Bitcoin Forum
July 23, 2017, 05:09:28 AM *
News: Due to BIP91, it would starting now be prudent to require 5x more confirmations than usual before trusting transactions.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 [611] 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1934742 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 02:12:56 AM
 #12201

I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..

Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used Smiley



i routinely check binary hashes  Cheesy

as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled.  i think it's a telling lesson.  the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %.  i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism.  the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch.  it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs.  what if 51% of users accepted the patch?  what would the community have done then?  the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch.  with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions.  eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC.  and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome.  i see it as a failure.
1500786568
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500786568

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500786568
Reply with quote  #2

1500786568
Report to moderator
1500786568
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500786568

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500786568
Reply with quote  #2

1500786568
Report to moderator
1500786568
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500786568

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500786568
Reply with quote  #2

1500786568
Report to moderator
Decentralized search
Search for products or services and get paid for it
pre-sale Token CAT
25 July 50% discount
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1500786568
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500786568

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500786568
Reply with quote  #2

1500786568
Report to moderator
1500786568
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500786568

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500786568
Reply with quote  #2

1500786568
Report to moderator
jgarzik
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 02:16:30 AM
 #12202

Why would the verification have to come from multiple core developers? Lets have volunteers/independent third parties who verify it, as it's much easier/trivial with Java

Yes.  As I said,

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.

It is important for the community to demand this of themselves.  The community must get into the habit of rigourously checking each release.  "Anyone can check for themselves" is not sufficient, because in practice, people are lazy and do not check before 10000x users have downloaded and run the new release.  Cross-check before massive download.  Anyone in the community can do this.  You do not have to be a developer.  The critical point is establish the habit, the process of protecting users with a cross-check prior to general release.

If you rely on after-the-fact checking, the release manager (NXT's Jean Luc?) could be infected with malware and be producing an infected jar.  Many users would be impacted, before the problem is noticed.

Set up processes to protect users.

I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..

Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used Smiley

Quite true on both points.

That's why the community must have a quick cross-check of the release manager's output before opening up to large numbers of downloads (and potentially infecting large numbers of users).

The software protects Real Money, people.  It must be held to strict security and accountability standards.  For any project, bitcoin, NXT or anything crypto-finance, you must be able to (a) prove the developers are not backdoor'ing you, by reviewing source code + checking build output, and (b) fire the developers (by forking) if they add something unexpected that the user base dislikes.

Reading "I trust JLP!" posts on the NXT forum just makes for one big facepalm.  The processes should be in place so that the community doesn't have to trust.


Jeff Garzik, bitcoin core dev team and BitPay engineer; opinions are my own, not my employer.
Donations / tip jar: 1BrufViLKnSWtuWGkryPsKsxonV2NQ7Tcj
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 02:22:39 AM
 #12203

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. 

not quite the same maths.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
September 17, 2014, 02:26:40 AM
 #12204

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. 

not quite the same maths.
That's a month's rent in NYC:
http://observer.com/2014/07/5-nyc-apartments-that-rent-for-more-than-100000-a-month/

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 04:28:56 AM
 #12205

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT. 

not quite the same maths.

lol, the bter hacker was under pressure, this wasn't a normal purchase of NXT, it was Bter paying the ransom. It's notable that you guys twist facts to your advantage like that. It means there is really nothing you can find to attack NXT with and catching at straws here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 04:41:00 AM
 #12206

You don't even need a derivative market (although that is another way to leverage the nothing at stake problem).  You have some coins in block x, you sell the coins, you now have nothing however you can re-org the chain back from block x.  Why?  Although you have nothing "now" in the past back at block x you did have something.  You are attacking with the "memory" or history of coins.

First you must secure $50 bln. (as in $50 000 000 000) funding to buy enough stake. Then you can try.

apparently it only costs 200BTC, or approx $100,000, to buy 45M NXT.  

not quite the same maths.

lol, the bter hacker was under pressure, this wasn't a normal purchase of NXT, it was Bter paying the ransom. It's notable that you guys twist facts to your advantage like that. It means there is really nothing you can find to attack NXT with and catching at straws here.

what's even more ridiculous is your claim of $50 bln.  lol.

if the hacker had dumped that much NXT on the open mkt, the price would've tanked.
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 05:09:07 AM
 #12207

what's even more ridiculous is your claim of $50 bln.  lol.

if the hacker had dumped that much NXT on the open mkt, the price would've tanked.

