Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Eadeqa]

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

Compile it and your class files  should be identical to released version, at least if using the same version of the compiler. This is  independent reproducibility.

[1714215982]

1714215982

[1714215982]

1714215982

[1714215982]

1714215982

[1714215982]

1714215982

[_mr_e]

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.  

Well I for one am tired of hearing that x can be built on top of bitcoin using y, z etc etc etc yet constantly seeing nothing delivered. Counterparty was built on top and that is a pretty horrible experience. Open Transactions has been talked about as the answer for years yet still nothing working there either. And sidechains? That is so far from ever getting off the ground that it shouldn't even be mentioned. The reason I got interested in Nxt was because it has a lot of features already implemented and working now! By the time these other things come out it'll already be on to the next thing! Bitcoin doesn't want these things to be added on to it, it is allergic to change. Which is ok, because it does it's job as a layer 1 currency well and that's how it should be.

[justusranvier]

Open Transactions has been talked about as the answer for years yet still nothing working there either.

OT works at the library/core level.

Fewer people are interested in building applications on top of OT right now because the VCs are funding P&D app coins instead of anything useful or sustainable.

This means is that OT development is slower and less flashy than the scamcoin startups.


(Monetas hired three more developers this week, FYI)

[ShroomsKit_Disgrace]

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.

Jeff, let me ask you something:

On twitter you were emotionally "rude" and "harsh" with NXT. Now, here I see a perfectly balanced post with argumented reasons. Why? Why these "SCAMCOIN", "I am done with your SCAM", "Nice scam you are running here" etc on public (twitter), and this "polite" post in "private" (BTT)? Are you going to blame the 140characters limitation? Or are you hiding an agenda against NXT?

[kodtycoon]

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.

Jeff, let me ask you something:

On twitter you were emotionally "rude" and "harsh" with NXT. Now, here I see a perfectly balanced post with argumented reasons. Why? Why these "SCAMCOIN", "I am done with your SCAM", "Nice scam you are running here" etc on public (twitter), and this "polite" post in "private" (BTT)? Are you going to blame the 140characters limitation? Or are you hiding an agenda against NXT?

+10000000000000000000000000099

[Bassica]

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/15/conversation-between-downs-armstrong-sept-15th-2014/

Interesting talk between Armstrong and Downs about the economical/political state of the world. At part 2 after about 10 mins it gets (even more) interesting. They're talking about gold being a hedge against souvereign trouble. They briefly talk about diamonds being easier to take with and being harder to detect.

All I'm thinking is, if that predicted scenario would indeed unfold, bitcoin would both be a hedge against the $ as well as a payment system (Bitcoin) to transfer/transact wealth to anywhere in the world.

 

[STT]

Diamonds are not fungible as the quality varies, its harder to ascertain the value in bulk exactly.  That causes more dramatic value shifts and they are high up the speculative value scale apparently, much like sub prime (or even normal commercial) debt altered as the general market shifted so they were never suitable as a core asset.

https://i.imgur.com/ZkqDr0B.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/d00teMO.jpg
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/redrawing-exter-pyramid-paul-mylchreests-latest-observations-flow-funds-and-more

I would rate bitcoin as speculative still unless it became invaluable to emerging market consumers like dollar is used now, not sure on that one but its not true yet imo

[klee]

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.   

Hope dies last I suppose...

[hdbuck]

Janet Yellen Trolls America's Poor: Tells Them It Is Important To Get Rich:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-16/janet-yellen-trolls-americas-poor-tells-them-it-important-get-rich

[adamstgBit]

Janet Yellen Trolls America's Poor: Tells Them It Is Important To Get Rich:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-16/janet-yellen-trolls-americas-poor-tells-them-it-important-get-rich

the problem with today poor poeple is that they are so poor that they could double their money over night and still be poor!

Janet Yellen tells over leveraged  poor poeple to gamble on the markets?

what the.... 

