NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs

[thorRJ]

NEM is one of the few coins which will be adapted i real life for buying and selling.Things could go faster but I still prefer solid and stable progress.

Could you tell me why XEM will be adapted to our daily lives? I do not follow this project and I would like to invest in it, but why such an affirmation?

[1713862138]

1713862138

[1713862138]

1713862138

[1713862138]

1713862138

[1713862138]

1713862138

[abaumgar]

"...automated system will follow the money and tag any account that receives..."
This sounds really ugly

Article about fungibility: https://www.coindesk.com/ensuring-bitcoin-fungibility-in-2017-and-beyond/

[jkoil]

Update::: Inside Nem twitter

1/ @coincheckjp hack update: NEM is creating an automated tagging system that will be ready in 24-48 hours. This automated system will follow the money and tag any account that receives tainted money. NEM has already shown exchanges how to check if an account has been tagged.

What happens if he sends tainted Nem to the community fund or such though?

2/ So the good news is that the money that was hacked via exchanges can't leave. So please share this info. The largest hack in history was solved for by NEM in a matter of hours. That is the power of the NEM platform and NEM team.

In other words 523 million Nem burned.. unless they catch the hacker and somehow get the funds back.
Perhaps a bounty deal will be done? who knows

Perhaps ...  wasn't there also some kind of deal, when NXTs were stolen from one person's account in 2014 or 2015 ?

When reading the comments and web sites (coincheck has been operating since 2012, Coincheck provides Two-Factor Authentication and Cold Storage),
cannot avoid a thought, whether it was an "accident" or not.

[jkoil]

The largest hack in history was solved for by NEM in a matter of hours. That is the power of the NEM platform and NEM team.

What a novel use of the word "solved."  I wonder if the people who lost their coins feel this is an appropriate usage of the term.

Nice spin job though.  Lots of self-congratulation and hype to distract from the fact that NEM is not fungible (can't even do coinjoin-style mixing hacks?) and centrally controlled.

This fiasco ...

sounds like an old school comment

Wasn't the cause of the hack
a) Coincheck did not use multi-sig and not use real cold storage
or
b) Coincheck had an internal issue.


Either ot those is not depending on NEM system. Right?

[ruletheworld]

Automated tagging doesn't work. All the attacker needs to do is send some NEM to all the richlist addresses. Please be careful trying to implement something like this. There is a reason cryptos need fungibility.

The NEM/Coincheck teams need to try and get in touch with the hacker and see if they can negotiate something. The attacker will find it hard to sell out with the exchanges closing/blocking transfers.

of course the tracking algorithm should notice the amount of XEMs.
There are millions to be tracked; so no use to track 10 - 100 XEMs.

The amount doesn't matter mate. You cannot really 'taint' certain coins without a more systemic risk. The attacker has 500 million XEM. That's a lot. Here's some math for you.

1000 XEM to the top 500 richlist = 500,000 XEM spent.
Total the attacker has = 500,000,000 XEM
% used for this purpose = 500,000/500,000,000*100% = 0.1%

So with just 0.1% of the hacked funds, the top 500 richlist can become 'tainted'. If you automate this, it can be worse, since it will end up tagging most legitimate addresses and therefore make the original tagging useless.

[jkoil]

Automated tagging doesn't work. All the attacker needs to do is send some NEM to all the richlist addresses. Please be careful trying to implement something like this. There is a reason cryptos need fungibility.

The NEM/Coincheck teams need to try and get in touch with the hacker and see if they can negotiate something. The attacker will find it hard to sell out with the exchanges closing/blocking transfers.

of course the tracking algorithm should notice the amount of XEMs.
There are millions to be tracked; so no use to track 10 - 100 XEMs.

The amount doesn't matter mate. You cannot really 'taint' certain coins without a more systemic risk. The attacker has 500 million XEM. That's a lot. Here's some math for you.

1000 XEM to the top 500 richlist = 500,000 XEM spent.
Total the attacker has = 500,000,000 XEM
% used for this purpose = 500,000/500,000,000*100% = 0.1%

So with just 0.1% of the hacked funds, the top 500 richlist can become 'tainted'. If you automate this, it can be worse, since it will end up tagging most legitimate addresses and therefore make the original tagging useless.

How many transactions is made in a day?
Isn't it possible to track the paths, to where the 500M is splitted?
And so keep the track of which accounts have the most of the 500M.

