The Matrix has you...
Lol, I'm so late to the party on nxt  java for life! Welcome  |
|
|
|
Seems Nxt has a new core dev. I can't keep up..  Is Petko new?
Yes, active contributor made some improvements to peer layer & tests and working on AC [Account Control] now. |
|
|
|
Seems Nxt has a new core dev. I can't keep up.. Is Petko new?
Yes, active contributor made some improvements to peer layer & tests and working on AC [Account Control] now. |
|
|
|
Also, for the fans... Hi folks,
right now, we are busy finishing the experimental version of 1.5.0e. It will contain the long-announced Voting System and phased transactions.
Voting System will give several options to create polls and several options to vote on such creates polls. Also, the set of voters can be restricted.
Phased transactions leads to a new kind of transactions: transactions included within a block but with delayed execution.
However, understand its implications require a severe amount of time and consideration (concerning the protocol, server-side, UI-side, third-party applications, etc.) which the team currently is working on. We are on a good track to pin down every corner cases, try to smooth things out and remove insensible use-cases.
That's so far for the upcoming release 1.5.0e. I cannot tell a release date for now. We first need to make sure we got it all right (at least theoretically) to reduce the amount of work later on.
Cheers,
Chuck
|
|
|
|
2FA in Nxt will be realized with hashchains.
What if I have a smartphone app that has a secretphrase encrypted with the data in a qr code kept somewhere else, then I need to scan that qr code to decrypt the secretphrase, the app signs the transaction bytes with it and then discards the secretphrase and qr code data.
This isn't true 2FA. In 2FA the code is generated dynamically, so it changes every 30 second and can't be reused. What you describe here is static password in the phone that you are scanning instead of typing. That isn't 2FA Nxt client never saves the password anyway, so if you don't like typing that password, you can write an app that scans it instead. Same thing. This isn't 2FA What (rough) release will hashchains be in? And is that the tech that prevents spam and allows zero fees? |
|
|
|
Account Control (lock your account to prevent any thefts, only allow transfers to specified accounts and others) looks like it could be in version NRS 1.6. So any news about AC now ?
Another dev, Petko, is working on AC. I see regular updates in a corresponding branch, so I think it will be in 1.6 |
|
|
|
97 to go. Almost there |
|
|
|
The tag line "safer than a Swiss bank" is a way to reach users of fiat banks who have not heard of crypto.
I'm sure when the public asked "So how is it safer than a swiss bank, Stan?" You, being the straight-as-an-arrow-wouldn't-dream-of-embellishment-my-word-is-my-bond Stan Larimer, replied "It's not, really. That was just a hook to lure you in but at least the government won't be able to seize your money with BTS. Just like they can't in every other blockchain based crypto..." Ok, I'll leave you guys to it. |
|
|
|
Ah, so BTS marketers were just trying to catch noobs who didn't understand that what they were investing in was available everywhere within crypto, rather than being a unique USP to BTS?
The inability to be seized is common among crypto. The ability to remain at $1 per bitUSD is not, only Nubits has the same functionality, with some differences in methods. We aren't talking about the same things. $1 = 1 bitUSD has nothing to do with systemic risk and safety. It's the difference between not spilling your drink when walking on the deck of a boat and trying to keep your drink when the boat capsizes. |
|
|
|
|
So we are back to 'why would you market a feature that is common to all?' Unless Stan got his revisionist's cap on and is writing a new chapter for his history book.
If anything is malicious, it is using someone's own ignorance against them. Only someone who hadn't been around the block would accept what the "marketing department" peddled. You could argue it wasn't targeted but the effect would easily be foreseen.
I am not arguing Swiss banks are safe, you are otherwise you wouldn't have used them in the comparison (you would have used cypriot banks). Not only that but and that BTS is also safer. So why post links now trying to undermine the safety of swiss banks?
Your definition of safer seems to be 'can't be seized'. Fine. But a more useful definition would be 'more likely to be there in 1-50 years time'. What do you think the ratio of swiss bank failures (even haircuts) to cryptos failing (I.e. systemic risk) will be over the next year? Next 50 years?
Maybe it is another case of Bitshares small print? "Safer than a swiss bank*"
*assuming you agree with our definition of safer being 'unsiezable', like every crypto is, rather than a lower systemic risk so there is a higher chance of a market being there the next time you look.
Systemic risk isn't unique to BTS. But most point out these as risks (crypto is high risk, latent fatal flaw(s) possible 》 asset within a crypto, relies 100% on the crypto 》 very high risk, risk squared and much more dangerous) rather than going the opposite way and portraying the same as a virtue.
|
|
|
|
So 'safer than a swiss bank' (and implicitly the swiss government) was a bit of an overstatement? Or do you still maintain that BTS has a lower systemic risk than a swiss bank/the swiss government?
I've only seen BTS comments relating to counterparty risk. Systemic risk not being mentioned, only allusions to BTS being equal to an insurance company or Fortune 500 company or other organisation that has significantly less risk of collapsing around you. And, presumably, hoping the reader equates the risk between the two as equal by association.
