NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[HinnomTX]

I actually think that having 80 times the coin supply of BTC is one of the reasons NXT will succeed.  

Bitcoin is effectively in competition with gold as a non-fiat store of value.  The price of gold defines the upper limit of what Bitcoin can hit, and that's currently around $1200 per coin/ounce.  Bitcoin won't go above that price because if people have $1200, they would rather trade it for a one ounce gold coin they can hold in their hand and not a computer file.

+1200. I've been keeping this same thought to myself, but since you broadcast it here, I applaud you. The price of gold is probably the limiting factor for all cryptos, and it's purely for psychological reasons. Past a certain point, it's crazy to have such a valuable unit of account be vulnerable to data corruption, loss or theft. As we've seen, when Bitcoin hit $1200, it didn't rise above it for long. Amagi Metals and Coinabul, who accept BTC for precious metals, provide the conduit for 'difficult to trace' gold.  That's not to say BTC will never get over the price of an ounce of gold. BTC is much easier to move, especially across borders, than physical gold. That feature could fetch a premium. But, we will have to exhaust the demand of BTC holders that want gold before it can move significantly above $1200.
IMO, all of the cryptos that have had successful launches are 'money good'. So long as they are tradeable on exchanges, they are fungible.

 

[1714200952]

1714200952

[1714200952]

1714200952

[1714200952]

1714200952

[1714200952]

1714200952

[Come-from-Beyond]

Ok, let me put it another way - what will give LAK value?

Choose any or both options:

1. Burnt electricity (like in Bitcoin)
2. Agreement that 1 LAK has value (like in Bitcoin)

[Come-from-Beyond]

We already have bounties for flaws found - what we are looking for is a respected academic to thoroughly review Nxt and write a paper on it - minor glitches in algos are not really the issue as they can be easily fixed.

The real question is whether there is a major flaw in the PoS itself - if it can be *cheated* in any way easier than a >50% on Bitcoin then the whole thing about promoting PoS as >90% safe would be egg on the face of the devs and likely the end of the project.

And sure - if someone does this for nothing then that would save me 5 BTC so of course I would also be happy to wait until "Nxt is popular enough" but I do think this could speed up the process.

It seems to me u confused Nxt PoS algo and Nxt crypto algo. We collected 10 BTC for crypto audit only.

[punkrock]

It seems to me u confused Nxt PoS algo and Nxt crypto algo. We collected 10 BTC for crypto audit only.

If I am right, there will be 10 more BTC from two different users - each 5 BTC.

[Come-from-Beyond]

It seems to me u confused Nxt PoS algo and Nxt crypto algo. We collected 10 BTC for crypto audit only.

If I am right, there will be 10 more BTC from two different users - each 5 BTC.

No. CIYAM offered 5 BTC for PoS algo.

[NxtChg]

... a respected academic to thoroughly review Nxt and write a paper on it...

That's still unclear. What is he gonna do? Go through source code?

We don't have a whitepaper to review yet, right?

And paying $16,000 to a "respected academic" to review your whitepaper just doesn't feel right.

It reduces it to "9 out of 10 dentists recommend" kind of thing... Well, not exactly, but a step in that direction.

And I certainly wouldn't want people to say "oh, and that review they did? They paid $16,000 for it, so...".

[NxtChg]

Ok, let me put it another way - what will give LAK value?

Choose any or both options:

1. Burnt electricity (like in Bitcoin)
2. Agreement that 1 LAK has value (like in Bitcoin)

Bitcoin has a third option - decentralized blockchain, which allows financial transactions.

What can your LAK do that neither NXT, nor Bitcoin can?

[msin]

... a respected academic to thoroughly review Nxt and write a paper on it...

That's still unclear. What is he gonna do? Go through source code?

We don't have a whitepaper to review yet, right?

And paying $16,000 to a "respected academic" to review your whitepaper just doesn't feel right.

It reduces it to "9 out of 10 dentists recommend" kind of thing... Well, not exactly, but a step in that direction.

And I certainly wouldn't want people to say "oh, and that review they did? They paid $16,000 for it, so...".

Then find someone who will do it for free.

[brooklynbtc]

would like to help if I can.

We may need someone to sell 2 pizzas for 10'000 LAK...

I run a wood oven pizza shop in Brooklyn, I can always sell pizza for LAK

[punkrock]

Someone here, how would be able to code a simple mass-sending client? One fix amount, sending to unlimited addresses - one recipient per line.

[CIYAM]

It seems to me u confused Nxt PoS algo and Nxt crypto algo. We collected 10 BTC for crypto audit only.

Oh - yes - seems I did - well I would prefer the 5 BTC I pledged to be on PoS analysis by an academic but if 10 BTC is not enough for the crypto audit then I will also be happy for it to go to that instead.

