NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Come-from-Beyond]

Am i alone who think so?

No. But I think it's just a bad (without "really") idea, coz it adds too much unnecessary work to devs.

[1714123156]

1714123156

[1714123156]

1714123156

[1714123156]

1714123156

[1714123156]

1714123156

[Anon136]

Since the original orderbook seems to be defunct I'm working on a new one. Does anyone know how to make one column display more decimal places than another column with google docs spreadsheet?

[Forobitcoins]

Hi, I have created a platform in the largest Spanish-speaking forum to promote NXT, I'm sure that soon will have much activity

http://www.forocoches.com/foro/showthread.php?p=153720911&posted=1#post153720911

How I can order some NXT to send to new users?

I do not have many

thanks

[msin]

Important announcement

BCNext devised a way to handover unclaimed coins in such a way that doesn't require multisig and still keeps the spirit of decentralization.

BCNext will choose 10 people. I'll contact these people privately to ask for an account id. Each of them will create a special account and send it to me. 1M NXT will be sent to each account (10M total, not 9M, so the community is supposed to subsidize the public nodes by itself). Jean-Luc will be asked to add a special code that blocks outgoing transactions from these special accounts. When the community decides how to spend part of the unclaimed coins, Jean-Luc will change the code to allow partial withdrawals possible. 10 chosen ones will send 1/10th of the required amount to the account the funds r supposed to go to.

Notes: Only account ids will be published, names of the people who control them will be known only to BCNext and me. Jean-Luc won't be included into this group. The goal of this obscurity is to remove community pressure on the chosen ones.

Discuss, the community may put veto on this approach.

Sounds good to me, then we can move on and work on the voting aspect!

[bitcoinpaul]

I wonder, will this thread ever be published as a book?..

I suggest to entitle it "No, I'm not BCNext"

Couldn't resist.

[kunibopl]

NXT software cannot magically enforce gateway behavior. If you expect this, then how to explain the turtles idea. NXT server uses star trek transporter tech and beams turtles to desired location on redemption of turtle coins? Nope, that's not till NRS version 6.6.6

Asset Exhange requires trusted issuers to do the gateway function.

James

thx for bringing the turtles back on topic.
where is more info on the concept of the asset exchange?

I have some fear, implementing message system, asset exchange and voting system reliably in such a short timeframe is a huge task.
Can anyone really predict all consequences?

[Come-from-Beyond]

Couldn't resist.

I want it for my library!

[gimre]

Bad idea. REALLY BAD IDEA to change the client software and hard-define transaction rules inside the client. Am i alone who think so?

Idea itself is okay - allow people to decide.

But the execution is not the best I'd say. If there ever be alternative server, It'll have to copy such quirks.
The more such quirks, the uglier it gets.

[Forobitcoins]

I did not know that my question had caused such excitement ...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=419978.0

I trust in you  

[NxtChg]

I wonder, will this thread ever be published as a book?..

I suggest to entitle it "No, I'm not BCNext"

Couldn't resist.

Cool, we already have the title page! BTW, is it supposed to say "SHHHHT"? Subliminal message?

And the Nxt logo does look like "lips sewn shut"...

[pinarello]

wooohooo my favorite troll is back

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=419335.msg4568081#msg4568081

Pin

[bitcoinpaul]

I wonder, will this thread ever be published as a book?..

I suggest to entitle it "No, I'm not BCNext"

Couldn't resist.

Cool, we already have the title page! BTW, is it supposed to say "SHHHHT"? Subliminal message?

And the Nxt logo does look like "lips sewn shut"...

maybe

[Come-from-Beyond]

Can anyone really predict all consequences?

Another meaning of "revolution" is "catastrophe"...

...but at least this lowers the risk of

[NxtChg]

Cool, we already have the title page! BTW, is it supposed to say "SHHHHT"? Subliminal message?

And the Nxt logo does look like "lips sewn shut"...

maybe

Volume II:
"SHHHT! I am BCNext!"

[utopianfuture]

Important announcement

BCNext devised a way to handover unclaimed coins in such a way that doesn't require multisig and still keeps the spirit of decentralization.

BCNext will choose 10 people. I'll contact these people privately to ask for an account id. Each of them will create a special account and send it to me. 1M NXT will be sent to each account (10M total, not 9M, so the community is supposed to subsidize the public nodes by itself). Jean-Luc will be asked to add a special code that blocks outgoing transactions from these special accounts. When the community decides how to spend part of the unclaimed coins, Jean-Luc will change the code to allow partial withdrawals possible. 10 chosen ones will send 1/10th of the required amount to the account the funds r supposed to go to.