It's not a claim, it's math. Purchasing 1% of all available NXT drives price 10% higher, from observations of the bter market. If you start buying NXT to get a sizeable portion (51% of all available supply), you'll quickly drain all supply at exchanges and drive the price through the roof and still won't get enough.

Yeah, DeathAndTaxes presented the same 'argument' about hacker dumping NXT. Well, my answer was, the hacker could do it in two ways: 1) all at once, which would drive the price to ~200 satoshi and there all the 50m would be bought in 1 day, as at that price and all the way to 200 satoshi would be the daily trading volume of NXT in Bitcoins. 2) gradually, 1m per day which would depress price for a couple of months at most.

The second scenario obviously would hurt more as it would be prolonged, but even that wouldn't be dramatic. After all, whales have been dumping for 9 months now, and NXT has survived that, although the price doesn't go much higher due to that extensive selling. The hacker could not do anything to the security of NXT itself, he could only hurt the price temporarily, and he realized it's best to get Bitcoins which could be mixed easier, even though he would only get a small number of Bitcoins.
User705
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 06:58:25 AM
 #12208

I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..

Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used Smiley



i routinely check binary hashes  Cheesy

as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled.  i think it's a telling lesson.  the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %.  i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism.  the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch.  it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs.  what if 51% of users accepted the patch?  what would the community have done then?  the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch.  with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions.  eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC.  and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome.  i see it as a failure.
You've invested in Nxt.  That's great interesting news.  Tell us why?
valarmg
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 237


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 08:16:31 AM
 #12209


i routinely check binary hashes  Cheesy

as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled.  i think it's a telling lesson.  the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %.  i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism.  the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch.  it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs.  what if 51% of users accepted the patch?  what would the community have done then?  the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch.  with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions.  eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC.  and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome.  i see it as a failure.

The consensus method was releasing two versions of Nxt, one patched to reject the 5% theft, one not. All stakeholders/investors in Nxt then had a choice, stake on the patched or unpatched version. This used the proof of stake as consensus which makes perfect sense for a PoS coin. If 50%+ of stake had switched to patched version, that would have become the main chain. As it turned out, no where close to 50% voted with their stake for the patched version so the blockchain reorg didn't happen.
nexern
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 597



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 09:34:18 AM
 #12210

I would argue that the "lazy" people who download and run the JAR rather than compiling their own are probably similar in proportion to the lazy people who download bitcoin-qt without checking the hashes match.. i.e. nearly everyone..

Its 2 seconds to compile Nxt, its 2 seconds to compare Bitcoin binary hashes.. both are ways to ensure your running what you think your running.. both are seldom used Smiley



i routinely check binary hashes  Cheesy

as an investor, i very much disagree with how the Bter hack of 5% of all NXT was handled.  i think it's a telling lesson.  the debate was whether to freeze the coins after a hack of 5% of existing NXT, a huge %.  i saw no attempt at a consensus mechanism.  the devs released a patch to freeze the coins and the community rejected the patch.  it was bad enough that the devs would even offer such a freeze and indicated mass confusion as far as i'm concerned and a lack of solid economic principles on the part of the devs.  what if 51% of users accepted the patch?  what would the community have done then?  the devs should actually be embarrassed that they didn't accept the patch.  with the Bitcoin consensus mechanism, a real effort is made beforehand to determine the pulse of the entire community so that any patches released have a very high likelihood of being accepted so that investors like myself have input and don't get skiddish about wishy washy devs or stakeholders making rash unilateral decisions.  eventually, Bter owners had to pay off the hacker with a measly fraction (single digits iirc) of the "market value" of the NXT coins, ironically with BTC.  and yet the hacker still holds some. it was clear Bter (composed of majority NXT stakeholders) was terrified that the hacker would put the NXT up for sale and crash the price. the community claims this was a successful outcome.  i see it as a failure.

what you state here is pure censorship and reveals that you don't understand that the nxt community prefers THE CHOICE instead isolated, above driven decisions,
jean-luc (nxt core dev) did great here. he saw there are voices and therefore demand within the community. as a result he provides (btw, superfast) the tools for an independent,
consensus based FREE decision, based on common sense by the community. i call this a demonstration of strength, with a healthy portion of common sense, exactly as it has to be.
isn't this at least one reason why we are here cypherdoc, able to make free decisons?
Damelon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 10:23:03 AM
 #12211

Please don't equate the forum community with the people that forge Nxt, either.
There were two levels of decision making here, and it was reflected on both the forums and in the forging.

