neat! thanks for sharing. |
|
|
|
Are you still selling? It says not available in the store.
Not through coingig. I just sell here on the forums. Whatcha looking for? Out of interest why not through coingig? I was thinking of starting to sell through there. No fault of their own. I did a successful transaction though coingig and they held up their end of the deal no problem. I have just been busy with NXT is all so i haven't really been pushing my silver business anywhere. I can still sell though if someone happens to ask. |
|
|
|
I don't trust anarchists.
anarchists are the most trustworthy people imaginable. since we don't use the state to force our preferences on others, we rely entirely on a strong reputation in order to facilitate commerce. go search around, take a look at my impeccable record for honesty and customer satisfaction. |
|
|
|
I bought things! Going to try to buy more next week. Sure I will need something.
you are supposed to tell us about the things you bought. |
|
|
|
Too many words.. These are the ones that count: Aside from the obvious caveat that there could be as of yet uncovered critical mistakes in the software, there are stakeholders out there who presently own more than 50 million out of the total 1billion coins issued. This means there are multiple individuals who individually own more than 5% of the total stake each. To put it bluntly, this is unacceptable. This is not the level of decentralization we have come to expect from a decentralized crypto. For NXT to be successful this must change utf_tg, you do everyone a disservice by dismissing most of the content of the article. While yours is a valid (and temporary, I hope) concern, people should read the article for themselves to gain an appreciation of the game-changing innovations behind by Nxt. In the spirit of balanced perspectives, I leave you with Anon136's final remarks from the article: I am not prepared to give investment advice; however, I am prepared to tell you that if you ignore the ideas behind NXT, then you do so at risk. Even if this particular implementation of these great ideas fails, the ideas themselves are here to stay, and they are going to fundamentally alter the crypto-currency landscape forever. Sounds like you may have missed a few things in your first reading. I suggest you go back and read it again with a little more thought to what it says. Nxt is still in its infancy, it hasn't had the time or the means to gain widespread distribution. Decentralization will improve as more buyers enter the market and the large stakeholders sell to them. As Anon136 pointed out, it's in their best interests to do so. How you weigh risk is your own concern, but I suggest it is equally risky to dismiss Nxt out-of-hand at this stage. It might be wise to hold off from going all-in for now, but a small investment as a hedge against your bitcoin position might be a very smart move. Full disclosure: I'm not a founding stakeholder, but I've put my money where my mouth is and I have a vested interest in seeing Nxt succeed. Their best interest being short term or long term..? " Decentralization will improve as more buyers enter the market and the large stakeholders sell to them." That's a pretty good euphemism for what has come to be known as "Pump-and-dump" Both, either. If you want to make short term profits than how does hording help with that. you would have to sell your coins to make short term profits. If you are thinking about the long term than you also need to figure out how to disseminate your coins inorder for your remaining coins to be valuable in the future. |
|
|
|
this is a scamcoin , that will go the way of dodgecoin.
did you actually read my article? |
|
|
|
I followed the instructions and tried to withdraw NXT from Ripple by sending it to the Peercover address but it is not showing up in the NXT blockchain. It's been over an hour. Has anyone else tried this. Am I missing something. Steps followed were.
1. On the Peercover Gateway, click 'Withdraw' and 'NXT'.
2. Enter my NXT account. Enter the amount to withdraw Click 'Withdraw NXT'. Copy the address given.
3. Login to Ripple wallet.
4. Click 'Send'
5. Input the address recorded from Peercover and the amount to withdraw, and type "NXT".
6. Click 'Send NXT'.
7. Wait for green notification confirming NXT was sent.
Do you see the transaction in the nxt blockexplorer? http://87.230.14.1/nxt/nxt.cgi?action=100No it's not showing there. But ripple confirmed that the NXT was sent to the Peercover address. What could have happened? it sounds like both of you were on the same wrong chain. very strange but from what you have told us it sounds like that is what happened. |
|
|
|
As i understand it the signing is handled by a c++ library.
