I have a nose for these things too - and I agree that Nxt should be used rather than Nextcoin - there are more than 100 xxxCoins around but there is only 1 Nxt.

Nxt is the "next generation" and the "next big thing", etc. I think easy to sell - rather than just another *Coin.

You have to message "theymos" to do that (it shouldn't be a problem but might take a day or so).

Guys - the sooner that you can work out your on the "same side" the better.

I think you have pointed out some issues at dgex and I think that they have already started to change things accordingly.

Fights don't help with the price of NXT and therefore don't really benefit either of your (or us) so let's try and focus on improving the technology and the platform.

You missed the "uber inner Bear" comment.  

(should have used a smiley - my bad)

Really?

Do you actually *know* Chinese?

I thought you'd stopped trying to "short" Bitcoins way back - the recent news in China has brought back out your "uber inner Bear"?

I would like to make a few of observations from the point of view of Bitcoin (and perhaps Litecoin) investors who have recently taken an interest in Nxt.

1) This project is being managed and run quite well - you guys are delivering results and improving the code constantly - this is creating a lot of interest.

2) Don't worry so much about all the "bells and whistles" now - get the basic stuff working solidly and keep to strict plans - nothing better than a project that runs smoothly and improves constantly.

3) "The revolution will not be centralised" - stick to this and keep the bounties going for small projects that help do this and help get the initial NXT spread around more.

Hard to say - mostly it shows that things are heating up and the competition to be the "next generation" is already taking its toll.

Hopefully Nxt will have the staying power!

For those who haven't already seen this (eMunie IPO cancelled): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=412118.0

Must have read my mind - actually what I've done is now put a version # in the .js file that can be checked on the server side.

Password Security Upgrade - Step 1

For those users who have "password" accounts (i.e. you use Standard or Client Crypto to sign in) you will need to sign in and click a link (such as your own user name) sometime in the next week to be sure that your current password will still work after a security upgrade is implemented (the upgrade changes your password hash).

There has been no security compromise (so no need to panic about your password hash being leaked) but instead this is just a "hardening" of the current password security (more rounds and future DB password encryption bumped up from AES128 to AES256). It is also being used as an experiment to see how smoothly such changes can be rolled out.

If you haven't changed your password since you signed up or are using OpenID then there is no need for you to do anything.

Once the actual security upgrade has been performed (I will post when this has occurred) then you'll need to refresh the webpage (as ciyam_interface.js needs to be updated) and after you successfully then sign in you might want to use the Change Password dialog (even if keeping the same password) to force the DB encryption improvement.

Of course the Satoshi client was the first and others such as Electrum or Multibit (at least AFAIA) are still relying on "full bitcoind" instances running on the servers that these "lighter" clients access (so they are effectively a protocol that sits above the bitcoin protocol).

What determines that it *is* the protocol was that is how the Bitcoin network came to be - the Satoshi code that people started using - as it was not released as an RFC or similar there simply was no other detailed documentation or software to use.

There are some wiki articles that describe the protocol in English but the Satoshi client (bitcoind/bitcoin-qt) source code *is* the real protocol (warts and all).

The source code is on github but unless you are fluent in C++ (including boost) then you probably won't have much luck understanding it.

Although Bitcoin has BIPs which are analogous to RFC's the problem is that unlike a problematic email server that might result in you losing some (hopefully not overly important) messages, problematic bitcoin clients (used by miners in particular) can result in "forks" which would make spending your coin a huge problem.

That being said other clients have been created and more and more unit tests are being written so that down the track it may actually be feasible to have the protocol being closer to something that could be documented like an RFC (I would not be expecting to see such a thing for years though).

Unfortunately the problem of not having interest means that "ponzi schemes" (such as pirateat40) will be always an issue.

It will take some time for people to "believe" that they "don't need interest" (it is a habit that has been ingrained for a long time).

Okay - I will look into this - the source being modified is no issue at all as I am sure I won't get everything right.

My motivation is not being "noted" for the contribution but to see a solution implemented.

This is interesting - if you think that it could be something that Litecoin would take on then I might be interested to work on this (am presuming you prefer etotheipi's solution than the one I separately suggested).

I think that if etotheipi isn't going to try something because there is no support from the devs then it is going to pretty hard to motivate others whose efforts are far more likely to be ignored.

If at least one core dev was supporting of the idea then I would gladly volunteer my time to implement it but I am very busy on my own project and am not really happy to spend hours or days on something that will end up just being ignored.

The point of this topic was "super-lightweight" - and the easiest way to achieve this would be to have the "fee" explicitly included in the tx.

I have no idea why the devs have no interest in this and why instead the topic needs to be changed to push other peoples ideas (why not create your own topics as I did?).

Perhaps one or more alts will look at this issue more seriously than Bitcoin.

There are ways to make a crypto currency QC proof but not if your public key has been seen.

So my question/concern is why the 2^64 approach rather a hash of the public key like Bitcoin?

Yes - (QC = Quantum Computing which is the most likely thing that could break the EC = "elliptical curve") - so a question of just how safe 2^64 is going to be if you are paranoid that the curve will get cracked sometime.

Your missing the point about your public key being "published" - this is one of the reasons why address re-use is considered bad.

If someone is able to crack the EC used (with QC I guess) then your funds are gone as they will determine your private key from the public one.

Of course this is also a big problem for Bitcoin - but as this is a 2nd generation crypto-currency I would have thought that this would have been taken into consideration.