| Nxt | Blockchain Platform | Proof of Stake | Official

[bluemeanie1]

Barabbas,

the NXT IPO was indeed announced.  You can't pronounce it a 'scam' because you didn't get any.

Yes as people come to rely more and more on the system, those shares and the worth of a *large piece* starts to carry an absolutely enormous price tag.  Someone could for instance come in and buy up all the NXT that are floating around.  Maybe what- 20%?  if they tried to do this, the price would increase 10 fold at least.  Now try and buy up the privately held shares at that point.  I hope you have 200 million dollars floating around to do that(at least).

Everyone always talks about this problem of someone obtaining a large stake and attacking the network.  There are far better ways to cause havoc and destruction for 10 million dollars(at this point it would cost much much more to attack NXT).  The fact is there are no reasonable motivations for doing something like that.  Also, Bitcoin is subject to the same exact risk parameters(I could have bought 10 million dollars worth of computer gear at some point and attacked the BTC block chain).

-bm

[1715584410]

1715584410

[1715584410]

1715584410

[pandaisftw]

Barabbas,

the NXT IPO was indeed announced.  You can't pronounce it a 'scam' because you didn't get any.

Yes as people come to rely more and more on the system, those shares and the worth of a *large piece* starts to carry an absolutely enormous price tag.  Someone could for instance come in and buy up all the NXT that are floating around.  Maybe what- 20%?  if they tried to do this, the price would increase 10 fold at least.  Now try and buy up the privately held shares at that point.  I hope you have 200 million dollars floating around to do that(at least).

Everyone always talks about this problem of someone obtaining a large stake and attacking the network.  There are far better ways to cause havoc and destruction for 10 million dollars(at this point it would cost much much more to attack NXT).  The fact is there are no reasonable motivations for doing something like that.  Also, Bitcoin is subject to the same exact risk parameters(I could have bought 10 million dollars worth of computer gear at some point and attacked the BTC block chain).

-bm

+1

There's no getting through to him - apparently he holds NXT to a much higher standard than Bitcoin ("Oh well, when Bitcoin was a few months old and unproven I totally would have bought into in if I thought about it. As for NXT, it's only a few months old, must be a scam").

[barabbas]

Barabbas,

the NXT IPO was indeed announced.  You can't pronounce it a 'scam' because you didn't get any.

Yes as people come to rely more and more on the system, those shares and the worth of a *large piece* starts to carry an absolutely enormous price tag.  Someone could for instance come in and buy up all the NXT that are floating around.  Maybe what- 20%?  if they tried to do this, the price would increase 10 fold at least.  Now try and buy up the privately held shares at that point.  I hope you have 200 million dollars floating around to do that(at least).

Everyone always talks about this problem of someone obtaining a large stake and attacking the network.  There are far better ways to cause havoc and destruction for 10 million dollars(at this point it would cost much much more to attack NXT).  The fact is there are no reasonable motivations for doing something like that.  Also, Bitcoin is subject to the same exact risk parameters(I could have bought 10 million dollars worth of computer gear at some point and attacked the BTC block chain).

-bm

Once again, you don't want to hear (read) what you don't want to hear. And that is fine. And it doesn't matter if it is old or new. I wasn't even remotely interested in cryptocurrencies when Next came out so pretending that I pronounce it a scam because I didn't get any is like pretending I would be mad because my girlfriend is not a virgin, ok?

I have read extensibly, about what went on with the so called IPO. I wasn't there or even here (in cryptoland), so it isn't personal at all. As a matter of fact my interest in NEXT was heavily piqued when I saw it was innovative and different. No problem there. The problem is that a few people -maybe just a handful, own it. And it is a problem ONLY because of two things: Anonimity and Lack of accountability. The third problem is lack of regulation, of course.
The three put together, make this a huge scam. Huge: There are thing that you can do, and not being a scam, and things that, if you do, make it a huge scam. The distribution used here, makes it a huge scam. Period.

And, once again, Bitcoin has no correlation with this in any way, shape or form. Anyone, OVER YEARS, could have easily bought millions of bitcoins. ANYONE at all, let alone mine it. So it isn't and never was a scam. Unlike next. Which is not to say there are not a lot of problems and flaws in bitcoin, there are. But it isn't a scam.

