As far as I understand Instant Transactions depend on Transparent Forging, which is promised to be fully implemented before the date of the first anniversary of NXT at the end of November.

Here is the development roadmap (Instant Transactions are still in design phase):
https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/development-roadmap-update-2014-07-05/

Perfect definition of what US is doing, but hey, they print the currency they owe everyone debt in, so that doesn't count

Sure they can. Of course, not that bank or Portugal, but the European central bank, they have all legislation in place for that and they are doing it. They also have legislation for bail-ins in place. Doesn't matter what debt is denominated in, they can devalue euro to buy dollars if the debt is in dollars.

That only proves Vericoin is a fail.
There has been numerous successful attacks on smaller PoW coins, but Bitcoin is still here (although it can be argued for how long).
But the thread is about something else, about hypocrisy.

If that logic is applied, would you say that Fantomcoin should be more valuable than Monero, because it can be merge-mined with it and a few others, meaning it can easily have more energy spent on mining it (larger total hashrate) than any other single CN coin? So why does it not happen? Is it because of energy spent or because there are not enough users/marketing/development efforts of Fantomcoin after all? What comes first - users see value in a coin or miners come to mine it? I would say miners follow the price, not vice versa, which proves my point that it's useful properties of a coin that matter, not how much energy is spent on it.

@kbm, see my post on why energy spent doesn't back a coin, because there is no guarantee that you can exchange a PoW coin for kWhs of spent energy. Backing a currency with some tangible things in the past centuries meant you can redeem bank notes for gold or silver. You can't do that with a crypto, so it's pointless to talk about some sort of backing with energy.

The value of a coin is not found in how much hardware it takes to 'extract' it, but in useful features it offers to users.

You may not call PoS a coin, but a share or a token, does it really matter if it's used to transfer value and pay for goods and services just like PoW coins are used? The end users could care less about those definitions, to them it's all vehicles that have properties of money and can act as money, which is all that matters.

You can duplicate source code of a PoS coin, but you can't duplicate infrastructure and developers. And by the time you can, the network effect has already set in and competitors can't catch up, provided that development of the first PoS coin hasn't stopped, both software and infrastructure development.

It is also important to consider user base and ongoing distribution which can't happen overnight for any PoS clone.

For the sake of the debate stating the obvious shouldn't be done so bluntly

No, I do not.

There is no fair way is my take on it, and even if you distributed all coins to all 7 billion people on Earth equally, a few years later, most coins would end up in the hands of a few of them. Hence, the 'fairness' aspect is of secondary importance. More important aspects are technical aspects and useful purposes of the coin.

Fiat is a currency proclaimed and enforced by a government as money, literal translation of fiat - 'by decree'. I am not sure what you refer to when you say "going back to fiat".

I agree that many investors want to see the PoS crypto to stay around longer without breaking to invest. My statement was assuming that. And because there is no rush in the mainstream to invest in crypto currencies, although there has been some progress in the past 12 months, there is still plenty of time to prove to new users that certain PoS implementations are at least as secure as PoW.

Reality check! It's only profitable to mine if you have access to free electricity (most people don't), or you're a botnet operator (most people aren't) or invested and keep investing hundreds of thousands of $$$ into Bitcoin ASICs (most people don't, they invest thousands $$$ at best which is not enough to make mining profitable).


The thing is different PoS implementions are different. NXT's PoS implementation is not the same as Peercoin's PoS implementation, which in PoW world would be equivalent to hashrate of the network, hence security of different PoS coins is also different, same as security of Bitcoin's network is different from security of Dogecoin's network. There has been no serious and full assessments of NXT PoS implementation by PoW experts yet. The most they did in regards to PoS was look at Peercoin's PoS and claim that any PoS is insecure, which is irrelevant and not true, because it doesn't say anything about NXT's particular implementation.

Well, it goes to prove my point that most people don't care about fair distribution, because we don't see a lot of Myriadcoin supporters.

They only cry 'unfair' to PoS when it suits their agenda (they already have a good stake in hardware or their favorite flavor of PoW coins (Bitcoin most often) they mine).

If they truely cared about fair distribution, they'd run to mine and hodl Myriadcoin, but they don't. Nobody gives a fly about fair distribution (except a few Myriadcoin developers), anyone with a slightest touch of reality can observe that. Hence, I and anyone with senses can make a conclusion it's just hypocritic talk on their part. But we won't hear from them in this thread probably, they know they will lose in a debate.

Then you might be one of the few that don't have emotional attachment and other kind of attachment to their investments, if you really do what you just said you do.

Which big names evaluated and rejected it, if some of them even say they can't properly assess it without a whitepaper? (Keep in mind that different PoS implementations are... , different. Peercoin PoS is not the same as NXT PoS implementation and what some experts say about Peercoin PoS can't be applied to NXT PoS).

...you are hypocrites, because none of you stands in defense of Myriadcoin, which allows for a truely fair distribution among all PoW coins.

You only talk about fair distribution, because you have invested in ASICs that allow you to mine Bitcoins or you have mined Bitcoins from the early start and have shitloads of them now (called 'vested interest'). 99.999% of people who are not miners don't give a rat's ass about distribution, as long as the crypto does what they need it to and they have to buy the crypto, PoW or PoS with fiat anyways.

There you go, slap on your face

$400-450 is possible, $220 probably not, if only in a short-lived spike on one exchange like the one that happened in March on btc-e.

Is this like Alcoholics Anonymous or something?

There is a whitepaper, but probably not a detailed one for someone's tastes (someone is still working on it as NXT evolves). Other than that it's the source code only. That's where the true mathematical proof is. It can be argued that "showing your work" is best achieved by running a crypto without it being successfully attacked, but there has been reviews also, although perhaps not by PoW experts for the reasons I stated above.

Ok, let's go back to Monero.

You could outline flaws in NXT as you see them, if you are up to it, because, as you understand, without proof any claims are just that, claims. Different levels of insecure is interesting, a particular implementation of PoS only needs to be more secure than the strongest PoW implementation and network to have the argument of insecurity burried for a long time. It could still allow some theoretical attacks, but theory and practise are far from each other.

Vitalik actually signed up an nxtforum.org after that blog article and asked some questions and got a somewhat satisfying reply. Of course NXT is still developing, but there is no obvious attack that could be staged against it at this point, at least no easier practically than attack against Bitcoin, perhaps two orders of magnitude more expensive (buying coins vs buying hardware).

There could be two reasons why Bitcoin biased experts actually attempt to review cryptonote.
Because: a) they don't feel that their Bitcoin investments are threatened by CN cryptos; b) because cryptonote is also PoW, which falls in line with Bitcoin and reinforces faith in PoW scheme, both for themselves and newbies who only start looking into cryptos.

PoS is a totally different animal, and getting someone who has been a strong believer in PoW to review PoS objectively is a problem because in case they find out PoS is safe and better, they can't back out of this, because then math would prove it, which means the status quo of their PoW investments would be shaken. So for now the approach is to stick the head into the sand hoping PoS would just go away by itself