If the hacker does not get to keep his NXT then the dev team has fucked up bad and NXT is doomed.
It already had a bad enough reputation and it's had TONS of drama in the past so this will just seal it's fate.
I never liked these NXT guys anyway so please do your rollback.. fuck em !
This latest news just proves their greedy morons..
what kind of centralized dipshits decide who gets to keep their coins ?
so the dev team decided that the hacker does not deserve his coins so they are deleting them ? WOW !
in other words NXT is dead.
that shit won't fly with the public LOL
and you could tell they were dead set on doing a rollback from the start anyway and
have been dancing around it because they can tell 80% of guys don't like the idea !
I've noticed you never actually read the threads you post in. You just make up whatever facts you like in your head then post a big rambling post supporting your own fiction. |
|
|
|
Just received both games from bitcoininformation. Lucky day for me.  |
|
|
|
Woohoo! Free games Thanks bitcoininformation! |
|
|
|
Now we will see if NXT is decentralized or not rollback = centralized This ^. I think it is so funny how coins like Vericoin and now NXT tout themselves as a "DECENTRALIZED" currency. But when a large hack occurs ... "oops can we just roll back the chain this one time?"lol Except that you're not listening.....NXT is not going to do a rollback on this, the power to make the decision lies with the community. not the devs. The timeframe for a partial rollback is going to be over soon, so we can then move on to chasing the thief in the old-fashioned way..... Any community willing to compromise rolling back transactions that happened since a supposed fuck up or hack of a exchange using NXT is not a community that is honest as it is putting one business' fuck up before people's honest transactions. That should be made very clear of the implications of the rollback. There is no rollback and there is never going to be a rollback if you've been paying attention. BTER wanted a rollback and the NXT community answered with an emphatic "NO!!!". Okay good to know. I never said that roll back was going to happen if you reread what I wrote. Please don be so presumptuous about what I am implying. Sorry if I misunderstood your post. |
|
|
|
Now we will see if NXT is decentralized or not rollback = centralized This ^. I think it is so funny how coins like Vericoin and now NXT tout themselves as a "DECENTRALIZED" currency. But when a large hack occurs ... "oops can we just roll back the chain this one time?"lol Except that you're not listening.....NXT is not going to do a rollback on this, the power to make the decision lies with the community. not the devs. The timeframe for a partial rollback is going to be over soon, so we can then move on to chasing the thief in the old-fashioned way..... Any community willing to compromise rolling back transactions that happened since a supposed fuck up or hack of a exchange using NXT is not a community that is honest as it is putting one business' fuck up before people's honest transactions. That should be made very clear of the implications of the rollback. There is no rollback and there is never going to be a rollback if you've been paying attention. BTER wanted a rollback and the NXT community answered with an emphatic "NO!!!". |
|
|
|
Nxt pass-phrase security system is not working well ? Hacking really hurts.I think this incident will harm the reputation of the coin.
No, in this case it had nothing to do with NXT itself. BTER's security was lax. |
|
|
|
|
The question on my mind now is how the heck Bytecoin still has a 3 million dollar marketcap.
Who's buying it?
It must be pure manipulation.
|
|
|
|
I think blame for the hack falls squarely on you for posting all your NXT AMA's all over the internet and drawing all this attention to NXT.  |
|
|
|
This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.
Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design. Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474 // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
if (block.nVersion < 2 &&
CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
{
return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
}
Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even closeWhat would you have done when someone created the 184 billion BTC out of thin air? If we couldn't roll that back BTC would be dead. It's almost like anything other than this would actually be centralised. Because it would imply controlling the software to prevent change. No, you are comparing something, and then jumping to a whole different subject, and then acting like these unrealated things prove an outrageous conclusion. That was a break in the system. The system broke. It had to be fixed. That was not voting to change a legitimate transaction. Meaning one that was made without the system breaking down. Taking the system, and changing it, when the system did not break, is a centralized decision. Bter was robbed of Nxt. Bter should pay the price. People that trusted that central source, including me and my Nxt, should pay the price. Why? Because that is what happened, that's why. When there can be a vote made to alter the system, to go back in time and erase something, that calls into question many things about that system. The system should not have the ability to be altered after the fact. It's a ledger, and we HAVE TO FIND a way for that ledger not to be able to be altered. That is what we need to do next. This is where we are as a community. We are not doing as good as we think, and we are getting worse. This is a classic example of a flaw that needs to be addressed. And for you goofs, that think this is an advantage, please log off now, as you are the beginning of the fork we are trying not to go down here, for gods sakes. smh That's fine that you think it's a flaw. But being able to save the system from exploits like 184 billion BTC one automatically implies the other. I think it's unlikely that anyone is ever going to figure out a way to invent the system you want. But you never know. There could be some neo-Satoshi out there inventing it now. |
|
|
|
The only truely "decentralised" system is the universe. You can not roll back anything, time passes and the laws of physics take care of executing themselves with no possible changes on the "blockchain". No coin that is decentralised in that sense can exist. Cryptocoins are simulations of a universe, but humans are one level on top of it, and the protocol can not reach out and prevent somebody from fiddling with the controls.
This is a good quote! I'll try to remember to link to this when this issue inevitably comes up again. |
|
|
|
This campaign won't be added, because it isn't a " real" campaign and payments (if any) will most likely be too small to care about. I suspect the reason behind this is the 25 BTC reward for getting all the new PD3 achievements. I dont have a source on this, but it was said in PD chat that the first person to get all the achievements would get that amount of BTC. In order to get those you need 100+ refered players as well as 5 BTC in comission. Good catch. I wasn't aware that there was a 25 BTC reward(wow!). I hope people see through this. |
|
|
|
I don't see how that will work out no anyone but the op. He'll get a few refs out of it but hard to know if he'll pay out fairly. Wasn't he the one who ran off with all of updown.bt's original sig campaign money? He was running updown.bit and luckybit's deals at one point I believe until he got banned, don't know whether stole any money though. updown.bt claimed he did in fact take the money he gave him. |
|
|
|
This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology.
Correct. It is distributed and decentralized governance, what the majority decides goes. This happens constantly whether it's moving to a new client or upgrading to a new protocol. That is the design. Here it is in code https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2474 // Reject block.nVersion=1 blocks when 95% (75% on testnet) of the network has upgraded:
if (block.nVersion < 2 &&
CBlockIndex::IsSuperMajority(2, pindexPrev, Params().RejectBlockOutdatedMajority()))
{
return state.Invalid(error("AcceptBlock() : rejected nVersion=1 block"),
REJECT_OBSOLETE, "bad-version");
}
Well then it looks like we still have a way to go. Because if this is how it should be "by design", it's not decentralized at all, not even closeWhat would you have done when someone created the 184 billion BTC out of thin air? If we couldn't roll that back BTC would be dead. It's almost like anything other than this would actually be centralised. Because it would imply controlling the software to prevent change. |
|
|
|
question: so if the people who own 51% of nxt decides to rollback they can just do it right?
what if only like 100 people own 51% of nxt. those 100 people can just rollback and no one can stop them?
bitshares x dpos helps solve this problem because 51% of users would have to agree on a rollback not just the richest 51%.
with btc and other pow coins i think you need like 80%+ of users/nodes to agree.
Yes, in NXT if the 100 people forge with >50% can. How does Bitshares enforce individuality? What stops sock puppets? That's interesting I hadn't heard that before. |
|
|
|
Now we will see if NXT is decentralized or not rollback = centralized This ^. I think it is so funny how coins like Vericoin and now NXT tout themselves as a "DECENTRALIZED" currency. But when a large hack occurs ... "oops can we just roll back the chain this one time?"lol + 1000 You can say it is decentralized as many as you can type a post, it does't change the fact Rollback = centralized There's really no other way to describe it. I'm amazed at what people around here will label "decentralized" "but they voted, so it's not centralized" GTFO LOL SMH  This is the fundamental design of blockchain technology. |
|
|
|
That actually confirms the decentralised nature of it. Nobody in particular can choose to roll back, that has to be reached through a democratic decision built through a decentralised consensus. It's the very definition of decentralisation. What you are talking about is Laissez-Faire politics, where you just don't care about stopping the thief.