[jgarzik]

Why?  Because there are plenty of red flags.

• It is marketed like a scammy penny stock.
• Anon early super large stakeholders + Proof-Of-Stake == the big guys run the table, if they choose. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf  The central bankers are in place from Day One unless they are super-virtuous and give tons away "fairly."
• Anon devs
• Closed dev process.  Source is periodically handed down from the ivory tower to the masses.
• Certain notable personages (& key stakeholders) that dodge, dodge, dodge, when an obvious attack vector -- mitigated in other crypto-finance projects by known techniques -- is highlighted.
• Active resistance to making it easier to independently reproduce the software
• Technical criticism is routinely met with bizarre behavior (notably from come-from-beyond)
• Attacking critics, rather than responding to criticism.
• Several security incidents that smell like inside jobs.

This is not something in the past 48 hours, but for the lifetime of the project.

Bitcoin has large stakeholders and large miners, sure, but the two sets are different.  This separation ensures an easier flow of stakeholders and miners in and out of the system, and serves as a bit of check-and-balance between the two groups.

Proof-of-Stake makes it easier to establish a system where early guys control the system, for life.  I'm not saying that is always the case with PoS; that's just how pure-PoS systems can shake out in the field.  Thus, it is easier for PoS to be "gamed" by insiders.  This is inherently, logically true because there are no externalities (electricity, heat) that serve as friction in the process.

In a perfect pure ideal honest world, NXT should reset the chain and develop fully in the open, with provable builds and a better early stake allocation that pays attention to the Central Banker Controls The Timeline Problem.  More honest projects these days run a test chain for months, and then launch once most problems are hammered out, and constructive criticism from the tech community has been incorporated.

I do think PoS has a place in this world... a mixed PoW & PoS system is very interesting.  PoS alone presents a completely enclosed system, where stakeholders are far too integral to the core process of choosing which transactions are to be accepted into the chain.

Remember (from your bitcoin mining classes if nothing else), those who choose what goes into the chain also choose what stays out (censor).  He who controls the timeline controls the universe, to paraphrase Dune.

[sidhujag]

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.

Bitshares can do anything NXT can do but better.

[valarmg]

In a perfect pure ideal honest world, NXT should reset the chain and develop fully in the open, with provable builds and a better early stake allocation that pays attention to the Central Banker Controls The Timeline Problem.  More honest projects these days run a test chain for months, and then launch once most problems are hammered out, and constructive criticism from the tech community has been incorporated.

Is this post for real? You want to reset the blockchain of a coin with 40million market cap that has been running on mainnet without problems for months? (That also has the most active asset exchange in the crypto world with additional tens of millions worth of assets https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/ floating on it)

What obvious attack vectors would you like to highlight that have been solved in other crypto-finance projects?

[zeetubes]

Diamonds are not fungible as the quality varies, its harder to ascertain the value in bulk exactly.  That causes more dramatic value shifts and they are high up the speculative value scale apparently, much like sub prime (or even normal commercial) debt altered as the general market shifted so they were never suitable as a core asset.

https://i.imgur.com/ZkqDr0B.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/d00teMO.jpg
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/redrawing-exter-pyramid-paul-mylchreests-latest-observations-flow-funds-and-more

I would rate bitcoin as speculative still unless it became invaluable to emerging market consumers like dollar is used now, not sure on that one but its not true yet imo

In his defense, the commentator did say 'certified' diamonds. The average diamond is worthless. This article is from the Atlantic Monthly and goes all the way back to 1982. An amazing but VERY long read about how to create, develop, control and manipulate a market; in this case, the diamond market, with the perpetrator being De Beers.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin has large stakeholders and large miners, sure, but the two sets are different.  This separation ensures an easier flow of stakeholders and miners in and out of the system, and serves as a bit of check-and-balance between the two groups.