To be clear as long as what we are paying for is "transparent" (i.e. the funding is made publicly known) and the academic is "well known" (has been published in scientifically relevant journals for years and is at least a PhD to do with crypto) then I will go with either audit.

[Come-from-Beyond]

What can your LAK do that neither NXT, nor Bitcoin can?

U could ask the same about Litecoin...

[opticalcarrier]

... a respected academic to thoroughly review Nxt and write a paper on it...

That's still unclear. What is he gonna do? Go through source code?

EXACTLY

We don't have a whitepaper to review yet, right?

not needed for this operation, since they are reviewing source

And paying $16,000 to a "respected academic" to review your whitepaper just doesn't feel right.

It reduces it to "9 out of 10 dentists recommend" kind of thing... Well, not exactly, but a step in that direction.

And I certainly wouldn't want people to say "oh, and that review they did? They paid $16,000 for it, so...".

I dont think you understand the meaning of the term "RESPECTED academic".  I capitalized that important word there to stress the emphasis on that word for you.

[CIYAM]

And I certainly wouldn't want people to say "oh, and that review they did? They paid $16,000 for it, so...".

You do realise that most university research into things like CO2 and global warming is paid for by large corporations the are in the generally not at all clean energy sphere?

A "respected" academic will have their reputation torn to pieces if their work is shoddy and deemed to be just "for money" so none will touch it "just for the money" unless the money is enough to make them no longer care about academia (and we are not offering anything like that amount).

[NxtChg]

Then find someone who will do it for free.

So, to reverse your logic, if I can't find somebody who will do it free, I should go and pay somebody with questionable ethics, who will?

So if I can't, say, get a building permit from a government official, I should go and find somebody who can "solve my problem" for a fee?

You see the slippery slope yet?

[utopianfuture]

But "peer review" and "research" are not the same thing and I think you're a little confused.  Or maybe you feed your family with air and sunshine?

You all should agree among yourselves first, what is it exactly you are paying for. As I understand it's neither research, nor peer review.

And you can juggle words however you like, it doesn't make it less wrong.

Academics/ researchers at the top echelon won't be bought by 10-20k $ ; if they are bought one and produce false results; some peers could find out and they would be discredited very soon.  If you want academics/ researchers at the top echelon risk losing their integrity and reputation, you would probably have to pay a lot more than that.  
    
Paying standard rates for a top-rated researcher working on a problem you are giving is a normal practice. I used to work for a top rate Economic-Political Institute so I know pretty well how researches are funded. While research works on paid assignment basis are often less rigorous than peer-reviewed articles, they are still of high quality and no one dare to intentionally make up a false mathematical or econometric result ever.

That's being said 16K$ perhaps too much if it only take 2-3 days to work it out our request. We should go by standard labor rates for these reviewing works.

[Damelon]

... a respected academic to thoroughly review Nxt and write a paper on it...

And paying $16,000 to a "respected academic" to review your whitepaper just doesn't feel right.

It reduces it to "9 out of 10 dentists recommend" kind of thing... Well, not exactly, but a step in that direction.

And I certainly wouldn't want people to say "oh, and that review they did? They paid $16,000 for it, so...".

I would read this in the complete opposite way.

The reason for that is that we would do it *completely in the open*

I would read it as "The NXT community is so commited to the integrity of their system that they were willing to hire an independent academic to take potshots at it to be sure it is safe and sound"

Same information, different interpretation.

Someone who will want to make it shady, will always try to make it look bad, but if we are completely open about it there is not a lot you can say.

The "9 out of 10 dentist" example is one where the deal would be hidden, so the comparison isn't valid.

[CIYAM]

You see the slippery slope yet?

Once again - you are having troubles understanding the academic world - important academics are not generally "rich" although they are also not generally "poor" either (so they don't work for nothing).

Their reputation amongst their peers is *all important* to them - they are not at all likely to risk their reputation through shoddy work that is going to be "peer reviewed".

Sure you could point as some examples say from "big tobacco" but understand that those scientists were paid "millions" not thousands.

[NxtChg]

I dont think you understand the meaning of the term "RESPECTED academic".  I capitalized that important word there to stress the emphasis on that word for you.

Oh no, I understand it. Part of RESPECT is not taking money from people, whose work you are reviewing.

Or maybe it's just my right-and-wrong model is outdated, judging by the number of people here, who think it's totally Ok.

And if you plan him to go through source, then shouldn't you just hire a company to do your security audit, not an academic?

[CIYAM]

And if you plan him to go through source, then shouldn't you just hire a company to do your security audit, not an academic?

The money would obviously be best *not* to go *directly* to the academic (nor would it in normal funding situations). You offer funding to a university with the condition that something gets researched but it is up to the university exactly how the funding is spent (as the client all you care about is that the paper is published by a sufficiently qualified academic).