and first reaction was...?

ahh, thx for the info. since the sources are released i am
attentive for strange peer behaviour the next weeks ;-) 

yes, you a right. looks strange, many dgex transfers inside.

ps: still growing...

pps: perhaps some script-based broadcasts?

it could have statistical value later but i doubt these numbers are reliable.
for the future, lost or hibernating funds could be relevant to calculate and
estimate upcoming transaction volumes e.g. to feed a forging calculator.
but as said, they are max. a rough indicator nothing more from my pov.

well, who knows but it is unlikely that a user/s sends again to
the same wrong account. if my script hasn't any fundamental error
i would say there are ~26m nxt hibernating.

hmm, just ran the hiberNXT script here and the numbers
seems way to high. i guess an additional filter makes sense.
to approximate i think an account with more than one transaction
without a key could be consider as a cold wallet.

accounts without key total: 5.509 - nxt : 164.006.650
without key and only 1 trans.: 3.626 - NXT :  26.635.400

any other idea how to filter, doesn't this makes sense at all?
to be sure i am testing my db and script again.

adding tomorrow, hiberNXT sounds supple. 

can add it, how to calculate? loop all accounts for empty publicKey + sum?
any additional filter or key to seperate real dark from just inactivity?

these are attached aliases

+1

just from my personal view.

the first attack on nxt was a technical one, due to the great community
we have handled this fine so far. the peer is goin more and more stable.
not perfect atm but we are heading like a tanker into the right direction.

now we see a second attack, which is more dangerous, an attempt to divide the
community by spreading fud. nxt is the community, so we should not leave it to
other people what we are thinking and how we are acting on nxt.
(tell me your opinion and i am telling you who is thinking for you -> NO!)

the bashing about the source code has no real value. many arguments are just
unlogical. see, if the code is really made by a novice, a java pro's would
find a serious bug immediately, same for the flaws but not even one pro has
found the flaws nor a serious bug. how can this be? if i am looking about a
novice c code, you can bet i am finding bugs very fast, same is valid for java.
the result is clear, the code must be much more advanced than the structure
it is written in and perhaps the intention was to leave refactoring to the
community from beginning.

this code review has added some very important and usefull improvements, kudos
and many thanks to the java dev's for this and the same for cfb, i am a long
time freelancer and haven't met many people working as fast, efficient and
reliable as cfb, he is 100% straight on what he is doing. (ok, this was a one
time praising cfb ;-)

at least i like to mention that i am confident nxt will be big, very big and
i am riding the nxt horse for a loooooong time for sure and all fud poster's
can't do nothing to stop me todo so. reason is quite simple, i have enough
working brain cells left to get my own opinion what nxt is, no need to tell
me what you are thinking, i can count 1 + 1 much better than any fud poster.

i have only one question to bcnxt, is this assumption correct?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=397214.msg4328208#msg4328208

questo thread è per l'analisi del codice ciappa. meglio chiedere questo direttamente
al thread principale, guardate qui -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.14720

because it fit's into this thread just on thing which has attract my attention.

i have to admit that i am not a native java coder and i just have had a quick look at
the api part due to the client dev, therefore this could be nonsens but for me, the code
structure seems that the creator intentionally veiled his native codingstyle.

if so, i bet the flaws couldn't be found by hunting partial code strucs but more within the
logical flow in general. moreover, if this is correct, the energy needed to change a perhaps
long used coding style this way must be immense. at least there is no chance to get any
usefull code correlation this way.

as said, it could be totally wrong but i have seen many lines of code in different
languages, this structure doesn't seems coincidental for me.

perhaps a fluent java coder could have a quick overview again, with this in mind.

code -> good -> nxt -> good

no, a tiny brain (FrictionlessCoin) is far overwhelmed to read the code that way to understand
the inner workflow and desperately trying to cover his more than once showed insufficient
knowledge by focusing on code beauty details. instead stopping this before it's going more
and more ridiculous for him, he is to long on this road, so (unfortunatly for him) he has to
go on with this nonsens.

this code review has added some very good improvements so far from some very good java
coder but nobody has found any serious problem nor the flaws as far i can see.

please correct me if i am wrong.

have just seen you have added me to the bountylist.
thanks a lot for for this but i have already recieved
bounties for the explorer, to run it for +1 year, so
there is no need for more, better to use it for the
other supporters. for the new client it could make
sense to donate a small amount, because all donators
can vote in one month when to release the client source.
(if they want immediatly with release)

the sources will be released in any case but perhaps the
donators decide to put a couple of weeks in front to
prevent a too fast copy.

again, thanks for adding me to the list.
--nexern

yes, as said, checksum is fine but need some sleep now, better to talk about this after a refresh ;-)

starting tomorrow from scratch. the prototype was to evaluate different design approaches (code & gui).
3 weeks for the beta. 1 week testnet -> release, if no major bugs are found.

just added to block explorer.

account view: top aliases
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=37

account view: top fee
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=36

account view:  new/latest accounts (reactivated)
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=33

alias: simple searchengine and latest registered aliases
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=50

a q-gram inverted index was planned to ensure fastest
searches even on millions aliases but this would take
some days. so a regex based fullscan table is sufficient
until ~500.000 aliases. the inverted index can be built
later, when the aliases reaches much higher numbers.

peer view:
http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=60

not very usefull now but could be used later to rank the most reliable
nodes since the peer's are stored over time with latency, on air time
and block/volume transfer ratio.

--nexern

singularity, creating the endless* expanding nxt-universe. 

(*Oxymoron?)