Do you mean it requires a re-write in a more classic peer-reviewed style, or there's something terribly wrong in the contents?
+1
yes please be more specific
Ok. I don't mean to be a jerk, but in general, the whole publication is more of a document advocating NXT and speculating about it's future than a scientific paper. It is full of numbers made out of thin air and false premises. This isn't the proper way to defend the technical merits of a coin.
Some examples:
Section "What is forging?"
<snip>...the more Nxt you own, the more often you are chosen to protect the network. There are more complexities than this to help protect the network but this is the basic idea. What this means is that only a few computers at a time are processing transactions and not wasting energy just for the sake of proving they exist.
This doesn't explain what forging really is, other than that "the more NXT you have, you are chosen to protect the network". What does even "protect the network" mean? How are transactions being processed? How is blockchain consensus reached? In fact, does NXT *have* a blockchain? etc.
Cubietrucks dual core 1.2 GHz processor can essentially run at 2.4 GHz since splitting the decryptions between cores is easy to do. So since 2.4 GHz means 2400000000 cycles/second, this means that we’ll be able to handle peaks of 2,400,000,000/958,000 = 2,505 verifications per second. Currently every transaction is signed once and Nxt should be able to handle over 2500 verifications per second. But even if we start using multi-signatures per transactions to increase security and average 2 signature verifications per transactions, as Bitcoin does, we can handle 1,250 transactions per second.
This paragraph goes from "Curve25519 takes X cycles, a modern CPU has Y cycles, therefore the upper limit of tps of NXT is Z". In reality, this is much more complicated: Current implementation of Curve25519, network bandwidth and latency, block size, pretty much everything should be taken into consideration.
Also, it's full of speculation:
Granted it’ll be a while but assuming we get to the point where we are bigger than Visa, probably having a trillion dollar market cap by that point, we’ll need more powerful computers...<snip>...that will probably never be needed because by that point we’ll have designed our own machines that do exactly what we need as energy efficiently as possible and be selling hardware that quickly and efficiently does exactly what we need similar to the route Bitcoin has gone by developing ASCIs [sic]"
Next paragraph:
Using Bitcoin’s blockchain as the basis for comparison, Bitcoin’s blockchain is currently just under 14 GB in size (
https://blockchain.info/charts/blocks-size ). So a 1 TB drive would be able to fit about 70 times the size of the current bitcoin block chain, and especially once block chain trimming is enacted which should allow storing the entire chain even at peaks of 10,000 transaction per second into less than 5GB. This is very easily doable.
What's "very easily doable"? How "10,000 transactions per second" will lead to 5GB blockchain size? This doesn't even make sense.
What kind of bandwidth will Nxt need? Assuming the average Nxt transaction is a similar size to Bitcoin, it’ll be approximately 512 bytes in size
Why should NXT transactions be similarly sized to Bitcoin's? A normal (ordinary payment) transaction size is 128 bytes.
And so on.
