[ANN] [NAUT] Nautiluscoin - First Coin w/Stabilization Fund - Digishield

[Doging]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network. 

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment. 

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

[hardcoreprime]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.  

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment.  

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I thought it had to do with the computing power (hashing) instead of having 50+% of the coins.

An attacker that controls more than 50% of the network's computing power can, for the time that he is in control, exclude and modify the ordering of transactions. This allows him to:

    Reverse transactions that he sends while he's in control. This has the potential to double-spend transactions that previously had already been seen in the block chain.
    Prevent some or all transactions from gaining any confirmations
    Prevent some or all other miners from mining any valid blocks

The attacker can't:

    Reverse other people's transactions
    Prevent transactions from being sent at all (they'll show as 0/unconfirmed)
    Change the number of coins generated per block
    Create coins out of thin air
    Send coins that never belonged to him

With less than 50%, the same kind of attacks are possible, but with less than 100% rate of success. For example, someone with only 40% of the network computing power can overcome a 6-deep confirmed transaction with a 50% success rate.

It's much more difficult to change historical blocks, and it becomes exponentially more difficult the further back you go. As above, changing historical blocks only allows you to exclude and change the ordering of transactions. It's impossible to change blocks created before the last checkpoint.

Since this attack doesn't permit all that much power over the network, it is expected that no one will attempt it. A profit-seeking person will always gain more by just following the rules, and even someone trying to destroy the system will probably find other attacks more attractive. However, if this attack is successfully executed, it will be difficult or impossible to "untangle" the mess created -- any changes the attacker makes might become permanent.

It's about PoS coins, so you thought wrong. You need 51% of network weight. So it's not 51% of all coins and not 51% of staking coins. Coin maturity also needs to be factored in the equation depending on what is maximum coin age. In general it's not a good idea to have a very big maximum coin age as that would in theory allow a person to get 51% of the weight with a very small percentage of coins if that person had the coins in the wallet for a very long time.

Any idea how to avoid the possibility of a 51% attack?

I'm not to familiar withe the technical aspects, but would some programming logic work for this?  For Ex.

If one wallet has less than 51% of the total supply of all mined coins, then just allow the wallet to accept more coins, otherwise don't allow any more coins in the wallet.  

[BTCrawl]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network. 

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment. 

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

This is a great idea! Something in the line of one wallet that has staked over x amount of time has a chance of winning 10k Naut every month? Or maybe even a % of its holdings up to a certain amount, to avoid people just creating hundreds of wallets to increase their chance of winning?

[Doging]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network. 

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.
2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes
3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize
 
-BK

I don't know if I'm right on this one, but it seems to me that if the POS wallets would behave as a Node, then a 51% attack could be very difficult, unless some one has a lot of NAUT wallets up and running.

Please correct me if I am wrong....

As I understand it, a 51% attack in PoS could occur if someone owned 51% of the coins - but if they did their incentive would be to keep the purchasing power of the coins intact - which means they would not want to destroy the network, thus removing the motivation for the attack in the first place.

Of course, if somebody had a monetary incentive to destroy the network then they would not be worried about losing their investment. 

Yes, or rather 51% of the staking coins. A lot of people keep their coins on exchanges and don't worry about staking, which is part of Vericoins problem. Only about 30% of the total coins were stolen, but they would still have a huge part of the network if they staked all of them due to many users never staking in the first place. Maybe there should be some sort of extra incentive to stake in a future update, so that we'd get a certain % more interest if more people staked or something?

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

This is a great idea! Something in the line of one wallet that has staked over x amount of time has a chance of winning 10k Naut every month? Or maybe even a % of its holdings up to a certain amount, to avoid people just creating hundreds of wallets to increase their chance of winning?

Maybe the pot size can depend on supply/demand too, almost a manual way of adjusting stake reward. If the price is down we could buy more coins off the exchange and provide an extra incentive to hold.