What are the reasons, why you see the problem so big that it cannot be broken?

[abaumgar]

Automated tagging doesn't work. All the attacker needs to do is send some NEM to all the richlist addresses. Please be careful trying to implement something like this. There is a reason cryptos need fungibility.

The NEM/Coincheck teams need to try and get in touch with the hacker and see if they can negotiate something. The attacker will find it hard to sell out with the exchanges closing/blocking transfers.

of course the tracking algorithm should notice the amount of XEMs.
There are millions to be tracked; so no use to track 10 - 100 XEMs.

The amount doesn't matter mate. You cannot really 'taint' certain coins without a more systemic risk. The attacker has 500 million XEM. That's a lot. Here's some math for you.

1000 XEM to the top 500 richlist = 500,000 XEM spent.
Total the attacker has = 500,000,000 XEM
% used for this purpose = 500,000/500,000,000*100% = 0.1%

So with just 0.1% of the hacked funds, the top 500 richlist can become 'tainted'. If you automate this, it can be worse, since it will end up tagging most legitimate addresses and therefore make the original tagging useless.

How many transactions is made in a day?
Isn't it possible to track the paths, to where the 500M is splitted?
And so keep the track of which accounts have the most of the 500M.

What are the reasons, why you see the problem so big that it cannot be broken?

What is the most of the 500M? The attacker can split the account in uneven pieces and sell the smaller pieces.
He could also hold an account with coins that are not tagged (clean coins) and send dirty coins it to this account in order to do coin laundry.
I do not see how this can work. It will be a mess.

[ruletheworld]

Automated tagging doesn't work. All the attacker needs to do is send some NEM to all the richlist addresses. Please be careful trying to implement something like this. There is a reason cryptos need fungibility.

The NEM/Coincheck teams need to try and get in touch with the hacker and see if they can negotiate something. The attacker will find it hard to sell out with the exchanges closing/blocking transfers.

of course the tracking algorithm should notice the amount of XEMs.
There are millions to be tracked; so no use to track 10 - 100 XEMs.

The amount doesn't matter mate. You cannot really 'taint' certain coins without a more systemic risk. The attacker has 500 million XEM. That's a lot. Here's some math for you.

1000 XEM to the top 500 richlist = 500,000 XEM spent.
Total the attacker has = 500,000,000 XEM
% used for this purpose = 500,000/500,000,000*100% = 0.1%

So with just 0.1% of the hacked funds, the top 500 richlist can become 'tainted'. If you automate this, it can be worse, since it will end up tagging most legitimate addresses and therefore make the original tagging useless.

How many transactions is made in a day?
Isn't it possible to track the paths, to where the 500M is splitted?
And so keep the track of which accounts have the most of the 500M.

What are the reasons, why you see the problem so big that it cannot be broken?

Because the attacker can create 100,000 new addresses. Send 5,000 XEM to each address, but also send 5,000 XEM to each of the top 100 addresses. Now which accounts have most of the 500MM XEM?

[jkoil]

Automated tagging doesn't work. All the attacker needs to do is send some NEM to all the richlist addresses. Please be careful trying to implement something like this. There is a reason cryptos need fungibility.

The NEM/Coincheck teams need to try and get in touch with the hacker and see if they can negotiate something. The attacker will find it hard to sell out with the exchanges closing/blocking transfers.

of course the tracking algorithm should notice the amount of XEMs.
There are millions to be tracked; so no use to track 10 - 100 XEMs.

The amount doesn't matter mate. You cannot really 'taint' certain coins without a more systemic risk. The attacker has 500 million XEM. That's a lot. Here's some math for you.

1000 XEM to the top 500 richlist = 500,000 XEM spent.
Total the attacker has = 500,000,000 XEM
% used for this purpose = 500,000/500,000,000*100% = 0.1%

So with just 0.1% of the hacked funds, the top 500 richlist can become 'tainted'. If you automate this, it can be worse, since it will end up tagging most legitimate addresses and therefore make the original tagging useless.

How many transactions is made in a day?
Isn't it possible to track the paths, to where the 500M is splitted?
And so keep the track of which accounts have the most of the 500M.

What are the reasons, why you see the problem so big that it cannot be broken?

What is the most of the 500M? The attacker can split the account in uneven pieces and sell the smaller pieces.
He could also hold an account with coins that are not tagged (clean coins) and send dirty coins it to this account in order to do coin laundry.
I do not see how this can work. It will be a mess.

most of the 500M is e.g. 450M.

