Actually as a user of traditional accounting software I can assure you that "it is nothing like that" and why I (and many others) don't even *touch* the Bitcoin "accounts" functionality.

Although the Bitcoin devs are amazing in what they can do - they don't seem to understand "accounting" much at all.

I like that - it's supposed to be "Nxt Improvement Proposal" but "Ninja's In Pyjamas" works for me also!

Nice - perhaps we also need something for specific clients (but of course that is up to the creators of those clients to create).

Why do you think you need to create such a poll?

(btw - as I've have said many times before Bitcointalk polls are a waste of time as the user with the most alts and the biggest agenda will control the result)

Your ideas have been valued as many others. I understand you copped some crap but I think that happens to all of us when we risk posting our opinions on a forum.

Whether you decide to leave or not is of course up to you - but I think you'd do better being a part of a community that at least mostly has appreciated your input (I certainly have).

I think we're doing that just right now.

I *know* it wouldn't (told you - I have created my own equivalent in pseudo-code and it also needs timing to work).

I *research* things when I am interested in them. 

The problem is whether a different hash can apply to essentially "the same" tx (apparently at the moment - it can).

Okay - then "approved" from me also!

Agreed - but it would be better if we didn't need to rely upon NNTP servers to do this (perhaps some future tech will make them obsolete?).

Is there a wiki (or just a webpage) that covers the basic functionality (that might be helpful to newcomers)?

Hmm.. don't tell me... "a vote".

As far as I know they are (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Atomic_cross-chain_trading), however, the problem of "malleable" transactions that has recently come to light might screw this up as far as the refund txs go (that needs to be researched).

Also although theoretically the information about doing this looks fine I've yet to find an example of anyone "actually having done it" which means that it is at best an "unproven idea".

Please just post links rather than screenshots - it makes my head dizzy with the web page jumping up and down all the time (oh - now my post looks bad after reading the one above).  

Agreed - would you mind to be the first to have a go at this (I don't feel I know the code well enough to do this myself)?

Well with all the fuss happening at the moment about this issue I would push for getting this into the next version of the protocol as well as making some guidelines to ensure that the problem won't "creep in" at a later point.

Others?

Aha - my math lets me down unfortunately but I do get your point.

So is there any way you think that this could be solved?

That is determined by what in Bitcoin terms would be "the most work".

In Nxt terms if the hash was best for 1111 but 2222 also was close then whoever ended up choosing 2222 would be on a fork until they changed to 1111 (assuming they didn't see 1111 straight away).

This is a typical "fork" problem - and is solved once the nodes in the network "see" the best chain (they have approx. 1 day to do so from what I gather).

Believe me - if I get overly excited by Nxt then I think all of you would have already become very rich.

Then unless the signature can have more than one equivalent representation I don't see why we actually *have* a malleability problem?

Care to enlighten me?

This is why *timing* is an *essential* part of Nxt (your clock needs to be set very accurately).

Bitcoin doesn't have a reliance upon NNTP (which is why the timestamps can vary quite a bit) but Nxt *does* (this is also a very fair *criticism* of Nxt IMO).