[FlyingMongoose]

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

This is a great idea! Something in the line of one wallet that has staked over x amount of time has a chance of winning 10k Naut every month? Or maybe even a % of its holdings up to a certain amount, to avoid people just creating hundreds of wallets to increase their chance of winning?

Maybe the pot size can depend on supply/demand too, almost a manual way of adjusting stake reward. If the price is down we could buy more coins off the exchange and provide an extra incentive to hold.

Would this not require the multi-pool to charge a fee? (If this fee does go into a periodic lottery system weighted by mining time I would have no qualms with this).

Also, this Mintpal/Vericoin fiasco reminds me of AGX's response actions: "Shut down the whole damn thing to keep it from continuing and fix the bug"... it's actually looking to be the best course of action any exchange has taken in response to something like this so far (in my opinion). I know some people lost on being able to buy/sell certain coins because of it, but looking back, it was a solid response.


Don't forget to donate to the Facebook advertisement campaign (by hardcoreprime a.k.a. hcp)
NftgUJjAWDcbCHNpEQD2ASGG5PhP36yVuk

Don't forget to vote
http://www.btc38.com/trade/vote_for_trade.html
https://bter.com/voting
https://hitbtc.com/vote
https://www.swaphole.com/#!voting
http://www.betbycoin.com/coinvotes/

[PilotofBTC]

I'm not to familiar withe the technical aspects, but would some programming logic work for this?  For Ex.

If one wallet has less than 51% of the total supply of all mined coins, then just allow the wallet to accept more coins, otherwise don't allow any more coins in the wallet.  

Not really possible. A "wallet" isn't a feature of the block chain. The block chain knows about addresses. A wallet is a collection of private keys to certain addresses.

So, the more correct question is, could the core code prevent 1 address from having more than 51% of the coin.

The answer is, yes, except that wont work. Why?

The wallet is open source. So, someone could modify the code so that their client ignores that condition. Now, you will say, but the network won't allow those transactions. That's correct...however, while the software doesn't allow more than 50% of the coin in a single address, that doesn't stop one PERSON from having multiple addresses that contain more than 50% of the coin.

So, once some one person has more than 50% of the coin, whether in a single address or multiple addresses, they basically control the blockchain.

The whole premise with PoS is that in order to obtain that much coin, you would have to spend a HUGE amount of cash... because as you buy more coin, the price will increase. Now, once you have spent that much money, do you still want to make it all worthless.

The biggest risk to NAUT as a POS at this time is the small coin population. It won't cost as much money to control 50% of the coin as it would for say, NXT which has 1 billion coin tokens.

I hope this explains it without rambiling to much.

---

Also, the mintpal issue was NOT a 51% attack. Someone bypasses the MINTPAL API and got into the wallet API and ordered a transaction. That is from what I read what happen, it was not a 51% attack.

[Doging]

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

This is a great idea! Something in the line of one wallet that has staked over x amount of time has a chance of winning 10k Naut every month? Or maybe even a % of its holdings up to a certain amount, to avoid people just creating hundreds of wallets to increase their chance of winning?

Maybe the pot size can depend on supply/demand too, almost a manual way of adjusting stake reward. If the price is down we could buy more coins off the exchange and provide an extra incentive to hold.

Would this not require the multi-pool to charge a fee? (If this fee does go into a periodic lottery system weighted by mining time I would have no qualms with this).

Also, this Mintpal/Vericoin fiasco reminds me of AGX's response actions: "Shut down the whole damn thing to keep it from continuing and fix the bug"... it's actually looking to be the best course of action any exchange has taken in response to something like this so far (in my opinion). I know some people lost on being able to buy/sell certain coins because of it, but looking back, it was a solid response.

I guess it would require a fee but I'd be fine with that. Just withdrew everything from mintpal, if they're solvent after this I'll be back.

[mdtspain]

I mentioned a premium bond type incentive earlier, it's basically a lottery type payout. If the NSF or multipool become highly profitable perhaps sufficient funds can be allocated for payouts. It also might encourage people with significant holdings to keep their coins off the exchange if chances are tied in to stake size.