If he sends some XEMs (10000 XEM) to an account of clean coins (90 000 XEM),
then it so that after that the account is "dirty". Right?
It has 10% dirty coins.

well, maybe I'm too optimistic   but somehow I do trust the Devs and becoz have also seen complex sw projects to be implemented, I think that this tracking sw is not impossible. It may need good co-operation between biggest exchanges, but I wish that it would not be the unbeatable issue.

[iCEBREAKER]

The largest hack in history was solved for by NEM in a matter of hours. That is the power of the NEM platform and NEM team.

What a novel use of the word "solved."  I wonder if the people who lost their coins feel this is an appropriate usage of the term.

Nice spin job though.  Lots of self-congratulation and hype to distract from the fact that NEM is not fungible (can't even do coinjoin-style mixing hacks?) and centrally controlled.

This fiasco (and especially the response) demonstrates exactly why I wouldn't even touch this dog shit coin with a pooper-scooper and clothespin on my nose to keep the stench out.

sounds like an old school comment

Wasn't the cause of the hack
a) Coincheck did not use multi-sig and not use real cold storage
or
b) Coincheck had an internal issue.

Either ot those is not depending on NEM system. Right?

We don't know whether the so-called hack was

a. an inside job by a Coincheck worker
b. an inside job by a NEM dev (hidden exploit in the code)
c. Coincheck incompetence (didn't use cold storage, multi-sig, etc.)
d. Spectre/Meltdown/Rowhammer attack by a state-level TLA adversary

or a combination of two, three, or all four.  We may never know, as happened with MtGox.

But that's all just a hand-waving distraction from the point of my post.


The real issue here is the incompetent, dishonest, misleading, and 100% self-serving response of the NEM devs.  The NEM system depends on the competency and honesty of the NEM devs.  Right?

The Official NEM response is to tout this fiasco as some kind of great victory for NEM because they wrote a Tattletale Bot that narcs on Bad Coins, as if that "solved" the many issues created.

That approach does not in reality solve anything because the attacker may simply choose to taint the NEM rich list to whatever extent they require to moot the issue of taint.

That approach also emphasizes NEM is centralized and possession/utility of NEM coins is de facto arbitrarily decided by a NEM Central Committee composed of NEM Core and NEM exchange bosses.

That is not how a fungible currency works.  That is not how a permissionless system works.

The response and fake solution of NEM Core is crafted to appease greedy low-information moonchildren who don't understand these issues and induce them to simply buy back their bags of this centralized, non-fungible shitcoin.

[jkoil]

[img...

Automated tagging doesn't work. All the attacker needs to do is send some NEM to all the richlist addresses. Please be careful trying to implement something like this. There is a reason cryptos need fungibility.

The NEM/Coincheck teams need to try and get in touch with the hacker and see if they can negotiate something. The attacker will find it hard to sell out with the exchanges closing/blocking transfers.

of course the tracking algorithm should notice the amount of XEMs.
There are millions to be tracked; so no use to track 10 - 100 XEMs.

The amount doesn't matter mate. You cannot really 'taint' certain coins without a more systemic risk. The attacker has 500 million XEM. That's a lot. Here's some math for you.

1000 XEM to the top 500 richlist = 500,000 XEM spent.
Total the attacker has = 500,000,000 XEM
% used for this purpose = 500,000/500,000,000*100% = 0.1%

So with just 0.1% of the hacked funds, the top 500 richlist can become 'tainted'. If you automate this, it can be worse, since it will end up tagging most legitimate addresses and therefore make the original tagging useless.

How many transactions is made in a day?
Isn't it possible to track the paths, to where the 500M is splitted?
And so keep the track of which accounts have the most of the 500M.

What are the reasons, why you see the problem so big that it cannot be broken?

Because the attacker can create 100,000 new addresses. Send 5,000 XEM to each address, but also send 5,000 XEM to each of the top 100 addresses. Now which accounts have most of the 500MM XEM?

yea, I was guessing that ...
Those 100 000 accounts do decrease the usefulness of the tagging/mosaics.

Maybe the tracking cannot be a plain automate, or it must have some intelligence in it.

How fast those 100 000 transactions can be done ?
Possibly not so fast that the "genius plan" is not noticed by the Trackers (software + humans) ?