Proof-of-Stake makes it easier to establish a system where early guys control the system, for life.  I'm not saying that is always the case with PoS; that's just how pure-PoS systems can shake out in the field.  Thus, it is easier for PoS to be "gamed" by insiders.  This is inherently, logically true because there are no externalities (electricity, heat) that serve as friction in the process.

In a perfect pure ideal honest world, NXT should reset the chain and develop fully in the open, with provable builds and a better early stake allocation that pays attention to the Central Banker Controls The Timeline Problem.  More honest projects these days run a test chain for months, and then launch once most problems are hammered out, and constructive criticism from the tech community has been incorporated.

I do think PoS has a place in this world... a mixed PoW & PoS system is very interesting.  PoS alone presents a completely enclosed system, where stakeholders are far too integral to the core process of choosing which transactions are to be accepted into the chain.

Remember (from your bitcoin mining classes if nothing else), those who choose what goes into the chain also choose what stays out (censor).  He who controls the timeline controls the universe, to paraphrase Dune.

This is just wonderful. Thank you for your work, it is very reassuring to know bitcoin's core think that way and I hope many more weigh those words.
Let's not loose sight of the objective.

edit: for the kudos ^^

[Eadeqa]

• It is marketed like a scammy penny stock.

It decentralized crypto. The "marketers" are almost all regular users on bitcointalk who invested in it.

• Anon early super large stakeholders + Proof-Of-Stake == the big guys run the table, if they choose. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf  The central bankers are in place from Day One unless they are super-virtuous and give tons away "fairly."

The IPO was open to everyone, and it was open for 2 whole months, and it all happened in public on this exact forum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.0 and the coins were distributed to everyone who invested, with zero stakes for developer.

• Anon devs

So was Satoshi.

• Closed dev process.  Source is periodically handed down from the ivory tower to the masses.

The development repository was open for months. The problem started when clones started releasing new features and untested code before Nxt official release. This was done purely to deal with with that problem, and some of the clone IPOs were outright scams.

• Active resistance to making it easier to independently reproduce the software

Every official release is open source and can be compiled and run. It is also possible to verify that precompiled class files  match your compiled version as it's NOT obfuscated. This isn't C++.  

http://

• Technical criticism is routinely met with bizarre behavior (notably from come-from-beyond)

Your criticism was NOT technical. You lied and claimed that Nxt was closed source. You also implied (last month) that the reason it was closed source was that it got easily hacked when the source was open. Both of these claims were lies.

Several security incidents that smell like inside jobs.[/list]

That's absolutely nonsense and more shameless behavior.

Valid criticism is one thing, but your behavior is absolutely ridiculous.

[sidhujag]

I didn't see bitcoin closing down its open source model just because there were IPO scams whatnot? I think if NXT is truly closed source its a very telling telltale that its not what it seems. Either the devs dont have the foresight to understand what open-source means or better yet and more importantly they are similar to what Ripple was trying to do.. own a large portion of the supply and sell P&D style... meaning a total scam. Devs cant really join can they if its closed source? So who would you hand off to after the dump is over?

Although I think https://bitbucket.org/JeanLucPicard/nxt/src/d9e338ed12c19712bafa3e1ab48c542a7da95939?at=master is the open source repo.. just the thought that they would keep it closed source even for a while tells me alot.

[_mr_e]

Guys there is really no point in keeping on with this here, it is accomplishing nothing. We can come back once supernet is up and operational and discuss what is a scam then.

[Eadeqa]

Guys there is really no point in keeping on with this here, it is accomplishing nothing. We can come back once supernet is up and operational and discuss what is a scam then.

Yeah, but what do you do with guys who outright lie and make up stuff? This guy is bitcoin core developer?  That's really shameful.

[Adrian-x]

Guys there is really no point in keeping on with this here, it is accomplishing nothing. We can come back once supernet is up and operational and discuss what is a scam then.

Yeah, but what do you do with guys who outright lie and make up stuff? This guy is bitcoin core developer?  That's really shameful.

confiscate his NXT