You're mixing apples and oranges here imo, that statement was made up by the Bitshares "marketing department" and does indeed refer to the safety of your funds compared to in a traditional bank, which is subject to government confiscations, bankruptcy, Cyprus style haircuts and other kinds of risk. Like you said in another post this is equally true for any blockchain based currency, although they of course do not offer the market pegged assets with interest payment that makes Bitshares more similar to a traditional bank. Ah, so BTS marketers were just trying to catch noobs who didn't understand that what they were investing in was available everywhere within crypto, rather than being a unique USP to BTS? But you still appear to support that $100 in BTS is safer than $100 of CHF in a traditional swiss bank. Maybe you should have said "Safer than a Cypriot bank", but I guess that would have grabbed fewer people.. |
|
|
|
So 'safer than a swiss bank' (and implicitly the swiss government) was a bit of an overstatement? Or do you still maintain that BTS has a lower systemic risk than a swiss bank/the swiss government?
I've only seen BTS comments relating to counterparty risk. Systemic risk not being mentioned, only allusions to BTS being equal to an insurance company or Fortune 500 company or other organisation that has significantly less risk of collapsing around you. And, presumably, hoping the reader equates the risk between the two as equal by association.
I'm not worried about banks collapsing, I'm worried about them brazenly stealing from people with government blessings. Ask the Cyprus bank customers who got a 40% haircut, or more. There are actually many places where we talk about systemic risk. For BitShares, this risk is equivalent to where any new crypto product would be expected to be in its second year of development. Over time, as the system matures, that risk tends to settle out to a level where more and more people feel comfortable. The "safer than a Swiss bank" tag line is intended to emphasize that, while banks and cryptos each have their own unique array of systemic risks, blockchain-based systems can be designed to be less vulnerable to the risks of arbitrary actions from unscrupulous governments. In particular, Swiss banks used to be famous for their privacy and safety from outside government interference. This has been completely lost in recent years. So in that sense, BitShares is much safer that what used to be the safest place to keep your assets - a Swiss Bank! Given the new Cyprus-style "bail-in" banking laws now sweeping the globe that permit banks to confiscate customer money to cover their own risky investments (e.g. MF Global), it is not hard to make the case that a mature crypto currency has much, much less systemic risk than the modern banking system. I'm not worried about banks collapsing, I'm worried about them brazenly stealing from people with government blessings. Ask the Cyprus bank customers who got a 40% haircut, or more.
Good dodge and misdirection (and I thought you had changed). I was talking about the systemic risk of BTS collapsing, I didn't ask if you were worried about banks. What you won't acknowledge and continue to draw attention from is that BTS isn't as secure as a bank from a systemic "collapse of market" failure as they have governments stood behind banks, ready to bail them out. If BTS goes down, there is no one there to pick them up again. It works, until it doesn't. All cryptos have blockchains, so you must think that all cryptos are safer than a swiss bank account? So why say that at all, if this is what you truly meant at the time. Would you market a car using features that were commonplace across all cars? "BitsharesCar has eye-level translucent windows, symmetrically positioned circular wheels and ergonomic posterior envelopment systems (seats)" ...No? Maybe you would.. |
|
|
|
|
So 'safer than a swiss bank' (and implicitly the swiss government) was a bit of an overstatement? Or do you still maintain that BTS has a lower systemic risk than a swiss bank/the swiss government?
I've only seen BTS comments relating to counterparty risk. Systemic risk not being mentioned, only allusions to BTS being equal to an insurance company or Fortune 500 company or other organisation that has significantly less risk of collapsing around you. And, presumably, hoping the reader equates the risk between the two as equal by association.
|
|
|
|
|
So GBP has the centralised government of one of the worlds richest economies, with the ability to borrow billions on a whim backstopping it and BTS has..2-3 times collateral denominated in a currency that will be at the centre of any crisis/loss of confidence?
Value does disappear: Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, pets.com... etc
|
|
|
|
4000 nxtforum members The honor goes to EmilyMusqu, congrats  Ok, carry on..  |
|
|
|
Here is an example of a peg failing. If the Bank of England is unsuccessful in enforcing a peg, what makes you think random actors can enforce one? All it takes is one dedicated individual with enough money or a systematic breakdown in confidence across the board. It's a good job everyone got out of GBP and it was exposed for the scam it was. Are you saying BTS has a centralized authority that can enforce the continued use of BTS after a major crisis and loss of confidence, until it recovers? That seems to be the only reason people are still 'in' GBP. |
|
|
|
Aren't all blockchains transparent? |
|
|
|
maxhgv's Nxt Android app update: Today i released the first version to the store. Its still in the process off reviewing by android.
I'm looking for testers. Who wants to test the latest versions?
Send me an pm with your email address, so i can invite you to the test community on G+.
|
|
|
|
Nxt also has the mofowallet, which you can download or run through the browser. http://www.mofowallet.com/Again, this is developed by third party developers rather than the Nxt core devs (Nxt is intended to grow beyond the core devs and that is why so many APIs are provided. See http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Nxt_API). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