Notes: Only account ids will be published, names of the people who control them will be known only to BCNext and me. Jean-Luc won't be included into this group. The goal of this obscurity is to remove community pressure on the chosen ones.

Discuss, the community may put veto on this approach.

Bad idea. REALLY BAD IDEA to change the client software and hard-define transaction rules inside the client. Am i alone who think so?

Bad idea for a couple of reasons.

1. For the community at large, nothing really changes. It just seems like more complicated to get the fund out.

2. Security reason: one account should have at least two people having an access to. As it is now I assume both bcnext and CFB have an access to the fund.

3. As in the proposal, the account holder is basically just an account holder since he cannot transfer the fund out anyway, don't see the need for annonimity.

4. Software needs to be modified, seem like just more work to be done.

5. Not sure what kind of decentralization it is when bcnext hands pick 10 accounts. But it actually does not matter anyway since as in this plan, being an account holder just seems like to have an extra burden without any real authority.

I would suggest bcnext and CFB just keep the fund for now until 1. We have a voting system in place or 2. Some kind of committee are formed.

[landomata]

Important announcement

BCNext devised a way to handover unclaimed coins in such a way that doesn't require multisig and still keeps the spirit of decentralization.

BCNext will choose 10 people. I'll contact these people privately to ask for an account id. Each of them will create a special account and send it to me. 1M NXT will be sent to each account (10M total, not 9M, so the community is supposed to subsidize the public nodes by itself). Jean-Luc will be asked to add a special code that blocks outgoing transactions from these special accounts. When the community decides how to spend part of the unclaimed coins, Jean-Luc will change the code to allow partial withdrawals possible. 10 chosen ones will send 1/10th of the required amount to the account the funds r supposed to go to.

Notes: Only account ids will be published, names of the people who control them will be known only to BCNext and me. Jean-Luc won't be included into this group. The goal of this obscurity is to remove community pressure on the chosen ones.

Discuss, the community may put veto on this approach.

Bad idea. REALLY BAD IDEA to change the client software and hard-define transaction rules inside the client. Am i alone who think so?

Bad idea for a couple of reasons.

1. For the community at large, nothing really changes. It just seems like more complicated to get the fund out.

2. Security reason: one account should have at least two people having an access to. As it is now I assume both bcnext and CFB have an access to the fund.

3. As in the proposal, the account holder is basically just an account holder since he cannot transfer the fund out anyway, don't see the need for annonimity.

4. Software needs to be modified, seem like just more work to be done.

5. Not sure what kind of decentralization it is when bcnext hands pick 10 accounts. But it actually does not matter anyway since as in this plan, being an account holder just seems like to have an extra burden without any real authority.

I would suggest bcnext and CFB just keep the fund for now until 1. We have a voting system in place or 2. Some kind of committee are formed.

i agree....the funds should not be left to a personal account but to the various committees.

a chosen member might disappear and we would lose access to the funds.

[starik69]

Am i alone who think so?

No. What if someone uses the previous version of the client without such block?

[wesleyh]

Am i alone who think so?

No. What if someone uses the previous version of the client without such block?

It would not be accepted by the network.

[arafel71]

Important announcement

BCNext devised a way to handover unclaimed coins in such a way that doesn't require multisig and still keeps the spirit of decentralization.

BCNext will choose 10 people. I'll contact these people privately to ask for an account id. Each of them will create a special account and send it to me. 1M NXT will be sent to each account (10M total, not 9M, so the community is supposed to subsidize the public nodes by itself). Jean-Luc will be asked to add a special code that blocks outgoing transactions from these special accounts. When the community decides how to spend part of the unclaimed coins, Jean-Luc will change the code to allow partial withdrawals possible. 10 chosen ones will send 1/10th of the required amount to the account the funds r supposed to go to.

Notes: Only account ids will be published, names of the people who control them will be known only to BCNext and me. Jean-Luc won't be included into this group. The goal of this obscurity is to remove community pressure on the chosen ones.

Discuss, the community may put veto on this approach.

+1

[starik69]

Am i alone who think so?

No. What if someone uses the previous version of the client without such block?

It would not be accepted by the network.

No, there simply would be fork if others still use old clients.