I was told by another forum member that Electrum supports offline signing of tx's via QR codes - can you confirm that?

If this is true then would you also consider the idea of signing an arbitrary small message with a Bitcoin signature (which could be used to "login" to a website entirely via QR)?

Exactly - of course we don't want any "under the table" payment for a review - we want a well known and well respected and well "published" academic to properly review Nxt.

I was not meaning you or anyone else - and any efforts to analyze relevant algorithms are of course appreciated - it is simply not what I have offered 5 BTC towards.

My 5 BTC contribution pledge was strictly conditional so please don't start treating it as "our" funds.

In answer to those questioning the paying for such a review understand that:

i) a person with a "name" in crypto is not going to risk losing that name over 20BTC.

ii) a person with the relevant skills and expertise would be likely being paid a lot so in order for them to be able to dedicate their time a decent financial incentive (not in NXT) needs to be offered.

Also some maths that some anonymous forum members have come up with is not what at least my 5 BTC is for.

Bitcoin's security was much heralded after Kaspersky's review - we need someone of the same caliber to do the same for Nxt.

I will add 5 BTC to the bounty provided we get someone who is qualified and respected (someone quote this post to make sure it is on the record).

We want someone with crypto cred more than someone with a media personality.

So now we have 15 BTC to pay for this - anyone else want to chip in?

Also agreed - no software that does *money* should ever be using binary floating point for that (and no financial software worth using *does*).

It's an exchange address so don't send any NXT to it.

I also think it's a bad idea to try and "bribe" Adam with NXT - I think he is likely to write about it anyway so sending him NXT to do so just looks "desperate" for publicity.

I appreciate the thought exercise (and have to sleep now) but I do think when we consider the real potential benefits of Nxt and other such platforms are we have to try and rethink some of the basic ways we do things.

We are never going to 100% stop corruption but if we make it expensive enough in an environment that means that your input amount gets distributed to others evenly then I think we might get a lot better situation than we do currently.

Yes - this is the basic idea - so people are voting whether to spend on "marketing" or "development" but who will actually *get* the funds for either choice would be a random choice of the winning "side" (the randomness could be based upon timestamps or something else blockchain related such as hashes).

So if you are "Alice" then spending a huge amount of NXT may guarantee that A wins the vote but it doesn't at all guarantee that *you* win the vote.

But once again if the vote is only for A or B rather than A1..x and B1..x then buying those votes are no better than using your own NXT.

The idea being that the choice of A1...x or B1...x would be entirely *random* (not a specific choice) so the specific choice that has been voted on is just the general idea of either A or B.

Hope this makes sense (yes corruption could still happen if all the A's or B's colluded and that would have to be another issue to be considered).

Not quite the same point (but I do *get* your point) - if I were trying to "fuck things up" for Nxt my guess is that I'd get all my alts to vote for the last option (so let us see how that pans out).

I like your thought process and this is somewhat where I am headed - I think if you ensure that what you are voting for itself is not easily gamed (and to my thinking the best approach would be to introduce a "random" aspect so say "A1..A5" instead of just A and "B1..B5" instead of just B where A and B are polemic ideas but 1..5 are different variations thereof) then people can just vote for A or B (not really caring whether 1..5 is implemented as long as it is an A or a B) then it becomes harder for each A and B *player* to game the system by spending more.

Okay - I don't think it is exactly that (as generally buying votes is done because you are pretty sure you will recoup the cost from the outcome).

If you are voting on A vs. B then both A and B might try to "buy" votes (and each has a 50% chance of presumably recouping their costs) but if you are actually voting in a way that neither A nor B can have any more than a 10% chance of winning (no matter how much they spend) then they are far less likely to even bother.

I wasn't talking about "buying votes" in the sense that someone is paying you to vote the way they want.

I am talking about a bigger PoS holder relinquishing some of their stake (to all the other voters equally) to affect the outcome of a vote, however, understand that if they have no guaranteed way of actually benefiting from this, and if it costs them a fair % of their stake to do so do you really think that this is so likely to happen?

If the rich stake holders are "paying" the smaller stake holders in order to "get their way" then aren't the smaller stake holders becoming bigger stake holders?

In PoS what matters is your *stake* so I think anything that helps increase small holders stake can't be a bad thing.

BTW - I am in no way a "big stake holder" so don't think that I am thinking about this "as a whale".

I agree that the amount to be paid should not need to be more than 1 NXT but I also think that if the total amounts are to be redistributed evenly then someone throwing in a bunch of NXT basically is redistributing their stake as much as influencing the outcome (and if the outcome has only a % chance of directly benefiting them then unlikely they are going to pump that much into it).

Of course designing such a system is no trivial exercise but I think it could be interesting to try something like this out with Nxt.

I think if the votes resulted in better distribution of funds from the bigger stake holders then that could only be a good thing in the long term and if the large stake holders are stupid enough to vote for destructive things then they will have ended up destroying their own wealth in the process.

Perhaps the point is that votes need to be not about specific financial benefits for specific entities (making it far harder to ensure your 10K voting investment will give you the 20K bounty).

If you only have say a 1/4 chance of getting the bounty *despite* your investment then would you still take that risk?

(I am talking about adding a random aspect to the final decision - just as it works with Transparent Forging)

How about this - you send NXT to an address to *vote* but at the end of voting the entire balance is then evenly distributed amongst the voting addresses (I guess it does make it worthwhile to vote many times with small accounts but setting that up and sending the votes does still take effort and 1 NXT fee per vote of course)?

If we look at the idea of a "truly democratic" vote you end up with basically the most populist idea winning every time (most people are not smart and will simply vote for what they think is in their best interest).

So I think "as the *next* gen" we should be experimenting with one or more different approaches.

I support it also although I actually would like to see people have to *pay* to vote (as I don't this has really been tried before and could be an interesting experiment).

Think about it - you can "rig" an outcome by burning up your NXT but how many times can you afford to do that?

Perhaps also rather than just having the NXT being used for such a poll being fed back as fees (which an AM approach would do) why not have the accounts be used for something (but not for what they represent so they can't send themselves money to use).