I'm dumping Nxt and here's why you should too

[achimsmile]

If you want to change the country you live in according to your personal views -- off you go and change it then. Nothing stopping you doing that either. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you.

I'm already on it  

If you want deprecation of your purchasing power, inflation, corrupt banks, governments to be able to confiscate your funds, loosing everything when your government decides to make a currency reform, then feel free.

[1715234835]

1715234835

[1715234835]

1715234835

[1715234835]

1715234835

[1715234835]

1715234835

[inBitweTrust]

@inBitweTrust:

Having spent some time going thru the Jeff Garzik critique of NXT (and the replies from the NXT community), the only genuinely valid point of Jeffs criticism was to do with the development process for NXT code.
Right now we only have one dev team contributing to NXT core protocols and main client, Jeffs point was that in order to be truly de-centralised NXT needs to have multiple independent teams contributing to the core, as per open-source ideals. Cant argue with that and it would be a good thing. However,  NXT is still evolving. Given another year or two, and we probably will have multiple dev teams on the core development process.

Pretty much all of the rest of Jeffs points didn't stand up to scrutiny, most being based on Jeffs opinion, rather than any verifiable facts..
  

Another valid criticism is the fact that most of the core devs within NxT are anonymous. Within bitcoin all the core devs are transparent and that is true for even the other stacks and implementations from even paranoid anarchists(like myself) with unsystem.

[achimsmile]

they have a store of beans and ammo, believe 9-11 was an inside job and hate all forms of government.

This mindset is deeply embedded into the NXT community.

hahaha you can't be serious. 

Not all forms of governments are bad (I quite like mine for example), but some are.

[achimsmile]

Another valid criticism is the fact that most of the core devs within NxT are anonymous. Within bitcoin all the core devs are transparent and that is true for even the other stacks and implementations from even paranoid anarchists(like myself) with unsystem.

yawn, satoshi was anonymous, very valid criticism.

I don't really know why you need to know where your dev lives and how his face looks like.

[inBitweTrust]

Another valid criticism is the fact that most of the core devs within NxT are anonymous. Within bitcoin all the core devs are transparent and that is true for even the other stacks and implementations from even paranoid anarchists(like myself) with unsystem.

yawn, satoshi was anonymous, very valid criticism.

I don't really know why you need to know where your dev lives and how his faces looks like.

Yes, that is indeed a valid criticism of Bitcoin... at the time , except for the fact that all of his code has been peer reviewed , audited multiple times since he left and most of the code changed by known developers.

You honestly don't see why that is a valid criticism and need me to explain it to you or are you just trolling?

[Come-from-Beyond]

I don't really know why you need to know where your dev lives and how his face looks like.

They don't, but someone said that devs of a decentralized project must be not anonymous and sheeple repeats this mantra. Repeating doesn't involve brain cells as was shown in "1984".

[achimsmile]

Another valid criticism is the fact that most of the core devs within NxT are anonymous. Within bitcoin all the core devs are transparent and that is true for even the other stacks and implementations from even paranoid anarchists(like myself) with unsystem.

yawn, satoshi was anonymous, very valid criticism.

I don't really know why you need to know where your dev lives and how his faces looks like.

Yes, that is indeed a valid criticism of Bitcoin... at the time , except for the fact that all of his code has been peer reviewed , audited multiple times since he left and most of the code changed by known developers.

You honestly don't see why that is a valid criticism and need me to explain it to you or are you just trolling?

No I really don't see it. Nxt's source code was peer reviewd by known devs too, and by anon devs.

It's the good thing about being open source, everyone can review the code.

You still didn't tell me why "being known" matters?

[Furio]

Another valid criticism is the fact that most of the core devs within NxT are anonymous. Within bitcoin all the core devs are transparent and that is true for even the other stacks and implementations from even paranoid anarchists(like myself) with unsystem.

yawn, satoshi was anonymous, very valid criticism.

I don't really know why you need to know where your dev lives and how his faces looks like.

Yes, that is indeed a valid criticism of Bitcoin... at the time , except for the fact that all of his code has been peer reviewed , audited multiple times since he left and most of the code changed by known developers.

You honestly don't see why that is a valid criticism and need me to explain it to you or are you just trolling?

No I really don't see it. Nxt's source code was peer reviewd by known devs too, and by anon devs.

It's the good thing about being open source, everyone can review the code.

You still didn't tell me why "being known" matters?

NXT is not opensource, a part of the code is private....

[achimsmile]

NXT is not opensource, a part of the code is private....

Funny that this rule only counts for Nxt, but if a Bitcoin dev has a private repository, it doesn't count 

[LiQio]

simple fact: open-source projects don't need known devs

simple fact: there's a way better chance not be the target of defamation, threat or hitmen if you stay anonymous (as a crypto dev)

simple fact: no developer commits every piece of code locally changed in real-time, ergo there is always private parts. (And with the current release cycle of Nxt I really don't see any reason to claim that there is something in hiding)

[Come-from-Beyond]

NXT is not opensource, a part of the code is private....

Funny that this rule only counts for Nxt, but if a Bitcoin dev has a private repository, it doesn't count 

Your phrase requires IQ above 90 to get the meaning you put into it. Next time provide a version understandable by majority of BTT users, please.