This is a great idea! Something in the line of one wallet that has staked over x amount of time has a chance of winning 10k Naut every month? Or maybe even a % of its holdings up to a certain amount, to avoid people just creating hundreds of wallets to increase their chance of winning?

Maybe the pot size can depend on supply/demand too, almost a manual way of adjusting stake reward. If the price is down we could buy more coins off the exchange and provide an extra incentive to hold.

Would this not require the multi-pool to charge a fee? (If this fee does go into a periodic lottery system weighted by mining time I would have no qualms with this).

Also, this Mintpal/Vericoin fiasco reminds me of AGX's response actions: "Shut down the whole damn thing to keep it from continuing and fix the bug"... it's actually looking to be the best course of action any exchange has taken in response to something like this so far (in my opinion). I know some people lost on being able to buy/sell certain coins because of it, but looking back, it was a solid response.


Don't forget to donate to the Facebook advertisement campaign (by hardcoreprime a.k.a. hcp)
NftgUJjAWDcbCHNpEQD2ASGG5PhP36yVuk

Don't forget to vote
http://www.btc38.com/trade/vote_for_trade.html
https://bter.com/voting
https://hitbtc.com/vote
https://www.swaphole.com/#!voting
http://www.betbycoin.com/coinvotes/

The shutting down was a good response, however asking for a roll-back to VRC is one of the worst...IMHO

[drakoin]

ROADMAP ?

I am trying to evaluate my NAUT investment. Essential to know this week's, and this month's, and this summer's plans.
As it is difficult to nail down specific dates, it could also be like "probably end of July", or "late next week"; or give dates, with a lot of buffer time.

Is there a roadmap, a list of dates?
Planned announcements, whitepapers, next versions, coin features, merchant adoption, conference talks, press conferences, google hangouts, games, competitions, etc. pp. ?

Thank you very much!

(EDITED: more ideas)

[BTCrawl]

I am trying to evaluate my NAUT investment. For that it is essential to know this week's, and this month's plans.

Is there a roadmap, a list of dates?
Announcements planned, whitepapers, additional coin features, merchant adoption, conference talks, etc. pp. ?

Thank you very much!

Yes, this would be greatly appreciated!

[scrypto]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.  

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.

Ideally this needs to be dealt with at a coding level.  Personally I'll take your word that you wont change the blockchain but we'd be missing the point of crypto and the reason it's valuable.   If there was some mechanism that could prevent rollbacks of the chain, e.g. real world time & date stamping of blocks and then verification to stop any kind of chain rewinding/duplication.

Perhaps a separate linked & synced sub chain used purely for validating dates in the primary chain.  Not sure where I'm going with this just throwing it out there..  feel free to crush this idea with a dose of hard reality

2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes

I agree.  technical innovations aren't necessarily a magic bullet.  I like what doging is saying about NSF/premium bonds or other rewards for coin holders based on performance.  We know most people like financial incentives for doing jack -that behaviour doesn't appear to be changing.

3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

So far we've seen more things go wrong as a result of exchange screw ups than coin architecture.  IMO what the VRC devs did yesterday was a bad move and will kill their coin and others, but ultimately a good one for crypto in the long term as the code can evolve.     I think I'll give satoshi a quick call and ask him what he thinks about decentralisation  

[Lord Of The Internet]

It's about PoS coins, so you thought wrong. You need 51% of network weight. So it's not 51% of all coins and not 51% of staking coins. Coin maturity also needs to be factored in the equation depending on what is maximum coin age. In general it's not a good idea to have a very big maximum coin age as that would in theory allow a person to get 51% of the weight with a very small percentage of coins if that person had the coins in the wallet for a very long time.

There is a worldwide shortage of swedish girls and we just acquired one.  Exciting times.

Welcome to the nautilus thread!

[chocobo]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.  

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.

Ideally this needs to be dealt with at a coding level.  Personally I'll take your word that you wont change the blockchain but we'd be missing the point of crypto and the reason it's valuable.   If there was some mechanism that could prevent rollbacks of the chain, e.g. real world time & date stamping of blocks and then verification to stop any kind of chain rewinding/duplication.

