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

[inBitweTrust]

Nxt already uses TaPoS-like approach. It's called Economic Clustering.

I am aware of this and have much higher standards of security than what NxT provides.

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.

Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?

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.

Actually, yes, repercussions can mitigate that risk .

• make better informed judgements as to the motivations of certain developers -> Motivations are not relevant, could be money, could be ideology, could be anything

Motivations certainly are more important. I.E...Knowing the background and politics of a developer who was a liberal statist would allow me to be more on guard and focus in on malicious code that would undermine the project like blacklists or reversibility.

• the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency -> So does the quality of the code they write

  Yes, I agree with this in a utopian fantasy developer world. Completely, ignoring reality, and my previous comments.
[/list]

[Come-from-Beyond]

Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?

Compare Satoshi's code and Luke-Jr's code.

[inBitweTrust]

Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?

Compare Satoshi's code and Luke-Jr's code.

What type of argument is that? It is no secret that Satoshi's code was shit despite his genius, that is why over 60% of it had to be changed.

The question is, can you provide data that shows open source projects that are written by anonymous developers tend to be more secure and bug free than open source projects written in a transparent manner? Not, Luke-Jr vs satoshi, a ridiculous statement because you are comparing 2 anonymous developers so it completely ignores the central premise of the question.

Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?

[Come-from-Beyond]

It is no secret that Satoshi's code was shit despite his genius, that is why over 60% of it had to be changed.

Now it's my turn to ask you for a proof. It's very far from being "no secret".

The question is, can you provide data that shows open source projects that are written by anonymous developers tend to be more secure and bug free than open source projects written in a transparent manner? Not, Luke-Jr vs satoshi, a ridiculous statement because you are comparing 2 anonymous developers so it completely ignores the central premise of the question.

First, Luke-Jr is not anonymous. Here is some info about him - https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/868-industry-candidate-luke-dashjr/. Here is how he looks - https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/1095675?v=3&s=460.

Second, I don't say that anonymous devs produce better code. I say that anonymous devs lead to more secure systems because their deeds are scrutinized with greater effort.

[inBitweTrust]

Now it's my turn to ask you for a proof. It's very far from being "no secret".

What is the question that you need to be verified. That over 60% of the code has been changed or that Satoshi's code was shit?

First, Luke-Jr is not anonymous. Here is some info about him - https://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/868-industry-candidate-luke-dashjr/. Here is how he looks - https://avatars0.githubusercontent.com/u/1095675?v=3&s=460.

This was my mistake, as I mistook Luke-Jr reference for Jean-Luc, as your comment was not a valid comparative analysis and I was expecting one. I assumed you were comparing a NxT dev to a Bitcoin dev.

Second, I don't say that anonymous devs produce better code. I say that anonymous devs lead to more secure systems because their deeds are scrutinized with greater effort.

You are avoiding the question still, so I will rewrite it for you if you enjoy these word games:

Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security secure system health of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?

[Come-from-Beyond]

What is the question that you need to be verified. That over 60% of the code has been changed or that Satoshi's code was shit?

The latter.

You are ignoring the question still, so I will rewrite it for you if you enjoy these word games:

Any data that supports this assertion? Comparative analysis of the security secure system health of code written by anonymous developers vs transparent ones?

It's not word games, English is not my mother tongue, maybe something was lost in translation.

Well, here is another example - Satoshi VERSUS http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/20/bank-of-england-payment-system-crashes (I can bet that BoE programmers weren't anonymous).
Google hints http://www.pcworld.com/article/2060760/healthcaregovs-enrollment-system-crashes-monday.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment_hack.

[inBitweTrust]

It's not word games, English is not my mother tongue, maybe something was lost in translation.

Well, here is another example - Satoshi VERSUS http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/20/bank-of-england-payment-system-crashes (I can bet that BoE programmers weren't anonymous).
Google hints http://www.pcworld.com/article/2060760/healthcaregovs-enrollment-system-crashes-monday.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment_hack.

I will try and be more patient to accommodate miscommunication, but I don't think that is the problem here. Do you understand the difference between a comparative analysis and simply stating anecdotes of security breaches? Since there are strong hints and accusations of impropriety with NxT already that isn't a good example.  

A good argument would be citing a research article that discussed the propensity in security breaches of open source projects that had anonymous developers vs non-anonymous ones, or at minimum if you cannot cite this than cite some long-term open source projects with anonymous developers that have better security than your average open source project with known devs.