[inBitweTrust]

I don't really know why you need to know where your dev lives and how his face looks like.

They don't, but someone said that devs of a decentralized project must be not anonymous and sheeple repeats this mantra. Repeating doesn't involve brain cells as was shown in "1984".

I would agree with you in a perfect world where all the end users are capable of compiling the jar from source and could instantly scan and detect any bugs or malicious code without effort with every version.

In the real world, less than 0.1% of users will compile from source , even if they are capable and any programmer knows that thorough audits take time and don't give 100% confirmation that malicious code isn't present.

Having a transparent development process with known developers absolutely does not eliminate all bugs and malicious code from entering in the software, but what it does allow is a higher level of accountability if something does go wrong and it allows people to make better informed judgements as to the motivations of certain developers and gives preemptive clues as to what to watch out for from certain contributors to the source. Additionally, understanding the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency based upon other projects they have worked on.

The fact that we can research who Jeff Garzik is , and what companies he worked for in the past is very helpful in understanding his motivations and biases.

It is frightening that I have to explain this to you and anyone else reading with a critical eye should be similarity warned. Using the big bad government as an excuse to stay in the shadows is not a good enough excuse when dealing with Fintech with peoples life savings and there are plenty of other Anarchist developers that have the courage and moral fortitude to reveal themselves. I am not saying that all developers need to be transparent but with Fintech it is a completely different matter with different stakes.

So if BCNext wants to pull a Satoshi that is fine but the code should be developed in a more transparent manner after he has stepped aside.

[Come-from-Beyond]

So if BCNext wants to pull a Satoshi that is fine but the code should be developed in a more transparent manner after he has stepped aside.

I see yet another flaw in your reasoning. You assume that a known identity helps to protect a system against scams, but history of cryptocurrencies shows the opposite. Have you even heard of Pirate@40? (And should I mention Josh Garza?)

[makoto1337]

So if BCNext wants to pull a Satoshi that is fine but the code should be developed in a more transparent manner after he has stepped aside.

I see yet another flaw in your reasoning. You assume that a known identity helps to protect a system against scams, but history of cryptocurrencies shows the opposite. Have you even heard of Pirate@40? (And should I mention Josh Garza?)

NXT is still probably several years ahead of Bitcoin, even after 1 year has passed. The original source has been changed a lot by Jean Luc as I understand it. It is okay to give BCNext credit for his vision, though. His mark on crypto will be remembered forever.

[inBitweTrust]

So if BCNext wants to pull a Satoshi that is fine but the code should be developed in a more transparent manner after he has stepped aside.

I see yet another flaw in your reasoning. You assume that a known identity helps to protect a system against scams, but history of cryptocurrencies shows the opposite. Have you even heard of Pirate@40? (And should I mention Josh Garza?)

Non-sequitur, as we are discussing other security weaknesses and you are moving the goal posts.

Additionally, you are presenting a false dichotomy even after I bolded:

Having a transparent development process with known developers absolutely does not eliminate all bugs and malicious code from entering in the software,

Hint:
A rational argument would present evidence which reflected increases in overall security weaknesses from a transparent development process to counteract my claims.

[achimsmile]

So if BCNext wants to pull a Satoshi that is fine but the code should be developed in a more transparent manner after he has stepped aside.

I see yet another flaw in your reasoning. You assume that a known identity helps to protect a system against scams, but history of cryptocurrencies shows the opposite. Have you even heard of Pirate@40? (And should I mention Josh Garza?)

NXT is still probably several years ahead of Bitcoin, even after 1 year has passed. The original source has been changed a lot by Jean Luc as I understand it. It is okay to give BCNext credit for his vision, though. His mark on crypto will be remembered forever.

But people are afraid of change, that's why there are so many "concerns" against Nxt.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Non-sequitur, as we are discussing other security weaknesses and you are moving the goal posts.

That was the 1st step to show that known identity of a developer is a disadvantage. People start trusting him and at some point become scammed. Anonymous devs keep people suspicious and hence better protected. In short, anon devs better than non-anon ones.

I don't move goal posts, I help you to find flaws in your own logic by making to admit some points and finally become trapped. After that point you can't use tricks that are usually used to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

[inBitweTrust]

But people are afraid of change, that's why there are so many "concerns" against Nxt.

I'm advocating TaPoS to be added to Bitcoin and would turn my back on Bitcoin at a moments notice if it lost its fundamental principles or something better came along. NxT isn't there yet , and you should take any valid criticism as helpful advice to strengthen your project.

[Come-from-Beyond]

NxT isn't there yet , and you should take any valid criticism as helpful advice to strengthen your project.

Nxt already uses (not utilized fully) TaPoS-like approach. It's called Economic Clustering.

[achimsmile]

A rational argument would present evidence which reflected increases in overall security weaknesses from a transparent development process to counteract my claims.

We don't have to aim for the targets that you set up for us, we can also argue why "to be known" is not a prerequisite in a transparent dev process.

Your facts:

• Higher accountibilty when (=after) something goes wrong -> Does not protect you from something going wrong.
• make better informed judgements as to the motivations of certain developers -> Motivations are not relevant, could be money, could be ideology, could be anything
• the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency -> So does the quality of the code they write