Perhaps a separate linked & synced sub chain used purely for validating dates in the primary chain.  Not sure where I'm going with this just throwing it out there..  feel free to crush this idea with a dose of hard reality

2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes

I agree.  technical innovations aren't necessarily a magic bullet.  I like what doging is saying about NSF/premium bonds or other rewards for coin holders based on performance.  We know most people like financial incentives for doing jack -that behaviour doesn't appear to be changing.

3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

So far we've seen more things go wrong as a result of exchange screw ups than coin architecture.  IMO what the VRC devs did yesterday was a bad move and will kill their coin and others, but ultimately a good one for crypto in the long term as the code can evolve.     I think I'll give satoshi a quick call and ask him what he thinks about decentralisation  

You just mean change the blockchain as in rollback? Not sure that code would work for that because the dev could just remove that code when he decides that a rollback is needed. The real defense against it would be users use the open source code to make a new wallet supported by a different dev and the majority support that version.

[scrypto]

I am not sure if a no-rollback code (NRC) can be implemented...but it seems to me, even with that type of code a 51% can still occur.

The real problem that digital assets need to solve is how to eliminate the 51% attack Achilles heal. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine Generals Problem, but he/she/they did so by imposing certain assumptions - the biggest being that one entity could not control the network.  

As I see it, the infrastructure of NAUT should be built on these items:

1.) The blockchain is sacred - it should never be changed.

Ideally this needs to be dealt with at a coding level.  Personally I'll take your word that you wont change the blockchain but we'd be missing the point of crypto and the reason it's valuable.   If there was some mechanism that could prevent rollbacks of the chain, e.g. real world time & date stamping of blocks and then verification to stop any kind of chain rewinding/duplication.

Perhaps a separate linked & synced sub chain used purely for validating dates in the primary chain.  Not sure where I'm going with this just throwing it out there..  feel free to crush this idea with a dose of hard reality

2.) Compete with Economics - technical innovations can always be added, but human behavior rarely changes

I agree.  technical innovations aren't necessarily a magic bullet.  I like what doging is saying about NSF/premium bonds or other rewards for coin holders based on performance.  We know most people like financial incentives for doing jack -that behaviour doesn't appear to be changing.

3.) Reduce single points of failure as much as technically possible, i.e., decentralize, decentralize, decentralize

So far we've seen more things go wrong as a result of exchange screw ups than coin architecture.  IMO what the VRC devs did yesterday was a bad move and will kill their coin and others, but ultimately a good one for crypto in the long term as the code can evolve.     I think I'll give satoshi a quick call and ask him what he thinks about decentralisation  

You just mean change the blockchain as in rollback? Not sure that code would work for that because the dev could just remove that code when he decides that a rollback is needed. The real defense against it would be users use the open source code to make a new wallet supported by a different dev and the majority support that version.

good point. voting for updated wallet code could work.   I think code auditing by multiple parties will probably be a requirement soon.

glad NAUT is having this done by a respected third party.

[HKBvM]

Hello.

My name is Will and I'm a musician/youtube content creator (http://youtube.com/luckycriminalmusic) and a NautilusCoin enthusiast.


Wanted to introduce myself to the community as I have just created youtube.com/nautiluscoin and will be making some videos including step by step procedures regarding: Getting, Keeping and Using NautilusCoin. What is NautilusCoin? NAUT News - maybe?


As soon as POS is implemented I would like to get to it, and my current schedule should allow me to put the required hours in.


I also have a close friend who is a graphic designer/animator (http://www.brainfingermedia.com/) so we're covered visually as well.


While we await POS I would like to share this song/video: http://youtu.be/GyeEkVN68yY as I feel it expresses the current sentiments of the NautilusCoin/cryptocurrency community.


Thank you

- Will

I am just going to repost this, as I think it might have been overlooked a bit during the sell wall and vrc discussions. Just my opinion, but I think what he does is really good. Can only help to have him on board.

[scrypto]

Hello.

