IMO /Nxt would be representing "the cause" more than /NXT (the latter would be equivalent to having /BTC rather than /Bitcoin).

Correct (more or less - as it *does* require protocol changes so it is not *strictly* an "add on") although I do understand that they are going to release their own alt coin (if for no other purpose than to demonstrate how it can be used with Bitcoin or other alts).

It won't be used for Bitcoin any time soon as it requires changes to the protocol which I think the core devs would rather see tested on alts first (as the changes aren't just minor tweaks).

Also in its current form each ZEROCOIN_SPEND requires around 24K of "proof data" to accompany it (although this is supposed to be reduced to only 200-300 bytes by May).

Some of the Nxt crowd are looking to create a prototype for ZC now though - it usage will have to be via a SWIG layer (being looked into at the moment) but assuming they get that working you could very likely expect ZC to become part of Nxt after May.

At this early stage I think that DAC is mostly just being used as a "buzz word" to attract investors rather than anything really groundbreaking.

For such an entity to work it would need to be 100% controlled by "math" rather than by individual whim and I don't think we've yet seen anything that is doing this (although maybe such a thing will be appearing soon).

I am interested in how this might progress - as stated you might want to look into what Open Transactions has done with this area (they have done an awful lot).

I also think that the (much hated) voting system will probably be a key aspect (and for this case I think it would generally be pretty much clear that those with the greatest holdings would hold the power).

When the "decisions" of the "virtual corporation" are decided by a "vote" and the funds are *controlled* by the voting majority then you start to get something that is *different* and interesting.

Imagine if "pirateat40" could not actually do anything with his funds without the majority of holders agreeing (perhaps you wouldn't even see such a scam come into existence)?

This is why you start "private companies" and if the whole point of the Asset Exchange is to replicate "Kick Starter" then I think it will fail from day 1 (as I understand the US has already made laws about that approach which I am sure other western countries at least will soon follow).

It doesn't seem to go into any detail at all - understand I am not *against* the idea of some sort of "decentralised corporation" but I think that at the moment the way people are going about it is *ass about*.

The current mechanism seems to support the "pirateat40" model that says "Hey, here is a great investment - give me your money!" and then later disappears with the money along with a bunch of people then trying to use the "legal system" in whatever country to "catch them".

If you are going to use the "legal system" at all then you should use it from day 1 and if you are not then you need something better than someones "rep" on the internet.

You need to be perhaps a bit more "precise" in what this DNA actually is - is it some math rules that dictates how the company operates?

If we are talking about "proper public companies" then I don't see any reason why they wouldn't just stick to stock exchanges - there is nothing for them to gain but a bad reputation if they start listing on P2P Exchanges IMO.

BTW - I am not a US citizen so its laws are actually not well known to me at all.


I don't agree - the advantage that a P2P Exchange has is simply allowing anonymity. Any decent public company doesn't need that and so doesn't need P2P and the "bad rep" that comes with it.

A "revolution" would be a company whose rules work entirely upon "math" and therefore "don't need" laws or lawyers. We may see that down the track but I don't think that Nxt Asset Exchange has been created with this in mind (nor what is being developed in at least most other similar projects).

That is simply not going to work - the laws about public companies are very strict and very different in every single country (btw - stop thinking that the US is all that matters, please).

So thinking that some sort of anonymous corporation would be covered by *any* specific countries laws just doesn't make sense (as they are contradictory).

To have a corporation *work* in a decentralised manner means that lawyers and laws *must not apply*.

It can only have meaning through a digital contract that is enforced by math and I don't think that the Asset Exchange feature is actually going to do this (Ethereum may get closer although I think Open Transactions probably the closest so far to achieving this).

Even if Nxt does beat others to having an Asset Exchange I wouldn't really put that much expectation in said *feature*.

It will most likely be used by scammers to relieve people of their investments as has been seen many times with such attempts as GLBSE and the likes.

I very much doubt I would ever invest in any sort of "share" in a "digital corporation" which would presumably be anonymous and able to simply run off without a trace at any time (although I would be pretty sure that there are 100+ new "pirateat40" types just waiting for this to be ready).

Personally 1000 TPS is about 1000x more interesting to me than a P2P Asset Registry (which will not be recognised by law and therefore pretty much pointless).

Indeed - key stretching is what scrypt is all about and was proven by both myself and Mike Caldwell in challenges to crack passwords that were only 5 or 6 characters long (his challenge was 6 and mine was 5 from memory).

Apart from that I think that the ability to create a new account from an existing one with the pubic key being published as part of the account creation would help things from the perspective of "cold storage" (actually it would be even better if rather than the public key a hash of it could be used for those that are paranoid about ECDSA being cracked).

Their invoices don't normally wait for a confirmation (i.e. normally it will detect the payment within seconds).

As others have pointed out you'll just have to wait for support which may take 24 hours so best to just be patient now - am sure it will be resolved.

Yup - that is why I said "trickier" and I don't have a solution at the moment - but it is something worth thinking about (perhaps involving getting an existing NXT holder to provide 1 NXT for said purpose?).

Wouldn't it be better though to have an account's public key published when you unlock it (if not already in existence - i.e. a *one step* procedure)?

This might be a little trickier - but would make the security argument about 64 bit go away once and for all.

This seems like a reasonable and easy to implement improvement (although maybe the wording of the text would need to be a little more "user friendly" than mentioning 2^256).

It is not *me* - this is what is *already* being added via what is called Transparent Forging.

From what I understand the forger who doesn't forge (or in fact forge first as from what I understand forgers are going to be grouped) will be *unable* to forge for 1440 blocks.

I suggest you look at C-f-B's posts about this - the full implementation of Transparent Forging won't be in place until April apparently so I think we have a lot to digest before considering radical changes.

To be a Nxter you first have to be prepared to wade through 1300+ pages and then you need to keep reading another few pages every day.

 

Well - that block explorer does *look* a lot more like blockchain.info - and does have a few nifty features - kudos to the creator(s)!

There is a block explorer around already (but your suggested domain name might be a better home) - btw blockchain.info has had a *huge* amount of work put into it over the last couple of years (and has had full-time employees for some time) so I think it would take a while for a Nxt equivalent to become "that polished".