful.

@ChuckOne - TF will be implemented in the main chain so you needn't care if another chain decides not to use TF as you don't need to buy any of those coins (it doesn't matter what you *think* about how someone should create a coin they are going to create one anyway if that's what they want to do).

You might want to consider using the "Ignore" for that particular forum member if their posts are annoying you.

The most obvious benefit is you get the Nxt *team* behind you (if you *clone* then you are *on your own*).

Also we could make a Nxt PC (parallel chain) *generator app* so that creating your own currency could be as easy as pointing and clicking.

Agreed - and I don't think anyone is actually going to "convince" the anonymous founders to ever "give up their hoards" as IMO their goal wasn't to "get rich" at all.