My name is Will and I'm a musician/youtube content creator (http://youtube.com/luckycriminalmusic) and a NautilusCoin enthusiast.


Wanted to introduce myself to the community as I have just created youtube.com/nautiluscoin and will be making some videos including step by step procedures regarding: Getting, Keeping and Using NautilusCoin. What is NautilusCoin? NAUT News - maybe?


As soon as POS is implemented I would like to get to it, and my current schedule should allow me to put the required hours in.


I also have a close friend who is a graphic designer/animator (http://www.brainfingermedia.com/) so we're covered visually as well.


While we await POS I would like to share this song/video: http://youtu.be/GyeEkVN68yY as I feel it expresses the current sentiments of the NautilusCoin/cryptocurrency community.


Thank you

- Will

I am just going to repost this, as I think it might have been overlooked a bit during the sell wall and vrc discussions. Just my opinion, but I think what he does is really good. Can only help to have him on board.

Nice one. Yeah! I had a listen to the tune and it's pretty good actually and has a well produced video.

Some Nautilus videos would be amazing   Would be great if we had something professional like the video at weusecoins.com but that shows how staking/minting works and what the NSF is etc.

[scrypto]

ROADMAP ?

I am trying to evaluate my NAUT investment. Essential to know this week's, and this month's, and this summer's plans.
As it is difficult to nail down specific dates, it could also be like "probably end of July", or "late next week"; or give dates, with a lot of buffer time.

Is there a roadmap, a list of dates?
Planned announcements, whitepapers, next versions, coin features, merchant adoption, conference talks, press conferences, google hangouts, games, competitions, etc. pp. ?

Thank you very much!

(EDITED: more ideas)

Absolutely!  BK is a busy guy and there's a lot to do. Cryptoworld moves fast. We should collate ideas, pool our skills/resources (under a project manager) and set bounties  for a range of things naut related.

[Doging]

ROADMAP ?

I am trying to evaluate my NAUT investment. Essential to know this week's, and this month's, and this summer's plans.
As it is difficult to nail down specific dates, it could also be like "probably end of July", or "late next week"; or give dates, with a lot of buffer time.

Is there a roadmap, a list of dates?
Planned announcements, whitepapers, next versions, coin features, merchant adoption, conference talks, press conferences, google hangouts, games, competitions, etc. pp. ?

Thank you very much!

(EDITED: more ideas)

Absolutely!  BK is a busy guy and there's a lot to do. Cryptoworld moves fast. We should collate ideas, pool our skills/resources (under a project manager) and set bounties  for a range of things naut related.

Is BK taking care of the multipool or should we start making arrangements now? Who owns http://nautpool.com/ ?

[FlyingMongoose]

ROADMAP ?

I am trying to evaluate my NAUT investment. Essential to know this week's, and this month's, and this summer's plans.
As it is difficult to nail down specific dates, it could also be like "probably end of July", or "late next week"; or give dates, with a lot of buffer time.

Is there a roadmap, a list of dates?
Planned announcements, whitepapers, next versions, coin features, merchant adoption, conference talks, press conferences, google hangouts, games, competitions, etc. pp. ?

Thank you very much!

(EDITED: more ideas)

Absolutely!  BK is a busy guy and there's a lot to do. Cryptoworld moves fast. We should collate ideas, pool our skills/resources (under a project manager) and set bounties  for a range of things naut related.

Is BK taking care of the multipool or should we start making arrangements now? Who owns http://nautpool.com/ ?

Not sure.


Don't forget to donate to the Facebook advertisement campaign (by hardcoreprime a.k.a. hcp)
NftgUJjAWDcbCHNpEQD2ASGG5PhP36yVuk

Don't forget to vote
http://www.btc38.com/trade/vote_for_trade.html
https://bter.com/voting
https://hitbtc.com/vote
https://www.swaphole.com/#!voting
http://www.betbycoin.com/coinvotes/

[folhowk]

When can we expect the PoS transition? It's been over 10 days since the code was finished, does it need more testing?