[inBitweTrust]

What is the question that you need to be verified. That over 60% of the code has been changed or that Satoshi's code was shit?

The latter.

Well the evidence can directly be obtained by reviewing the source code itself and the subsequent changes.

Many well versed programmers have confirmed the shortcomings of Satoshi's code so it isn't just my opinion:

http://diginomics.com/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/

Based on analysis from other programmers who worked on the source code, it does not appear to be written by someone who is well versed in professional programming but rather has a strong academic or theoretical knowledge of cryptography.

He was the oracle to which we would go for questions about the system, but he rarely followed standard engineering practices, like writing unit or stress tests or any of the standard qualitative analysis that we’d perform on software. Several things had to be disabled almost immediately upon public release of Bitcoin because they were obviously exploitable.

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/nakamoto-what-do-we-know/

 “Satoshi’s style of writing code was old-school. He used things like reverse Polish notation.”

In addition, the code was not always terribly neat, another sign that Nakamoto was not working with a team that would have cleaned up the code and streamlined it.

“Everyone who looked at his code has pretty much concluded it was a single person,” says Andresen. “We have rewritten roughly 70 percent of the code since inception. It wasn’t written with nice interfaces. It was like one big hairball. It was incredibly tight and well-written at the lower level but where functions came together it could be pretty messy.”

Now we could begin to argue about the stylistic preferences with programming notation but any competent programmer who has worked collaboratively on a development project can attest to Satoshi's programming style is the exact opposite of what is desired, especially for a decentralized worldwide open source project.

[achimsmile]

A good argument would be citing a research article that discussed the propensity in security breaches of open source projects that had anonymous developers vs non-anonymous ones, or at minimum if you cannot cite this than at minimum cite some large long-term open source projects with anonymous developers that have better security than your average open source project with known devs.

Funny that you don't have to cite articles with scientific proof when you raise your concerns that to having known devs is better than having anon devs  

All your facts are subjective at best. It's not clear how they contribute to "to have known devs is better than anon devs"

Knowing the background and politics of a developer who was a liberal statist would allow me to be more on guard

subjective. If he was not a liberal statist you would trust him and not be on guard?

the background of the developers can give us some understanding of their technical proficiency -> So does the quality of the code they write

Yes, I agree with this in a utopian fantasy developer world. Completely, ignoring reality, and my previous comments.

BULLSHIT. Code quality is the most important criterion of a dev. Nice try evading an argument.


But the best is, we have known devs, but since some of them are anon, it's all bad, right?  

[Come-from-Beyond]

Do you understand the difference between a comparative analysis and simply stating anecdotes of security breaches?

Now you see why a claim that "non-anon" devs are better is a nonsense. If Nxt had 1000 devs then laws of statistics could be applied (even if your claim was true), Nxt has only 3 anon devs and anyone claiming that it lowers quality of the code says a silly thing, statistics simply doesn't work for small numbers.

A good argument would be citing a research article that discussed the propensity in security breaches of open source projects that had anonymous developers vs non-anonymous ones, or at minimum if you cannot cite this than at minimum cite some large long-term open source projects with anonymous developers that have better security than your average open source project with known devs.

No need, I already busted the issue 5 lines above. Now we came to the agreement, I believe?


PS: I really enjoy our convo . Guys like you serve their posts in "soft" form and quite often agree with the opponent but at some point intention to push the agenda leads them to a trap of logic flaws that become obvious sooner or later. Let's continue, if you wish.

[Eamorr]

Source code? Really??? Who cares?

Ripple had this debate years ago. They have top cryptographers working for them. They made the decisions (as close to perfect as possible) and they've gone and built it.

You guys are still arguing among yourselves and getting all pedantic about what it and isn't in the source code. Sigh.

The energy should not be on the degree of open-source purity and/or technical disagreements, but on winning hearts and minds.

[TaunSew]

Source code? Really??? Who cares?

Ripple had this debate years ago. They have top cryptographers working for them. They made the decisions (as close to perfect as possible) and they've gone and built it.

You guys are still arguing among yourselves and getting all pedantic about what it and isn't in the source code. Sigh.

The energy should not be on the degree of open-source purity and/or technical disagreements, but on winning hearts and minds.

Proof of Beluga Caviar

[achimsmile]

PS: I really enjoy our convo . Guys like you serve their posts in "soft" form and quite often agree with the opponent but at some point intention to push the agenda leads them to a trap of logic flaws that become obvious sooner or later. Let's continue, if you wish.