Next is.

[TwinWinNerD]

Once again, you don't want to hear (read) what you don't want to hear. And that is fine. And it doesn't matter if it is old or new. I wasn't even remotely interested in cryptocurrencies when Next came out so pretending that I pronounce it a scam because I didn't get any is like pretending I would be mad because my girlfriend is not a virgin, ok?

I have read extensibly, about what went on with the so called IPO. I wasn't there or even here (in cryptoland), so it isn't personal at all. As a matter of fact my interest in NEXT was heavily piqued when I saw it was innovative and different. No problem there. The problem is that a few people -maybe just a handful, own it. And it is a problem ONLY because of two things: Anonimity and Lack of accountability. The third problem is lack of regulation, of course.
The three put together, make this a huge scam. Huge: There are thing that you can do, and not being a scam, and things that, if you do, make it a huge scam. The distribution used here, makes it a huge scam. Period.

And, once again, Bitcoin has no correlation with this in any way, shape or form. Anyone, OVER YEARS, could have easily bought millions of bitcoins. ANYONE at all, let alone mine it. So it isn't and never was a scam. Unlike next. Which is not to say there are not a lot of problems and flaws in bitcoin, there are. But it isn't a scam.

Next is.

HEy buddy, I think you don't know what the word "scam" means. Here is a link with a short description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scam

Take care buddy.

[dzarmush]

Not surprisingly such trolls don't accept their own arguments against bitcoin or fiat money which both has far worse distribution than Nxt.

Also I don't see any problem with the fact that few people ownes most part of all currencies. Someone ownes 5% of Nxt, so what's a problem? If you're not a greedy, envious, cheap person of course. If you're than yes, that's a big problem. For you. Not for Nxt or people who invested in it.

[bluemeanie1]

Barabbas,

 if you knew ANYTHING about this project at all you would know that decentralization is the cause of most of the struggles.  If most NXT were in a few hands, then it would be MUCH bigger than it is today, and those private owners would be much wealthier.  I really am starting to believe you're trying to create FUD.

 if you think it's a scam, don't buy it, don't use it.  It's really that simple.

-bm

[dzarmush]

Barabbas,

 if you knew ANYTHING about this project at all you would know that decentralization is the cause of most of the struggles.  If most NXT were in a few hands, then it would be MUCH bigger than it is today, and those private owners would be much wealthier.  I really am starting to believe you're trying to create FUD.

 if you think it's a scam, don't buy it, don't use it.  It's really that simple.

-bm

Exactly. Don't like it — nobody holds you in this thread. Only a very stupid person or a fudster would spend his time here.

[bluemeanie1]

anyone who has dealt with the NXT project would know that monopolization is not the problem, precisely the opposite.

-bm

[Eadeqa]

I have read extensibly, about what went on with the so called IPO.

The IPO happened on this forum. It's not a "secret". It was open for two fucking months -- and everyone was free to join by contributing BTC. There were no developer's stake either. Everything is in public record and verifiable that coins were distributed according to hashes they submitted (which was public)  during the IPO.

All this is verifiable. There is no mystery here.

[barabbas]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Funny indeed.

[Anon136]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=608247

If you have already received some please don't ask again. Lets use these to show some new people how cool our client and asset exchange are.

[Eadeqa]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Read the whole thread. On second or third page, the max was fixed to 1 BTC.  Everything is in public record. How the coins were distributed is also public and variable as you can see the hashes on blockchain info and coins were distributed accordingly and verifiably.

It was fairest IPO as the developer's stake were zero. And rules were same for everyone -- no exceptions for the developer.

[barabbas]

It was, you would probably admit, "abruptly interrupted", as has been stated for months, by a lot of people. But the problem, from where I stand, is not the apparently dubious distribution chosen (after so much care was evidenced by BCNext in  making sure that the distribution was as wide as possible), that would be a problem in and of itself. The problem is the current concentration of coins and the range of problems that it can cause.

