Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[vuduchyld]

oh my:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511928969000943616

Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?

[1714199172]

1714199172

[1714199172]

1714199172

[1714199172]

1714199172

[1714199172]

1714199172

[devphp]

oh my:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511928969000943616

Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?

Hashes don't have to match. Jeff just found that out with first-hand experience
It'll be curious to find out what further research by Jeff reveals
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511930314977853442

[Hunyadi]

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

We have already this kind of situation. IMO anoncoins (drk, xmr, xc, bbr, etc.) are kind of pointless, because bitcoin + Darkwallet does everything, anoncoins offer, better.

[kodtycoon]

oh my:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511928969000943616

Anybody care to translate to third-gradeese so even I can understand the significance?

Hashes don't have to match. Jeff just found that out with first-hand experience
It'll be curious to find out what further research by Jeff reveals
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511930314977853442

CFB's long reply... putting jeff to shame..

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488

[Peter R]

oh my:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/511928969000943616

Who needs soap operas.  Can't wait for the movie.

[domob]

CFB's long reply... putting jeff to shame..

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488

Except that it contains the same bullshit "Java bytecode is sourcecode" thing and dodges the calls for deterministic builds and secure procedures once more without really giving arguments as to why this is not done.  (Except that "it is not necessary, trust us or decompile the code", which completely misses the point.)

[_mr_e]

Well at least there is an actual explanation as to why this is not possible with java: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=5388.msg102789#msg102789

Try this:

Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.

cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig

If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.

The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.

Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files. I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:

$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67

[tvbcof]

CFB's long reply... putting jeff to shame..

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/a-longer-reply-to-jeff-garzik/msg102488/#msg102488

I saw nothing especially shameful.  For my part, if I cannot compile the compiler I'm not happy in this day and age.  It's cumbersome and barely worked with JDK last time I tried it, and the thing is so bloated that I have very limited confidence that the kinds of issue which would concern me would be spotted in code.  Last time I put JDK on my throw-away Windows machine it caused so much weirdness that I re-installed the OS itself.  And again, this was my throw-away machine!

[STT]

the worse case scenario is for the US to block the internet here to stop Bitcoin to defend the USD's world reserve status.

I dont think most citizens would allow them to screw over the internet that badly.    It would cause alot of trouble to stop btc, it was hard also to stop peer to peer file sharing and I believe that is still going.  It was only the centralised parts of programs like napster which were targeted, clones and various infrastructure carried on anyway.
   There was a clone coin this year based on the image of a rap star, he brought in lawyers and sure he won, caused trouble but all the same that network is still going I think though its not popular to use

[megadeth]

Well at least there is an actual explanation as to why this is not possible with java: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=5388.msg102789#msg102789

Try this:

Download and unzip nxt-client-1.2.8.zip.

cd nxt
jar xvf nxt.jar
mv nxt nxt-orig
rm -f nxt.jar
./compile.sh
jar xvf nxt.jar
diff -r nxt nxt-orig

If you don't see a difference, this means the class files contained in the nxt.jar file included in the nxt-client-1.2.8.zip package (now under nxt-orig) are exactly the same as those produced when compiling the jar file yourself, under nxt.

The reason for non-reproducible builds is that the jar packaging tool includes time dependent information in the jar archive, which depends not only on the timestamps of the class files being packaged but the time the package is built too.

Different javac compilers and on different platforms may also result in different class files. I am using the 64-bit Oracle JDK for Linux, my current javac version is:

$ javac -version
javac 1.7.0_67

Deterministic builds in java are possible by modifying the build script: http://gary-rowe.com/agilestack/2013/08/08/how-to-create-a-deterministic-jar/

[HeliKopterBen]

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times. 

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral. 

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The appcoins appear to be further along in development.  As a test on the btsx platform, I successfully sold 124 btsx for $5(bitusd) on Sept 11 and then sold that $5 for 134 btsx on sept 15, keeping in line with overall market prices.  This was all done completely in a decentralized system with btsx as the underlying collateral and enforced automatically by a smart contract, keeping the entire trade in a trustless, yet collateralized environment.  Once I can do this with bitcoin I will definitely take notice.  Perhaps I already can and just don't know about it?  Gold (bitgld) can also be traded.

Obviously this is in the early stages (alpha) of development and this design has never been tried before so plenty can go wrong.  The client is also buggy at this version.  I am all for a working solution and if devs can make this happen with bitcoin then that would be great.  I own both.

[_mr_e]

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The interesting thing here is that Nxt is the only implementation of an m-of-n oracle I have seen in the wild yet. see multigateway.org. Please, point me to a bitcoin implementation.

[_mr_e]

So basically

NXT = POS (PIECE OF SHIT)

Hahahaha, oh man, I've never heard that one before.

[devphp]

So basically

NXT = POS (PIECE OF SHIT)

Today is the day of revelations

[jgarzik]

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.

