I don't follow. The 'Hunger Games' argument is only possible because POS is unforkable, right? How does me buying anything relate to this?

Ur post seems off topic. Don't worry, I won't report you

Ok, I'll put you down for the day after 28th Feb. Far too early if you ask me...

I never new POS was unforkable too. That's why I like these threads with all the smart guys in, it is eye opening.

So some people argue the switch to POS will be end of 2015 and others are saying mid 2016. There are good arguments on both sides. I don't know but I would bet end 2016.

Do we need a vote to settle this once and for all?..

Hmm... can you post:

What operating system
Browser

you use.

Maybe a screenshot of the dashboard in your wallet?

Also, the public key bit will be made optional in a future release (maybe even the next one).

So there will be fewer problems with public keys.

Do you have a Nxt account set up and ready to go?

If so, use a faucet listed in the OP to do the public key part. Then you'll be set to move the Nxt from Bittrex.

Hmm... do they appear in a blockexplorer correctly? Like nxtreporting.com.

I'm pretty sure burst is a clone of Nxt, runs its own nodes etc. That's how they managed to implement Automated Transactions. There isn't any direct relationship to Nxt so wouldn't be a suitable if you want exposure to Nxt.

Hashrate.org is the best place, if you have a mining rig, to get Nxt.

Unfortunately, Cryptsy has a reputation for having long withdrawl times occasionally. They can be quite long.

Have you raised a ticket with them?

I don't think anything will happen.

But, to be fair, you have to give some prior notice of the attack that is blockchain based (encrypted message in Nxt and then post the account password after the attack,  for example). Otherwise, you could just wait for any $40000 coin to dip 50% as say "Ha! That was me. I told you guys I could do it!" 


 

Thanks. Have a nice day too.

My reference was the thread. The thread explicitly tells you that that quote isn't in this paper. My post above states the same, results in "subsequent papers".


The only person linking that quote about the results to this paper is you. And then you are attacking me on the grounds that I am the one making the link.

Where was I misquoting? Which parts are my opinion?

If you want to challenge the authors, I think it would be better done in the other thread.

Name a POS you want your Proof-of-Trust to apply to and we can look at that one. The above is the answer for Nxt. And which parts aren't true or you object to?

Generalising is helpful to you as it is easier to create strawman arguments. Have some POS come unstuck having too much on an exchange? Yes. Is that justification for calling all POS "Proof-of-Trust in exchanges"? No. Especially in the case of Nxt.


This topic is actually about reviewing Kushti's research findings, not generalising POS based on opinion.

Many people use Nxt to invest in:

i) physical ternary processors for use in distributed computing (Internet of Things)
ii) anonymous social media apps
iii) machine learning enabled, decentralised trading bots (intended for traditional forex markets, eventually)
iv) crowd funding for MMORPG computer game

and dozens of crypto only related projects. Nxt is creating its own ecosystem and the real world is starting to plug itself into it.

"Proof of trust in exchange platform" - only if the scenario you describe actually applies. BTER is the biggest Nxt exchange and had problems in the summer. Even then, the wallet was only 50 million Nxt = ~5% of all tokens. What you describe might be true for smaller POS but broadbrush generalising isn't representative of POS.

There is no reason to think Nxt will follow the centralisation of bitcoin. You can already trade NXT <> BTC from within the platform in the most decentralised way to date through Multigateway. BTCD, Blackcoin, Veri, Doge are in development and there is no reason other coins couldn't be added. Additional security of Nxt account will come next year with Account Control and 2-Phased transactions (you will be able to 'lock' an account for N blocks, or limit transfers to nominated accounts only so even if someone gets your password they can't move your Nxt). Smart Contracts will also take the risk away from dealing P2P and not use exchanges. Through Monetary System, coins built on top of Nxt can be traded in a completely decentralised way through Nxt itself.


Nxt is still maturing but there is less and less reason to use exchanges or even centralised services at all. Even now it is no where near the scenario you describe.

Of course!    

Thanks 

I'm pretty sure he is referring to me here   when I said there are still some issues but

"it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with "1% stake even" as stated by Buterin"

After implying I'm a liar    I pointed out that is a direct quote of the OP in this thread   Then I was called a muppet so I quoted the whole paragraph. And now I have a worthless opinion? For the record (and repeating myself again), it isn't my opinion. It is that of the authors And you are refusing to engage honestly with it.


I think we have a flat-earther on our hands, it won't matter what research Kushti & andruiman produce. He'll cling to the unproven claims he has parroted for months. We need open minds and a technical demolition (if one is even possible) of the paper to move forward. Kushti has even provided the tools and models to do it! But make no mistake, this is a big step for everyone

Weren't they both related to exchanges holding a large proportion of the coins and being hacked? Or maybe being 'hacked'?

Don't get ruffled jonald, we all make mistakes. The quote is exactly where I said it was.

The reason they say it is because this paper is the first part of their findings. Consider it a teaser. Hence...


"- we have formally defined nothing-at-stake attack(again, using Buterin's informal definition) and made initial simulations. We haven't included their results in paper as they are seems to be too raw, but I can reveal them here: N@S attack could happens only in short-range, e.g. for within 20 blocks for 10% stake, so with 30 confirmations we haven't observed the successful attack. Also please note the attack has pretty unpredictable nature for attacker, so he can hardly enforce it, even in theory(in practice it's even harder to get it done properly). The correlation with stake size is still the open question, but it's nearly impossible to attack a proof-of-stake currency with "1% stake even" as stated by Buterin"



You're welcome.