[LiteMag]

Why is there such a rich list? Why was it created?

[abaumgar]

Automated tagging doesn't work. All the attacker needs to do is send some NEM to all the richlist addresses. Please be careful trying to implement something like this. There is a reason cryptos need fungibility.

The NEM/Coincheck teams need to try and get in touch with the hacker and see if they can negotiate something. The attacker will find it hard to sell out with the exchanges closing/blocking transfers.

of course the tracking algorithm should notice the amount of XEMs.
There are millions to be tracked; so no use to track 10 - 100 XEMs.

The amount doesn't matter mate. You cannot really 'taint' certain coins without a more systemic risk. The attacker has 500 million XEM. That's a lot. Here's some math for you.

1000 XEM to the top 500 richlist = 500,000 XEM spent.
Total the attacker has = 500,000,000 XEM
% used for this purpose = 500,000/500,000,000*100% = 0.1%

So with just 0.1% of the hacked funds, the top 500 richlist can become 'tainted'. If you automate this, it can be worse, since it will end up tagging most legitimate addresses and therefore make the original tagging useless.

How many transactions is made in a day?
Isn't it possible to track the paths, to where the 500M is splitted?
And so keep the track of which accounts have the most of the 500M.

What are the reasons, why you see the problem so big that it cannot be broken?

What is the most of the 500M? The attacker can split the account in uneven pieces and sell the smaller pieces.
He could also hold an account with coins that are not tagged (clean coins) and send dirty coins it to this account in order to do coin laundry.
I do not see how this can work. It will be a mess.

most of the 500M is e.g. 450M.

If he sends some XEMs (10000 XEM) to an account of clean coins (90 000 XEM),
then it so that after that the account is "dirty". Right?
It has 10% dirty coins.

well, maybe I'm too optimistic   but somehow I do trust the Devs and becoz have also seen complex sw projects to be implemented, I think that this tracking sw is not impossible. It may need good co-operation between biggest exchanges, but I wish that it would not be the unbeatable issue.

This "If he sends some XEMs (10000 XEM) to an account of clean coins (90 000 XEM), then it so that after that the account is "dirty". Right?" leads to a discussion loop:
See richlist discussion.

[jkoil]

The largest hack in history was solved for by NEM in a matter of hours. That is the power of the NEM platform and NEM team.

What a novel use of the word "solved."  I wonder if the people who lost their coins feel this is an appropriate usage of the term.

Nice spin job though.  Lots of self-congratulation and hype to distract from the fact that NEM is not fungible (can't even do coinjoin-style mixing hacks?) and centrally controlled.

This fiasco ...

sounds like an old school comment

Wasn't the cause of the hack
a) Coincheck did not use multi-sig and not use real cold storage
or
b) Coincheck had an internal issue.

Either ot those is not depending on NEM system. Right?

We don't know whether the so-called hack was

a. an inside job by a Coincheck worker
b. an inside job by a NEM dev (hidden exploit in the code)
c. Coincheck incompetence (didn't use cold storage, multi-sig, etc.)
d. Spectre/Meltdown/Rowhammer attack by a state-level TLA adversary

or a combination of two, three, or all four.  We may never know, as happened with MtGox.

But that's all just a hand-waving distraction from the point of my post.


The real issue here is the incompetent, dishonest, misleading, and 100% self-serving response of the NEM devs.  The NEM system depends on the competency and honesty of the NEM devs.  Right?

The Official NEM response is to tout this fiasco as some kind of great victory for NEM because they wrote a Tattletale Bot that narcs on Bad Coins, as if that "solved" the many issues created.

That approach does not in reality solve anything because the attacker may simply choose to taint the NEM rich list to whatever extent they require to moot the issue of taint.

That approach also emphasizes NEM is centralized and possession/utility of NEM coins is de facto arbitrarily decided by a NEM Central Committee composed of NEM Core and NEM exchange bosses.

That is not how a fungible currency works.  That is not how a permissionless system works.

The response and fake solution of NEM Core is crafted to appease greedy low-information moonchildren who don't understand these issues and induce them to simply buy back their bags of this centralized, non-fungible shitcoin.

yea, agree with that "not yet solved".
But did not quite accept the strong words against the coin itself  
Despite the few targets of the criticism (..., ...), I've seen that the coin / system is well-working and has some new features, which give some value for it.