[_mr_e]

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.

I hate that you're going about this as a public attack, but I 100% agree. I will continue pushing for this.

Calling the whole system a scam instead of just trying to help is incredibly childish.

[Adrian-x]

I agree but bitcoin software is about to hit the hardware limit regarding mining devices. Best Chips are 28nm so far and there is room for 22nm but it wont be as profitable beyond those nodes (intel just released their 14nm chips). My guess is that quantity should take on from there, tappering the network's overall power (hashrate). What will be the effect on btc price is puzzeling.

Umm...KNC already has 20nm miners.

good, we should hit that wall any day now then ... and materials, labour and energy costs kick in the hardest

I wish... the truth is the 20nm circuit size is not a reflection of efficient dissipation of thermal energy so the race will go on for years until someone has the best thermal efficiency and circuit density.

Then it all changes and decentralization takes hold and the internet of things earn money heating out hot water.

[User705]

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.

why care?  The faster it fails the faster people realize bitcoin is the one.

[nexern]

What is necessary, for NXT or any other crypto-finance software, is to prove independent reproducibility.

The next step is to proactively have developers and community members cross-check each other, to make sure the build produced is the same for all.

This helps ensure that the release manager is not under duress, unknowingly infected with malware, or corrupt.  No security solution is perfect, but it raises the bar significantly when multiple parties verify the build.

You should never trust just one person to produce release binaries, in any crypto-finance project.  That's called a Single Point of Failure, and it is easy to attack such a narrow victim vector.

well, btc source has orders of magnitude more attack vectors than nxt with all those megatons of dependencies, just ask your friendly package manager.

and yes, we are talking about two different mechanism here but i am much more worried by post source/dependencies/package modifications on btc than nxt,
no matter if gitian is used or not, this is for sure.

[Peter R]

I personally think bitshares x has a better product than nxt with a truly decentralized AND collateralized market.  I believe this achievement is being overlooked because this is the first time in human history that any asset on earth can be traded with actual collateral backing up the trade (btsx) and enforced automatically by an algorithm instead of people.  This is NOT an IOU for an asset, which has been the only option in markets until now.  Also, the DPOS model will be great if it stands the test of time because of the 10s confirmation times. 

Bitcoin and nxt have both been tested with bailouts/qe/inflation with Mt gox and bter repectively and both have passed the test.  The question remains; is work truly required to give a money it's value?  This is more of a socionomic question and a bit harder to predict but I don't think so.  I believe we will see 3 to 5 dominant chains emerge with Bitcoin being the primary POW, or digital gold.  Other chains will provide other uses but their associated currencies will act as money in many cases.  The alternative is for Bitcoin to survive as the sole form of money with open transactions, side chains, or some type of m of n oracle system to provide collateralized markets with Bitcoin being collateral. 

Is not the alternative (bolded) more likely?  Is this a true statement?:

   The features of any appcoin can be emulated by a m-of-n oracles system that uses tokens pegged to bitcoin as fuel.  

If that is true, I don't see why, should some useful "app" actually emerge, that the equivalent systems that use bitcoin wouldn't outcompete the appcoins that use proprietary tokens.  Which, like Cypher said, suggests that the value of these proprietary tokens should trend to zero.  

The appcoins appear to be further along in development.  As a test on the btsx platform, I successfully sold 124 btsx for $5(bitusd) on Sept 11 and then sold that $5 for 134 btsx on sept 15, keeping in line with overall market prices.  This was all done completely in a decentralized system with btsx as the underlying collateral and enforced automatically by a smart contract, keeping the entire trade in a trustless, yet collateralized environment.  Once I can do this with bitcoin I will definitely take notice.  Perhaps I already can and just don't know about it?  Gold (bitgld) can also be traded.

Obviously this is in the early stages (alpha) of development and this design has never been tried before so plenty can go wrong.  The client is also buggy at this version.  I am all for a working solution and if devs can make this happen with bitcoin then that would be great.  I own both.

The appcoins are further along because that's their angle--that's the value proposition they use to monetize their proprietary tokens.  What I'm arguing is that if any of these apps prove useful, then if it is possible to create the same app but using bitcoin as fuel, then someone will create that app, and it will tend to outcompete the proprietary token.  The example you gave about the decentralized BITUSD assets is interesting and a potentially useful product.  But I don't see what's special about BitShares other than it was the first to do this.  This functionality could be built on top of bitcoin (no protocol changes), and, by learning from the BitShares experience, probably executed better. 

I don't think the bitcoin core devs should do anything in the way of "more features."  Bitcoin is just better money.  Any truly useful apps can be implemented on top using oracles, sidechains or open transactions like you said. 

I see this as a vastly more robust solution than some hodgepodge cryptocurrency with a feature set that changes from week to week.