(one that i cant get to work for the life of me and its making me want to pull my hair out)
I was referring to how our passphrase gets stored in Java memory in certain situations, but I probably didn't get it out right. From the way I have understood it... even if we were able to unlock so that we forge with this second block signing key, the existing security threat with Java memory and our current passphrases will remain the same. No biggie if I am missing something... my NXT friends will clear the fog quick!!!  Ok so if there is a leak, that would only effect transactions. Using your account to forge would pose no risk. The block signing key would probably be stored in plaintext honestly because no one would have any incentive to want to steal it so long as there was rule saying that tx fees must be payed to the address holding the stake. |
|
|
|
|
Tally stick was not an emergent phenomena. As i understand it tally sticks were fiat money.
|
|
|
|
I would like to buy 1 million NXT @ 0.00004000 = 40 btc
open to negotiate, pm me
Everyone who posted below looking for nxt. PM me. I can fill all your orders. +1 for buybitcoinscanada, smooth transaction, i sent first |
|
|
|
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.
What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.
perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.
+1... but the security threat will still be there because of the infamous Java memory issues in regard to transaction signing.  But hey... I wouldn't mind being able to use my block signing key independently AT ALL!  As i understand it the signing is handled by a c++ library. (one that i cant get to work for the life of me and its making me want to pull my hair out) |
|
|
|
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.
What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.
perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.
I completely agree with this. I have 8,000,000 NXT i'm too scared to leave up on a computer.... i found it! 13695941894527713484  very impressive horde. |
|
|
|
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.
What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.
perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.
This is an interesting idea, let's discuss it and implement if it's really good, the whole community should take part in the discussion. No need to ask BCNext, Jean-Luc or me. The big drawback is that would reduce the total number of transactions that could fit in a block. I wonder how significant the impact would be. |
|
|
|
|
hey cfb i had this idea. i wont claim that its a good idea. but i think its atleast interesting enough to be worth sharing.
What if, rather than being associated with a single public key, entries in the accounting ledger were associated with 2 public keys. One could be used to sign transactions and one could be used to sign blocks. This division would add a lot of protection from theft for node operators. That way only the block signing key would need to be left unlocked meaning that leaving your account unlocked would entail no extra risk of theft. It would help us move towards a point where there is no cost associated with forging so node operators would be more intentioned to forge all of the time even if their chances of forging a block were slim. As it stands right now, someone who is not likely to forge more than one block per year may decide its not worth the risk to leave his client unlocked, where as if this idea were implemented than there would be no risk of theft and so he would have no reason not to leave it unlocked.
perhaps you could also pass it on to jean luc and bcnext just for the sake of giving them something interesting to think about that may lead to similar but better ideas.
|
|
|
|
he makes some good points. i really do believe that bcnext is a really brilliant computer scientist but that code is a clusterfuck. it would be nice if someday we could get some serious software engineers to implement these really good ideas elegantly. in time perhaps.
I'm sure that Jean-Luc and the team will rewrite every line of the code. In the end we'll see that there is nothing created by BCNext left, only the idea. What if that was his initial plan? That would be awesome because I have done everything in my power to poke holes in the ideas. They really are very solid. If this dev team really does a top notch job than this thing is going to the moon. |
|
|
|
I know CfB has him on ignore but this is epic. I unignored him 2 days ago. He is funny. he makes some good points. i really do believe that bcnext is a really brilliant computer scientist but that code is a clusterfuck. it would be nice if someday we could get some serious software engineers to implement these really good ideas elegantly. in time perhaps. |
|
|
|
Where is rickyjames?  Pin rickyjames should open his detective agency and accept payments in NXT. Lol. You know, the most interesting people I ever searched for were my line of paternal grandfathers. All the way back to 1523 in Scotland - I'm a member of Clan Gunn. One of them was a 23 year old who crossed the Atlantic in 1673. yea i stopped trying to trace back my lineage after learning that 2 of my grandfathers were nazis and one was a southern plantation owner  that was enough knowledge for me on that subject. |
|
|
|
|
Its a sub conscious defense mechanism against the rage and helplessness that they would feel if they comprehended in a visceral way how much of their birthright has been stolen from them. Were it not for the wealth destroyed by government the least skilled workers would probably be making over 100 grand a year. Mcdonalds employees would likely be able to afford to drive lower end ferraries if they worked a lot of hours and sacrificed other lugusuries. Or alternatively if you preferred than you could chose to be poor and scrape by with all the food you need, a decent computer, a 1 room apartment on a 6 hour work week. Or perhaps you could work your butt off and become successful in real career and retire at 27. Once you comprehend just how much has been stolen from you over such a long time period, its hard for the human mind to come to terms with it, so our subconscious shields us from that pain.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