But, it is interesting to see, how this case develops...

[jkoil]

Why is there such a rich list? Why was it created?

Possibly the reason is that from the list can be checked, how well the coin is shared to different acounts, i.e. that many people own the coins, not just the whales. (now cannot remember the right word for this concept )

For NXT that was kind of problem.
And NEM was kind of answer to that problem


https://nemnodes.org/richlist/

[ruletheworld]

Why is there such a rich list? Why was it created?

That's how (most) blockchains work. The transactions are public from the moment they are created. That's how everyone can agree to the current balances, for example. If the balances are hidden, you will need to introduce trust into the system. Anyone can download the NEM or Bitcoin blockchain and see every address along with the totals. Anyone with an internet connection can compile a richlist.

There are some exceptions to this like Monero and Zcash but the above is how most blockchains work. NEM is no exception.

[Neversettle]

The largest hack in history was solved for by NEM in a matter of hours. That is the power of the NEM platform and NEM team.

What a novel use of the word "solved."  I wonder if the people who lost their coins feel this is an appropriate usage of the term.

Nice spin job though.  Lots of self-congratulation and hype to distract from the fact that NEM is not fungible (can't even do coinjoin-style mixing hacks?) and centrally controlled.

This fiasco (and especially the response) demonstrates exactly why I wouldn't even touch this dog shit coin with a pooper-scooper and clothespin on my nose to keep the stench out.

sounds like an old school comment

Wasn't the cause of the hack
a) Coincheck did not use multi-sig and not use real cold storage
or
b) Coincheck had an internal issue.

Either ot those is not depending on NEM system. Right?

We don't know whether the so-called hack was

a. an inside job by a Coincheck worker
b. an inside job by a NEM dev (hidden exploit in the code)
c. Coincheck incompetence (didn't use cold storage, multi-sig, etc.)
d. Spectre/Meltdown/Rowhammer attack by a state-level TLA adversary

or a combination of two, three, or all four.  We may never know, as happened with MtGox.

But that's all just a hand-waving distraction from the point of my post.


The real issue here is the incompetent, dishonest, misleading, and 100% self-serving response of the NEM devs.  The NEM system depends on the competency and honesty of the NEM devs.  Right?

The Official NEM response is to tout this fiasco as some kind of great victory for NEM because they wrote a Tattletale Bot that narcs on Bad Coins, as if that "solved" the many issues created.

That approach does not in reality solve anything because the attacker may simply choose to taint the NEM rich list to whatever extent they require to moot the issue of taint.

That approach also emphasizes NEM is centralized and possession/utility of NEM coins is de facto arbitrarily decided by a NEM Central Committee composed of NEM Core and NEM exchange bosses.

That is not how a fungible currency works.  That is not how a permissionless system works.

The response and fake solution of NEM Core is crafted to appease greedy low-information moonchildren who don't understand these issues and induce them to simply buy back their bags of this centralized, non-fungible shitcoin.

We might never know exactly what did lead to the loss of the coins from CC.

I know fungibility is one of the key facts in Crypto. But what are the actions right now ?

Sure the foundation could just do nothing and let the markets collapse when the hacker is selling, but how would that help anyone involved.

In a true decentralized way, there is no possibilty to just hardfork and move on like ETH did.

How I get it is, that the devs try to flag the accounts and make it at least harder to sell the stolen coins. They can just help sending those mosaics, but anyone could develop such a tool and send mosaics. Whether it helps the exchanges in the longrun is not in the hands of the foundation. But that´s a good thing. They can´t "solve" this issue, but doing their best.

I would love to hear your solution/way to do it better

[iCEBREAKER]

We might never know exactly what did lead to the loss of the coins from CC.

I know fungibility is one of the key facts in Crypto. But what are the actions right now ?

Sure the foundation could just do nothing and let the markets collapse when the hacker is selling, but how would that help anyone involved.

In a true decentralized way, there is no possibilty to just hardfork and move on like ETH did.

How I get it is, that the devs try to flag the accounts and make it at least harder to sell the stolen coins. They can just help sending those mosaics, but anyone could develop such a tool and send mosaics. Whether it helps the exchanges in the longrun is not in the hands of the foundation. But that´s a good thing. They can´t "solve" this issue, but doing their best.

I would love to hear your solution/way to do it better

The best (re)action "right now" is doing nothing.