I don't necessarily support rollbacks. But as we've gone over many times in this thread, a group of miners/forgers deciding on what chain to continue on is clearly decentralised. Just because you don't like an idea doesn't mean you can just apply an erroneous label to it.
well in your understanding centralized=decision of one person or maybe a few of persons decentralized= decision of many people, majority wins in my understanding decentralized= individual decision of each and every person about their own property within the limit of given rules (code) centralized= anybody (be it one person or many persons) can make arbitrary decisions about anybody elses's property the whole purpose of Bitcoin or any other decent crypto as a technical solution is to guarantee that nobody can make arbitrary decisions about anybody else's property. This is why I am ready to call them decentralized solutions. Everybody has to follow the same rules. Majority of hashing power is used as a best way to prevent attacks, best incentive to stick to the code. But in your undestanding one specific majority can make arbitrary decisions. whatever the result of the vote, I have serious misgivings about cryptocurrencies - just an existence of such a vote is bad But you're wrong about what the purpose of Bitcoin is. It is designed so that it can change when a majority of people agree. What your talking about is a completely different thing. And judging by the amount of people who agree with you perhaps someone should invent something similar. But it's not Bitcoin. And it's not any of the current cryptocurrencies, that is for sure. You should have serious misgivings. I think a lot of people don't fully understand what is capable of happening. Imagine miners accepting changes that benefit them at the cost of others. Now that might affect the price, but it's still possible. |
|
|
|
btc itself is going into the toilet. It just broke 500 and no signs of slowing.
Headlines: NXT Theft causes Bitcoin crash! Threat of NXT rollback causes widespread loss of confidence in Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
Now we will see if NXT is decentralized or not rollback = centralized This ^. I think it is so funny how coins like Vericoin and now NXT tout themselves as a "DECENTRALIZED" currency. But when a large hack occurs ... "oops can we just roll back the chain this one time?"lol I don't necessarily support rollbacks. But as we've gone over many times in this thread, a group of miners/forgers deciding on what chain to continue on is clearly decentralised. Just because you don't like an idea doesn't mean you can just apply an erroneous label to it. |
|
|
|
They never denied it: http://bitcoinbarbie.com/cryptonote-open-source-technology-concept/As we’ve mentioned before, CryptoNote team was not interested in building a currency. That is when Bytecoin developers took the lead. They are the team of top notch p2p and cryptocurrency developers, which have been contributing to the sphere for quite some time. They finalized our cryptographic and currency prototypes and coded a beautiful solution to represent CryptoNote. I'm glad you reminded me of that interview because it was one of the most damning bits of evidence against the legitimacy of this so-called cryptonote and unfortunately the OP seems to have missed it: This test coin was presented to a large number of influential people in educational, scientific, and gaming industries, who eventually became the first miners of Bytecoin. I believe this “circle of a few” affected the way the currency developed during the next year and why the information was slow to spread. It is not in the nature or business of these participants to post on the Web, so all the mining teams grew in number through word-of-mouth only.
Really?! 1. A "large number of influential people" knew about this and none of them has ever mentioned it? 2. A "large number of influential people" knew about this and not a single one can be identified now and confirm that to be the case? 3. "It is not in the nature or business of these participants to post on the Web."' In what universe do people in the educational and scientific industries not post on the web? They invented the damn web you idiots. 4. "Mining teams" We know from the analysis of reputable and credible exports (including on this thread) that the mining algorithm was deliberately deoptimized to simulate a fake two-year blockchain. If (and I doubt it, as in I'm 100% sure it didn't happen) the mining actually happened over two years, only a handful of computers (<10) were involved. There were no "mining teams." After that interview I was certain that cryptonote was a scam. Before that I only suspected. As I posted a few months ago, the more these people keep talking the more they will out their own scam. And they did. It's amazing they were able to create the technology and manage to fail so hard at their scam attempt. I'd suspect one or more people behind CN fall within the autistic spectrum. The clear disconnect from how others would receive their attempts yet still being able to produce novel tech shows a clear imbalance in their mental faculties. |
|
|
|
Another day with another hack.... When will these exchanges learn to keep their security updated and care about the money of users.
Forget exchanges. Lets do mgw. how do you know it was BTER's fault ? maybe it was the coins fault with a flaw / bug.. All this was covered in this very thread. It was 100% BTER's fault. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
