I think the message of Nxt needs to be focused on one thing and that is Transparent Forging and how that will enable Nxt to handle 1000+ TPS.

Nothing else matters (all the other "2nd gen" crypto-currencies can do most of the other stuff like "colored coins").

Bitcoin can only currently handle 7 TPS and even with lifting limits like the 1MB block size it would still have troubles handling much more than 70 TPS.

If Nxt provides a payment system that can "truly compete" with Visa, etc. then that will be the *only thing that matters* (all the rest is just "icing on the cake").

I would find it hard to believe that the "checksum" characters are relevant.

The draft looks okay - but I would not be giving him more than a "token" amount of Nxt (say 1K at the most).

The guy is rich so if he has any real interest he would simply buy on an exchange and then promote it to easily double his money so a token amount should suffice.

Don't be so "desperate" to "look desperate" guys.

Again guys,

"calm down" and let the others "fight it out" - this "battle" for attention is not the "war" - play it like chess.

Guys,

Don't worry - the big difference I have seen between Nxt and the others is that:

i) It *doesn't* have VC capital backing.

ii) It *doesn't* have "slick sales guys*.

iii) It *does* have smart devs and an increasing following.

iv) It *is* delivering its promises (more or less) on time.

There will always be "the next* conference - stick to what you're doing well - people are watching this space with interest.

The fee paid was 0.005 (still rather generous - you might want to lower that to 0.0001) and the 4 BTC was presumably your *change* (you do understand about change?).

Perhaps you might want to try using "pywallet" - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34028.0 (apparently a new version is under development).

After someone pays me (I have also read every post in this topic)!

Man - to have waded through 1200 pages of this topic I think he would have already have had to be paid more than 10 BTC.

I certainly doubt he published "out of the goodness of his heart" though (so perhaps we ought to find an academic who has secretly already invested in NXT).

Yes - I get it and unfortunately I think some others don't realise how modern day academic research is generally funded (by industry).

Your opinions are welcomed and worth discussing so please don't leave on my behalf.

Agreed - just understand that this is how all "audit" companies work - they are "paid" to do "audits" and they are paid by the very companies that they are auditing (and indeed some audit companies have ended up being demolished by bad ethics but that hasn't stopped plenty of others being able to remain both ethical and profitable).

Note - I am flexible over this - if you can convince me that it is worth it for the crypto audit only then I will contribute the 5 BTC to that.

The money would obviously be best *not* to go *directly* to the academic (nor would it in normal funding situations). You offer funding to a university with the condition that something gets researched but it is up to the university exactly how the funding is spent (as the client all you care about is that the paper is published by a sufficiently qualified academic).

Once again - you are having troubles understanding the academic world - important academics are not generally "rich" although they are also not generally "poor" either (so they don't work for nothing).

Their reputation amongst their peers is *all important* to them - they are not at all likely to risk their reputation through shoddy work that is going to be "peer reviewed".

Sure you could point as some examples say from "big tobacco" but understand that those scientists were paid "millions" not thousands.

You do realise that most university research into things like CO2 and global warming is paid for by large corporations the are in the generally not at all clean energy sphere?

A "respected" academic will have their reputation torn to pieces if their work is shoddy and deemed to be just "for money" so none will touch it "just for the money" unless the money is enough to make them no longer care about academia (and we are not offering anything like that amount).

Oh - yes - seems I did - well I would prefer the 5 BTC I pledged to be on PoS analysis by an academic but if 10 BTC is not enough for the crypto audit then I will also be happy for it to go to that instead.

To be clear as long as what we are paying for is "transparent" (i.e. the funding is made publicly known) and the academic is "well known" (has been published in scientifically relevant journals for years and is at least a PhD to do with crypto) then I will go with either audit.

We already have bounties for flaws found - what we are looking for is a respected academic to thoroughly review Nxt and write a paper on it - minor glitches in algos are not really the issue as they can be easily fixed.

The real question is whether there is a major flaw in the PoS itself - if it can be *cheated* in any way easier than a >50% on Bitcoin then the whole thing about promoting PoS as >90% safe would be egg on the face of the devs and likely the end of the project.

And sure - if someone does this for nothing then that would save me 5 BTC so of course I would also be happy to wait until "Nxt is popular enough" but I do think this could speed up the process.

I certainly won't be donating 5 BTC towards anything that isn't 100% transparent and would assume the others pledging BTC would be expecting the same.

Perhaps the way it could be best handled is that the funds are donated to a university that employs academics rather than to any particular academic. Universities do most of their research this way so if you think that is wrong then I guess you think most academic work is wrong?