Yes - although in Nxt it would be handled as a feature that is "above" the basic low-level transactions (which are kept much simpler to keep storage to a minimum and to have "normal" transactions work as fast as is possible).

CfB has already proposed a similar low-level language and James also posted quite a bit on this a few days back.

Whilst it is very interesting from a software engineering angle to have such a powerful scripting concept it still remains to be seen how useful it turns out to be "in practice" (one reason I think it might actually be better to let Ethereum do the R&D for us).

Yes - I guess something along the lines of using AE to trade precious metals might be a better application (although not being a PM trader it doesn't appeal to me personally).

And this is something that makes me wonder about the value of the AE. If we aren't going to trust it for "time-critical" trades (which would be pretty much *all* trades if you are a day trader) then what exactly are these *important* but non-time critical trades that it is needed for?

(some concrete examples would be very helpful here)

Which then begs the question if all "time critical" trades are going to end up being off-chain (therefore centralised) what exactly is the huge benefit of even having the AE?

(sorry to be so negative about AE but I am still struggling to see why it "so great")

I am pretty sure you can decide which txs you are going to include in your block - the fee is simply to encourage to include as many as you can but if you don't want to include one or more particular txs (and instead include others) then I don't think anything can stop you.

Of course TF does help and it is likely such txs would get included in a following block, but, if we are talking about "matching an order" then a forger could simply include their own tx in preference to another (meaning that you might have just "missed out" on your buy/sell to that forger even if your tx was actually broadcast *first*).

Actually this is something that concerns me far more than the initial distribution or the PoS reward for forging.

If AE bid/ask tx's can be arbitrarily included or not in a block then I can see a lot of manipulation occurring in this part of the system (another reason that I am not really hooked on the whole AE thing).

This of course could be compounded by huge stake holders "colluding" to say hold back orders.

It is due to the way a tx is constructed and hashed - if the signature(s) do not include every byte of the transaction then it will always be possible to modify the tx and if the hash is of the entire tx (not just the signed part(s)) then there is not much you can do about it apart from:

Don't rely upon the tx hash (something Mt. Gox should never have been doing in the first place).

Nxt does actually make things simpler in that you can just use Account #s (you don't have to deal with UTXOs).

An exchange should only display a txid *after* the tx has been confirmed (until then it should just be displayed as "unconfirmed" with no hash at all) and even then the txid should only be handled as "descriptive" data (i.e. not indexed for any important purpose).

Just as those who "couldn't resist" trying to "score points" from the FUD - I can't resist keeping the "told you so".

So - there we have it from CfB - Nxt has THE SAME problem as Bitcoin.

Can you please stop the stupid tweets now as I can see CfB's statement being used as the "payback".

Now what was I saying about "glass houses".

Easily added into a client (i.e. just don't broadcast the tx until 10 seconds have elapsed with a button to cancel and a countdown) - no need to muck around with the protocol for something as simple as that.

Hmm... "those that live in glass houses would be advised to not get into the habit of throwing stones".

And +1 for the second meme with the little child in it (very clearly illustrates the maturity of it).

Am not so much against being aggressive in marketing - but I think there is a bit of a difference between that and using FUD (even if that FUD originates from what was once the largest Bitcoin exchange).

I don't see that as "positive" but instead quite negative (in the same way that many political ads are constructed).

Best way is to either post your last block info (block # and the % difficulty of it) into this topic and someone will most likely be able to quickly let you know (other signs are that you aren't getting new blocks for a long time or that you are forging many blocks in a row despite not having a huge amount of NXT).

IMO that is the *wrong* way to do it - and is only going to motivate other coins to start posting FUD memes about Nxt in retaliation.

You *reap* what you *sow*.

Why - so we can look like FUDsters along with Mt. Gox?

No worries - am sure we'll see some interesting ideas coming out once the AE is live.

I guess I am just a little more skeptical than most about its benefits other than removing the reliance upon 3rd party servers/DBs to store information (which in itself of course is a very clear benefit).

I very much doubt that, however, again people THIS IS NO NEW BUG - it was known and even written up in the Bitcoin wiki for *years* (even *I* was aware that tx hashes could be changed by changing tx information without invalidating signatures and I am no great expert).

Mt. Gox has done everyone a big disservice here with their bullshit press release that has basically led to a FUD storm and panic sell-off.

That is not true - the "problem" has been known since 2011 and is only affecting exchanges that use tx hashes incorrectly.

Don't spread FUD please.

I think people are getting too excited about it - it's not a bug that really affects anyone except for perhaps exchanges who are relying on the tx hash to check whether a tx went through or not (if you are using bitcoin-qt this wouldn't affect your balance at all).