I was thinking about excatly that all the time! It's quite subtle. (not pretending that my arguments are flawless)

[Come-from-Beyond]

Well the evidence can directly be obtained by reviewing the source code itself and the subsequent changes.

Many well versed programmers have confirmed the shortcomings of Satoshi's code so it isn't just my opinion:

http://diginomics.com/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto/

Based on analysis from other programmers who worked on the source code, it does not appear to be written by someone who is well versed in professional programming but rather has a strong academic or theoretical knowledge of cryptography.

He was the oracle to which we would go for questions about the system, but he rarely followed standard engineering practices, like writing unit or stress tests or any of the standard qualitative analysis that we’d perform on software. Several things had to be disabled almost immediately upon public release of Bitcoin because they were obviously exploitable.

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/nakamoto-what-do-we-know/

 “Satoshi’s style of writing code was old-school. He used things like reverse Polish notation.”

In addition, the code was not always terribly neat, another sign that Nakamoto was not working with a team that would have cleaned up the code and streamlined it.

“Everyone who looked at his code has pretty much concluded it was a single person,” says Andresen. “We have rewritten roughly 70 percent of the code since inception. It wasn’t written with nice interfaces. It was like one big hairball. It was incredibly tight and well-written at the lower level but where functions came together it could be pretty messy.”

Now we could begin to argue about the stylistic preferences with programming notation but any competent programmer who has worked collaboratively on a development project can attest to Satoshi's programming style is the exact opposite of what is desired, especially for a decentralized worldwide open source project.

This is a common problem of all programmers working on big projects - they believe that writing code by sticking to the rule "200 lines per file max" is the only correct way. As the result we have heavy software with millions lines of trash that requires more and more GHz to work without a lot of lagging.

I saw these 4 files written by Satoshi - nothing that could be used to call the code a bad written. Just old school, without things like

Code:

int i = 3; // Set value of 'i' to 3

[Daedelus]

Source code? Really??? Who cares?

Ripple had this debate years ago. They have top cryptographers working for them. They made the decisions (as close to perfect as possible) and they've gone and built it.

You guys are still arguing among yourselves and getting all pedantic about what it and isn't in the source code. Sigh.

The energy should not be on the degree of open-source purity and/or technical disagreements, but on winning hearts and minds.

Proof of Beluga Caviar

Nice try  This is a sign of madness, you know...

[Come-from-Beyond]

Nice try  This is a sign of madness, you know...

Did you notice that his posts are very short now? Like he is scared of speech analysis. 

[inBitweTrust]

This is a common problem of all programmers working on big projects - they believe that writing code by sticking to the rule "200 lines per file max" is the only correct way. As the result we have heavy software with millions lines of trash that requires more and more GHz to work without a lot of lagging.

I saw these 4 files written by Satoshi - nothing that could be used to call the code a bad written. Just old school, without things like

Code:

int i = 3; // Set value of 'i' to 3

It has nothing to do with "200 lines per file max" rule but about documentation and writing code that is more readable and modular. Satoshi's code was written for himself and was very tight without enough documentation. It is bad enough having to work on an inhouse development project with a few other people and one asshole programmer doesn't follow normal conventions let alone a world wide decentralized collaborative project.  

[Furio]

Source code? Really??? Who cares?

Ripple had this debate years ago. They have top cryptographers working for them. They made the decisions (as close to perfect as possible) and they've gone and built it.

You guys are still arguing among yourselves and getting all pedantic about what it and isn't in the source code. Sigh.

The energy should not be on the degree of open-source purity and/or technical disagreements, but on winning hearts and minds.

Proof of Beluga Caviar

Nice try  This is a sign of madness, you know...

The reason why this is so important is decentralizition, which can't be achieved by private code.....

[Come-from-Beyond]

It has nothing to do with "200 lines per file max" rule but about documentation and writing code that is more readable and modular. Satoshi's code was written for himself and was very tight without enough documentation. It is bad enough having to work on a development project with a few other people and one asshole programmer doesn't follow normal conventions let alone a world wide decentralized collaborative project.  

Are you a programmer, btw?

[Come-from-Beyond]

The reason why this is so important is decentralizition, which can't be achieved by private code.....

Nxt was open-source since day 0. Unobfuscated Java binary = source code. Google around and you will find several repositories with decompiled source code. It repeats the original source code with 99% matching (the rest 1% is caused by empty lines).