must involve some sort of default. The great trap of humanity is to accept that the ruled should obey completely opposite standards compared to the rulers. It is the source of all evil and most suffering in the world, and it's everywhere. If unlimited borrowing with no thought of repayment followed by strategic default is acceptable behaviour for governments, and multinational corporations, and central banks, then it's acceptable behaviour for individuals too. If any of these agencies or their cronies want to contest the ethical nature of such a course, they can lead by example or GTFO. well, you know what they say...you borrow small, the bank owns you. you borrow big, you own the bank. |
|
|
|
do students like being entrapped as debt slaves? Student loans are the escape route that looks like a trap. I'm in the middle of a blog post describing exactly how enterprising young people with access to them can use them in that exact manner. must involve some sort of default. |
|
|
|
do students like being entrapped as debt slaves?  |
|
|
|
|
if alts were not in fact a distraction and were not contributing to a zero sum game, then all cryptocurrencies should be falling in lock step.
the fact that alts are falling disproportionately more indicates to me, at least, that alts are in fact a distraction and subtracting from Bitcoin in a zero sum game and are in the process of being flushed.
|
|
|
|
You might be interested to read the discussion Vitalik came over and had with the nxt developers where he comes to the conclusion that nxt does things much better then it looks on the surface https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/bounty-for-successful-nothing-at-stake-attack/msg60114/#msg60114To quote vbuterin "So basically you use transactions-as-proof-of-stake. That sounds reasonable; it's as good as I can think of at this point, although it has the moderately-serious-but-not-fatal flaws that I described in my On Stake article. I eagerly await a full whitepaper description and open source code of your complete protocol so both myself and more formal academics can properly whack at the specifics." Also Nxt cannot be forked back more then 720 blocks so that alone would thwart the attack mentioned in your paper. Not to mention the economic clustering feature and transparent forging that's in development... Just like with bitcoin, I'd thought you be more aware that systems evolve. Just looking at their surface and taking them at face value is incredibly short sighted. like i've said before, Vitalik's understanding of "fairness" doesn't impress me. so how does he apply his view of the world into Ethereum and now NXT? probably the same way. you talk like NXT is a guaranteed success and everyone who disagrees with you is shortsighted. you may be right; but again you may be wrong. |
|
|
|
Bter paid the hacker 200 btc and the hacker kept 8 million which means he now has a stake in hoping the price of Nxt rises.
and this is a good thing how? negotiating and rewarding a thief? who still now holds 8M NXT and is now a sanctioned stakeholder who can now manipulate forged blocks for his own advancement within the system? It honestly just seems like you are picking at every little negative you can find and completely ignoring any of the benefits... I really thought you were more open minded then this. 8 million nxt won't even get a forger very far. Just like with bitcoin he has to play by the rules or fork himself away from the main chain. nitpicking? really? 5% of the entire NXT issuance just got stolen from the hot wallet of the main exchange. he just got paid off $100000 to return the NXT coins to bailout the customers. who will learn anything from this except the thief who now understands that criminality pays. and yes, it is a problem that he still holds 8M in a POS system that rewards stakeholders by depending on them to forge blocks. read the paper on POS that was presented here yesterday. |
|
|
|
Bter paid the hacker 200 btc and the hacker kept 8 million which means he now has a stake in hoping the price of Nxt rises.
and this is a good thing how? negotiating and rewarding a thief? who still now holds 8M NXT and is now a sanctioned stakeholder who can now manipulate forged blocks for his own advancement within the system? |
|
|
|
The point being that nxt is a feature platform before a currency and other coins can take advantage of these features by integrating nxt core into their client.
i'm comforted to hear that 5% of the NXT stakeholder market is a confirmed thief who will have forging rights on all future blocks. perhaps he will attempt to write even more of a stake into his holdings? I guess you didn't hear that 85% of the nxt was returned to bter? And that now many more users are aware that they should be using the multigateway to trade rather then storing their nxt on a centralized exchange? what did u have to do to get the thief to return 85% of the stolen NXT? and will Bter ever stop using a hot wallet? and will NXT users really learn to not leave NXT on an exchange if they've been bailed out? |
|
|
|
The point being that nxt is a feature platform before a currency and other coins can take advantage of these features by integrating nxt core into their client.
