All they have to do is satisfy reserve ratio requirements. Usually that's about 10 to 1.

I personally prefer to see trading fees and not withdrawal fees. I dont mind paying 0.35% for entrance and exit (0.7% Round-Trip), and for that to be reduced for increased volume trading.

Good catch. Looks like this trick will work if u r the only one who uses this strategy. Will freezing recently moved coins for 1440 blocks solve the issue?

PS: It's not the injected flaw, but still post ur Nxt account for 10K reward plz.

In essence it works by having the author of the next block be selected by comparing the public key that he is using to hold his stake to the public key of the author of the previous block. In-order to prevent the new block author from simply creating a public key that would win and loading that public key with his stake BTCNext introduced the idea of effective stake. Only stake that has remained stationary for 1440 blocks (24 hours) has the right to author a block. Would be attackers can not calculate 1440 blocks into the future because they have no idea who is going to author the very next block, let alone the next 1440 blocks. Inorder to prevent an attacker from creating a "trap" where if he manages to become lucky enough to author one block in the future than he has prepared a set of funded addresses which would "catch" the subsequent blocks, we don't only rely on the previous block authors signature alone, but build an entirely separate "block chain" which is the result of hashing every public key ever used to author a block.

...
         if (Block.getLastBlock().height - height < 1440) {

            return 0;

         }
...

seems like the same fundamental misunderstanding as the venus project people have. business to business barter could never take the place of money because it is necessary to have a heterogeneous unit of account inorder to have prices. Prices are necissary inorder to calculate profit and loss and inorder to account for opportunity costs. Calculating profit loss and opportunity costs is necessary in order to rationally allocate scarce resources and to communicate, in a useful way, the decentralized knowledge of individual market actors. Self issued credit is great, but it must be priced, and inorder to do this you need a widely understood unit of account.

so imagine trying to know how many shoes an elevator is worth, and how many elevators a mongoose is worth, and how many mongeese a cheeseburger is worth, with out using "money" as an intermediary step.

you sound very qualified to give me some feedback on my paper. if you were interested in doing that i would be appreciative.

If anyone would like to help critique/proof-read a paper i wrote on nxt for a guest post for a blog please pm me! I'm really bad a knowing where commas go so I could really use some help.

seems like the same fundamental misunderstanding as the venus project people have. business to business barter could never take the place of money because it is necessary to have a heterogeneous unit of account inorder to have prices. Prices are necissary inorder to calculate profit and loss and inorder to account for opportunity costs. Calculating profit loss and opportunity costs is necessary in order to rationally allocate scarce resources and to communicate, in a useful way, the decentralized knowledge of individual market actors. Self issued credit is great, but it must be priced, and inorder to do this you need a widely understood unit of account.

so imagine trying to know how many shoes an elevator is worth, and how many elevators a mongoose is worth, and how many mongeese a cheeseburger is worth, with out using "money" as an intermediary step.

True. Therefore, in my analysis, if we want to create a fair and stable value unit, the best that can be achieved is to define a "universal Q" as a constant, accepting that this can only ever be an arbitrary approximation of an indefinite variety of "other choices".

 I have chosen to use the RICI basket of 37 world commodities as Q.
This is rational because the necessities of agriculture, mining and energy are part of most people's "other choices".

Example: "You can't buy this hot tub because we won't have money left for the fuel bill or groceries to feed the kids."

Thus,  ultimately all discretionary purchases are evaluated against necessary purchases, no mater how poor or rich one might be.

Therefore, my proposal is that Q should consist of necessary purchases of the global population, which is what the RICI is designed to be.

Once we define Q, the fixed basket of necessities, we can then define a new value unit as the US dollar value of that fixed basket which, of course, includes energy.

This basket is a constant, assuming quality consistency of the products in the basket.

It 's US dollar value is defined by futures contracts in markets all over the world. No matter what happens to the US dollar, the new value unit still buys the same basket of global necessities.

The US dollar can be translated into any other currency in established markets, and replaced if necessary. This can continue until there is no national currency left to define the new value unit against.

 By then, if it ever happened, the stable value in real goods of this new unit would be well established in peoples minds and would be, as always, just as individually subjective and variable as the $20 bill was, blowin' in the wind.

That is precisely what I have been working towards.

For those of us that are new.... I just set up my first NXT account today.  What happened with DGEX exactly?  Are they an untrustworthy exchange now?

I normally don't call people trolls, but:

1) It is clear you have not been following anything related to NXT. Injected flaws (in an otherwise working base code) with bounty payouts is meant to encourage people to take a very hard look a the code. Also, read the 1st post again, c-f-b explained this.
2) Bashing how "clean" the code looks. Really? If you're so good at this, why didn't you come up with a better NXT first? It's probably because you can't (hence you have to fork NXT's code... how ironic).