I wonder what all these hundreds of Bitcoin developers actually coded over the years if NXT already can do so much more than Bitcoin and more functions are coming.
|
|
|
The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".
I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.
The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.
How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?
|
|
|
But money's not wanted as a store of value for the sake of storing that value. It's wanted to store value to delay exchanging it for goods and services later, that is, it's wanted for what it can get you, in the future if not now (even when you have to exchange it to fiat first).
Commodity money means you can also use that money as commodity, with some unique properties. I don't think crypto currencies fit into the commodity category, well, not all of them at least. Some of the crypto currencies have unique properties that others don't have. Others are not unique at all. But again, even those unique properties are only as good as being able to exchange them to specific goods and services. After all, you can't eat, wear or make things out of crypto currencies. Definition of commodity doesn't fit. Digital commodity, as some like to name crypto currency, is only useful to define taxing rules, but the commodity part in it is meaningless.
|
|
|
Yes, I use NXT to buy tokens on NXT Asset Exchange, does that qualify?
sure, technically. But the fact is you really didn't want the token, you wanted what the token could get you. So the token was the currency for the real deal not NXT CC. thanks for participating though Isn't any currency not wanted for the sake of currency but for the sake of what you can get with it? Anyway, most things are cheaper and easier to buy with fiat now, crypto currencies don't have many unique use cases yet.
|
|
|
It will have no effect on the price. 2013 was the year when adding a coin to another exchange/service had effect on the price. 2014 is different (at least the second half of 2014), but many people still prefer to live in the past, this is reflected in many false ideas floating around this forum.
|
|
|
Yes, I use NXT to buy tokens on NXT Asset Exchange, does that qualify?
|
|
|
Bitcoin is decentralized. Satoshi wrote about the incentive to attack vs. incentive to profit. Nobody has shown a way to make a 51% attack that would have any chance at profitability. All trolls do is create FUD. Even if a trillionaire decided he had so many extra billions laying around he wanted to just burn, he could buy the gear to make a 51% attack. That would be an eye opening event indeed about how important Bitcoin must be. He would be able to buy bitcoins and then double spend them. If he bought a lot of bitcoins, he would drive up the price a lot. If he wanted to double spend he would have to buy something. Anyone willing to sell something worth millions of dollars without identification is asking for trouble. After he defrauded them, they could prosecute him. If he only wanted to prove a point that Bitcoin can be 51% attacked, that would be the most expensive hurr durr in history.
The point is not about making it unprofitable to buy 51% of hashrate to attack, nobody would do that, certainly not the would-be attackers. The point is about making it impossible to kill a crypto. The would-be attacker would have exactly that in mind - kill it off because it threatens their existence and status quo, not make a profit out of it. And that's where Bitcoin is a complete failure, as its mining operations are an easy target. Bitcoin is too small now to bother to shut it down, but rest assured, if it grows bigger, they will strike at the very core of its operations - large mining farms. However, there is a chance it will not grow bigger, and people will just migrate to more secure crypto 2.0 technologies, that run on PoS algorithms (not necessarily NXT), and which don't require vulnerable mining farms or huge waste of electricity to operate.
|
|
|
The entire premise behind PoS is false. PoW is used to solve the Byzantine Generals problem. The argument that checkpoints are required is false. They are a safety precaution while Bitcoin is young and vulnerable. The PoS folks go on to say that Bitcoin is centralized because a cabal of elite developers choose when to create a checkpoint. These are strawman arguments. This. PoS doesn't "achieve consensus", simple as that. It's imposed by the devs fixing artificially a certain version of the blockchain as the correct one (these checkpoints). Note that this is a completely different concept than the checkpointing used in bitcoin. You remove checkpointing from bitcoin, and it will still work. You remove checkpointing from PoS, and it will be crashed. NXT in its bootstrapping phase (which is now) uses rolling automatic checkpoints, 720 blocks deep. Meaning everything older than 720 blocks is set in stone and can't be reversed. Is that what you call artificial fixing? Once the bootstrapping phase is completed and Transparent Forging is implemented in a few months, the window will shorten from 720 to 10 blocks.
|
|
|
Btc is open src its one of the main things to keep it going. This doesnt necessarily apply to altcoins the fact thatthey are opensrc doesnt help them much in context of being a clone.
There are enough altcoins that are not clones of Bitcoin and are open source. Then they arent altcoins and open src only helps but i still think the open src and knowledge era has begun. What would you call them? Alt = alternative, alternative to Bitcoin. alt doesn't mean it's a clone of Bitcoin, it's just "not Bitcoin", that's all.
|
|
|
Btc is open src its one of the main things to keep it going. This doesnt necessarily apply to altcoins the fact thatthey are opensrc doesnt help them much in context of being a clone.