i'm comforted to hear that 5% of the NXT stakeholder market is a confirmed thief who will have forging rights on all future blocks. perhaps he will attempt to write even more of a stake into his holdings? |
|
|
|
Oxford study?  no it won't. the Bitcoin core devs have never introduced a patch or rollback to save any of the multiple exchanges that have been hacked and most likely never will. all updates are thoroughly vetted while gaining a consensus from the community before introduction. what's your point?
Most likely? What Consensus? Vetted by whom? What community? Aren't many people running older qt versions even now? The point is that holding and mining are two separate activities and can even sometimes be opposed to each other. But unlike gold for example, mining and using are very much interdependent in bitcoin. yes, there is a clear pathway to submitting patches and/or updates that goes thru the core devs. all changes get discussed ad nauseum ahead of time and consensus is formed before they're introduced into new versions of the core protocol. the community is free to chime in and express opinions. the point is that there is a process, not some off the cuff patch to rollback a hack as was just done by the NXT core devs. i'm not sure what you mean by there being opposed interests btwn hodlers and miners. i'm both and there's no inconsistency btwn both of my activities. most ppl don't update their versions out of laziness or a reluctance to create unforeseen problems in their current operations that the updates might introduce. it's not b/c they fundamentally disagree with the changes. |
|
|
|
Then why did the rollback not happen?
b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion. who knows. the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious. simply to reverse a hack, mind you. to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons. you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT  and of course there's no chance of that ever happening to bitcoin. LOL Wasn't it discussed to not have previous halving done? The asics saved it that time. What will save that discussion at next halving? Currently theoretically it would cost only about 2% of bitcoins total valuation to 51% attack it. And it's not going to get better because holders of bitcoin and miners have opposing monetary interests. Mining currently is like a bitcoin annuity since fees are negligible compared to block reward. The hope is when that transition to mining mainly for fees rolls around it will be enough. There are no guarantees it will be. It's interesting that this thread makes fun of gold needing to be dug up, transported and etc... and how bitcoin is so much better but it's ok to have bitcoin mining when it can be considered wastefull. Maybe in the future instead that big gold rock picture we'll be laughing at big bitcoin mining operations the same way. gimme a break. ppl die gold mining, let alone get seriously physically abused. what about the Oxford PhD's study do you not agree with? |
|
|
|
Then why did the rollback not happen?
b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion. who knows. the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious. simply to reverse a hack, mind you. to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons. you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT and of course there's no chance of that ever happening to bitcoin. LOL Wasn't it discussed to not have previous halving done? The asics saved it that time. What will save that discussion at next halving? Currently theoretically it would cost only about 2% of bitcoins total valuation to 51% attack it. And it's not going to get better because holders of bitcoin and miners have opposing monetary interests. Mining currently is like a bitcoin annuity since fees are negligible compared to block reward. The hope is when that transition to mining mainly for fees rolls around it will be enough. There are no guarantees it will be. It's interesting that this thread makes fun of gold needing to be dug up, transported and etc... and how bitcoin is so much better but it's ok to have bitcoin mining when it can be considered wastefull. Maybe in the future instead that big gold rock picture we'll be laughing at big bitcoin mining operations the same way. no it won't. the Bitcoin core devs have never introduced a patch or rollback to save any of the multiple exchanges that have been hacked and most likely never will. all updates are thoroughly vetted while gaining a consensus from the community before introduction. what's your point? |
|
|
|
Yikes:  That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer. yes, it's called the "flush":  |
|
|
|
Then why did the rollback not happen?
b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion. who knows. the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious. simply to reverse a hack, mind you. to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons. you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT |
|
|
|
Bitfinex BTC swaps at intermediate term highs (shorts). Time for a short squeeze:  |
|
|
|
back under 1300:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