I am answering people here because some are quite polite and not argumentative or offensive. I have just a very small interest in the coin and will dump it at any moment because my decision is made and I won't participate in what looks to me like a scam or, at the very least, like I have explained before several times, a coin manipulated in extreme even if there is not intention to manipulate it. I mark it scam and move on. Period.

Sorry that I cannot be convinced that anonymous individuals, next to loads of money, with total lack of accountability, are going to do good. This thread itself is full of scammers with their schemes already on the AE and about to surface there, as an example, so...

DRK, as I stated, is next under the radar.

[CoinTropolis_NiftyNikel]

We had the opportunity to speak to some entrepreneurs locally and the talk went really well. We had quite a bit of interest on the subject and made some great contacts.

Check out the video and more info over at the Nxt forum:

https://nxtforum.org/nxt-promotion/john-manglaviti-speech-on-nxtbitcoin-in-front-of-entrepreneurs-and-small-biz/msg20843/#new

[barabbas]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Read the whole thread. On second or third page, the max was fixed to 1 BTC.  Everything is in public record. How the coins were distributed is also public and variable as you can see the hashes on blockchain info and coins were distributed accordingly and verifiably.

It was fairest IPO as the developer's stake were zero. And rules were same for everyone -- no exceptions for the developer.

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

But, if it was true, it was a MONUMENTAL mistake and counter totally to his initial purpose. Regardless... the resulting fact is that a few people got an insane amount of coins, situation that remains now, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what his initial intent was and the inevitable consequence is the permanente manipulation of the market as those with the millions of coins dump them at will upon the market.

Never mind that they make of "forging" a ridiculous mockery.

[Eadeqa]

It was, you would probably admit, "abruptly interrupted", as has been stated for months, by a lot of people. But the problem, from where I stand, is not the apparently dubious distribution chosen (after so much care was evidenced by BCNext in  making sure that the distribution was as wide as possible), that would be a problem in and of itself. The problem is the current concentration of coins and the range of problems that it can cause.

That's not his fault. The traffic on this forum was 1000 times less back then, and IPO was open for 2 months. There was no scam.  Plus even if he had 10000 stakeholders, the word population is 7 billion, so even that would be considered "unfair" by the rest of 7 billion.

Satoshi himself controls 10% of BTC and litecoin and peercoin have the same issue. 60 addresses control something like  90%? of peercoin? That's life. What matter is future distribution and adaption by large general public.

There is no scam, as your initial idiotic claim.

[dzarmush]

C'mon people, just stop talking to the asshole and he'll disappear. Don't feed the troll and he'll find another thread.

[Eadeqa]

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

There is nothing to believe. Coins were distributed to hashes submitted. The rules were same for everyone. If BCNxt used sockpuppets everyone else could have done the same too, as rules were the same.

There is no "belief" or "faith" involved here as this is all  verifiable.

[Voluntold]

I miss Emule 

[Anon136]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.20
\
So BCNext wrote this: "Oh, BTW, don't send big amounts, please.  If someone owns very big stake of coins this can lead a proof-of-stake currency to failure." (and then "big amounts" were considered decimals of BTC). But somehow the FACT that 10 wallets (who could be the same individual or very few) own almost 300 million coins is not a "distribution" nor technical problem...

Read the whole thread. On second or third page, the max was fixed to 1 BTC.  Everything is in public record. How the coins were distributed is also public and variable as you can see the hashes on blockchain info and coins were distributed accordingly and verifiably.

It was fairest IPO as the developer's stake were zero. And rules were same for everyone -- no exceptions for the developer.

Once again, that is, 1.- if you believe the developer. It's a hard one but ok. You believe him, I won't.

But, if it was true, it was a MONUMENTAL mistake and counter totally to his initial purpose. Regardless... the resulting fact is that a few people got an insane amount of coins, situation that remains now, which is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what his initial intent was and the inevitable consequence is the permanente manipulation of the market as those with the millions of coins dump them at will upon the market.

Never mind that they make of "forging" a ridiculous mockery.

we all know this argument. we all feel the same way you do about it. some of us however feel that some of the other advantages outweigh this legitimate criticsm. however if you do not than you are totally welcome to that opinion. if you dont like it than just dont buy any nxt. ezpz