There are enough altcoins that are not clones of Bitcoin and are open source.
|
|
|
It doesn't matter whether Qora is original code or a clone. What matters is the coin must be built by the community. Take Dogecoin for example, it's a simple clone of Litecoin/Bitcoin source, but the community is engaged in making it a success. NXT could be another example, although at a smaller scale, but it's also original code, so it doesn't count as an example. As for Qora, sadly, there is no community. The best code is dead without people.
|
|
|
It wont fail because its open source
lol, and everybody like open source and bitcoin become mainstream I hate to break it to you guys, but most crypto currencies are open source. Yeah, I know it will sound a surpise to you bitcoin is not an altcoin Huh? I never said it was. What's your point?
|
|
|
Who the fuck cares what is the most innovative cryptocurrency if Bitcoin is not going anywhere. It's all just a shop talk. Bitcoin was, is and will be the highest valued cryptocurrency until smth new is built on top of it.
Other technologies don't need to care what Bitcoin does or does not.
|
|
|
they can buy some small amount of satoshi instead
Or they can buy an altcoin and not feel like losers having to buy expensive crypto if they can buy a cheaper one with about the same, or one could argue, a higher potential utility.
|
|
|
It wont fail because its open source
lol, and everybody like open source and bitcoin become mainstream I hate to break it to you guys, but most crypto currencies are open source. Yeah, I know it will sound a surpise to you
|
|
|
Excuse me, for this is a newb question, but I am a bit new to NXT.
With the current wallet client, you can type any passphrase in and it will basically open up.. what keeps someone from running through a shitload of different passphrases until he lands on something that has a decent balance? Password guessing without a username is the way I see it... there's got to be something I am missing.
Someone's already doing it. The only thing that keeps them from opening someone's account with a good balance is a difficult pass phrase. Make sure you use the pass phrase that the wallet client suggests, it's not crackable in any practical terms (billions of years, etc.). Failure to use a strong pass phrase will result in a loss of funds. A good pass phrase is the one with 128+ bit of entropy. The wallet offers a pass phrase of 128-256+ bit of entropy, so use it and you'll be safe. Most of the hacks of NXT wallets in the past were due to a weak pass phrase, when users made their own pass phrase, but it wasn't random enough, few characters, repeating patterns on characters, etc = bruteforceable. EDIT: you can combine what the wallet suggests with your own pass phrase to make it even safer
|
|
|
I can see mass bankruptsy of small miners in the chart below. In the previous years the difficulty was clearly following the price of Bitcoin, now they have detached. The difficulty keeps growing as a result of massive investments by large mining farms, but the price keeps going down or sideways at best forcing small miners to switch off their equipment. You don't need to be a genius to understand what that implies. The pattern is not the same as in previous years, no matter what they tell you.
There is no causal relationship between hashing and price. Any correlational relationship is purely coincidental. The price people are trading on is based on risky exchanges that people don't trust anymore after Mt Gox. You can claim anything you want, but your dataset is too small. Using the term "bankruptcy" is purely inflammatory. When you base your predictions for future price patterns ("Bitcoin went from $32 to $2 and then to $1000 so it will recover again and go to $5000"), somehow the dataset is not too small, but in this chart the dataset is not enough, although it covers all of Bitcoin's history. Makes perfect sense
|
|
|
I can see mass bankruptsy of small miners in the chart below. In the previous years the difficulty was clearly following the price of Bitcoin, now they have detached. The difficulty keeps growing as a result of massive investments by large mining farms, but the price keeps going down or sideways at best forcing small miners to switch off their equipment. You don't need to be a genius to understand what that implies. The pattern is not the same as in previous years, no matter what they tell you.
|
|
|
It's a sign of me being annoyed by the influx of dogetards
You feel annoyed because your position is vulnerable, like anyone else's whose only crypto is Bitcoin. And your constant shilling here for POS, despite claiming you were done with this thread, indicates you are worried that your investment in pos is vulnerable. You're shilling for Bitcoin, telling newbies to buy a losing investment and be bagholders for early adopters who are in this position: it'll need to get into single digits before we feel any pain.
Oh and I didn't mention PoS. I said to hedge against Bitcoin decline. They need to research themselves what to hedge with.
|
|
|
It's a sign of me being annoyed by the influx of dogetards
You feel annoyed because your position is vulnerable, like anyone else's whose only crypto is Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|