Don't try to "help."  That is counterproductive.

Those who formerly had NEM on a vulnerable exchange deserve to lose their coins.  They are by definition weak hands for letting someone take their coins.

Helping them with convoluted, unworkable tainting nonsense only encourages them to make the same mistake again.

They need tough love so they learn a lesson, not indulgence so they learn to depend on bailouts.

The best thing is for the stolen coins to be redistributed into stronger hands.  The attacker has already taken the first step by helping himself to the weaklings' coins.

The next step is to sell them off and hope NEM is antifragile enough to survive and emerge stronger from the harsh lessons in security and fungibility.

The hacker or whatever must be rewarded for finding the vulnerability, or it will discourage others from pen-testing.  The mechanism for that to happen is for those with empty bags to pay the hacker to refill them.  The re-buyers will thus have more skin in the game and not be so greedy and careless in the future.  That goes for the exchange as well as its customers.

NEM devs and community must also work on making their coin fungible and their network permissionless and decentralized.

But they don't want to do that.  Every architectural and organizational governance design decision shows NEM is fully intended to be the vanity project of one Satoshi-wannabe guy.

If Bitcoin can recover from dozens of MtGoxes and be stronger than ever WTF is NEM's excuse for treating its users like little babies who must be mollycoddled and protected from the consequences of their poor decisions?

Look to Bitcoin's history for an example of leaderless governance and antifragility to emulate.  Look to Monero for an example of 100% fungible (IE cannot be tainted) coins moving through a permissionless (IE can't be evil) network.

[tyz]

I wanted to send XEM today and the nano wallet showed me the message "failure timestamp to far in the future". What does it mean?
First I thought it is because the node I was connected to is not synchronized. But I switched a few times and each time the message arose.

[nemwanderer]

We might never know exactly what did lead to the loss of the coins from CC.

I know fungibility is one of the key facts in Crypto. But what are the actions right now ?

Sure the foundation could just do nothing and let the markets collapse when the hacker is selling, but how would that help anyone involved.

In a true decentralized way, there is no possibilty to just hardfork and move on like ETH did.

How I get it is, that the devs try to flag the accounts and make it at least harder to sell the stolen coins. They can just help sending those mosaics, but anyone could develop such a tool and send mosaics. Whether it helps the exchanges in the longrun is not in the hands of the foundation. But that´s a good thing. They can´t "solve" this issue, but doing their best.

I would love to hear your solution/way to do it better

The best (re)action "right now" is doing nothing.

Don't try to "help."  That is counterproductive.

Those who formerly had NEM on a vulnerable exchange deserve to lose their coins.  They are by definition weak hands for letting someone take their coins.

Helping them with convoluted, unworkable tainting nonsense only encourages them to make the same mistake again.

They need tough love so they learn a lesson, not indulgence so they learn to depend on bailouts.

The best thing is for the stolen coins to be redistributed into stronger hands.  The attacker has already taken the first step by helping himself to the weaklings' coins.

The next step is to sell them off and hope NEM is antifragile enough to survive and emerge stronger from the harsh lessons in security and fungibility.

The hacker or whatever must be rewarded for finding the vulnerability, or it will discourage others from pen-testing.  The mechanism for that to happen is for those with empty bags to pay the hacker to refill them.  The re-buyers will thus have more skin in the game and not be so greedy and careless in the future.  That goes for the exchange as well as its customers.

NEM devs and community must also work on making their coin fungible and their network permissionless and decentralized.

But they don't want to do that.  Every architectural and organizational governance design decision shows NEM is fully intended to be the vanity project of one Satoshi-wannabe guy.

If Bitcoin can recover from dozens of MtGoxes and be stronger than ever WTF is NEM's excuse for treating its users like little babies who must be mollycoddled and protected from the consequences of their poor decisions?

Look to Bitcoin's history for an example of leaderless governance and antifragility to emulate.  Look to Monero for an example of 100% fungible (IE cannot be tainted) coins moving through a permissionless (IE can't be evil) network.

A little harsh, no? But your logic is damned sound. Harsh truths for a HODLer of my scale.

I’d like to see gentlemand’s response to this.

I do agree that the NEM team congratulating themselves on this is a bit ridiculous. But equally it isn’t their fault and they’re just trying to help. Remember that NEM is far more commercial a project than BTC and accordingly will have more sympathy and centralized governance you rail against.

What do others here think?