The forums are not always a reflection of the Nxt Community, just as BCT is in no way a reflection of the Bitcoin Community as a whole.

In PoS, it's the stakeholders that make the choice. Otherwise, we could just hold votes on the forums. Cheesy

The devs provided a choice. Not providing that choice in this case would also have been a means of control.

As this was the first time something of this magnitude happened, there is no clear roadmap and it's important to offer the choice.

I really cannot see how it's better for the dev team nót to open up that choice, even if it means the possibility of opening up a can of worms.

The devs did not push for a choice either way: the forgers had freedom to choose. They chose not to roll back.

Only releasing a patch after you know it will be accepted by conventional consensus on a forum (!) is just silly.

Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 11:18:03 AM
 #12212

User705,

 You read that wrong. I meant as an investor in cryptocurrencies in general.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 11:53:51 AM
 #12213

Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a  fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because  of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption.  A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT  community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT  Wink  

valarmg
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 237


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 12:10:55 PM
 #12214

Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a  fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because  of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption.  A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT  community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT  Wink 

I don't understand. Where was the principle of a fixed supply ever in question? The question was about reorganizing the blockchain so that the single transaction was invalidated.

There has been talk about blacklisting addresses in bitcoin which is a similar idea.

And how is giving a choice a bad thing? You think the devs should have made up their mind and decided to hell with the community, I don't like this, so I won't allow it? No, a better idea was offering a choice in this extreme case. And the Nxt community decided overwhelmingly against invalidating that single transaction based on precedent. Shows a strong mindset and commitment to the ideas of cryptocurrency. Without the choice, you wouldn't have had any idea what they'll do in Nxt. Now you know Wink.
devphp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336


View Profile
September 17, 2014, 12:21:07 PM
 #12215

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.
Damelon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:00:43 PM
 #12216

Imo, if you birth a new cryptocurrency and make a promise of a  fixed supply, then that is an immutable contract not up for consideration simply because  of a simple theft . I mean, poeple invest based on that assumption.  A choice should never have been offered inb the first place in the Bter case. To my mind it reflects a weak mindset of the NXT  community or of the devs more specifically. It means you have no idea what the hell they'll do NXT  Wink  

The whole situation has lead to a fierce and good discussion in the Nxt Community, as it should be within a young community, according to me.
There are definitely people in the Nxt community that take the same position that you take here.

I, in *this case*, am glad that the choice was offered, for the reason valarmg gave:

And how is giving a choice a bad thing? You think the devs should have made up their mind and decided to hell with the community, I don't like this, so I won't allow it? No, a better idea was offering a choice in this extreme case. And the Nxt community decided overwhelmingly against invalidating that single transaction based on precedent. Shows a strong mindset and commitment to the ideas of cryptocurrency. Without the choice, you wouldn't have had any idea what they'll do in Nxt. Now you know Wink.

It lead to a fundamental discussion in any new coin community about where you stand.
In an ideal world, every crypto community would be made up of people who actually know anything about the ideals and ideas behind crypto.
However, this is not the case, not in Bitcoin and not in Nxt. To think otherwise is not wanting to look the facts in the face.

So this discussion and testing is necessary, and I am very happy that it turned out as it did. If there would have been a rollback, I would not be in the Nxt community anymore at this point.
However, to force that ón the community, is crossing a line that should never be crossed, IMO.

Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:31:27 PM
 #12217

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs which is just as bad when dealing with what is supposed to be currency.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:44:03 PM
 #12218

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.

Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.

And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:53:05 PM
 #12219

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.

Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.

And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.

The roll backs or reversions in Bitcoin were due to code bugs and not simply wanting  to rewrite history.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817



View Profile
September 17, 2014, 01:54:18 PM
 #12220

I don't understand. Where was the idea of a fixed supply ever in question?

It's more twisting of the facts, see my post above. This or complete lack of understanding of what really happened.

I didn't say that right. I meant roll backs.

But my point still stands.  When gox lost all those coins, a roll back wasn't even considered.  Don't pretend your patch  wasn't controversial.

Cypher, cmon man, you are really grasping at straws here. Those aren't even the same thing at all. For one, it wasn't even clear, and still isn't clear what the hell you would even roll back in the gox hack. The nxt rollback would have literally changed 1 transaction and was under immense time pressure due to the 720 block rollback limit. So yes, everyone panicked but eventually consensus was reached and was the best decision that could have occured. It was a lesson for the community. Every new community will be faced with such hardships and choices and it is the choices that are taken that determines what they will grow up to be.

And for two, of course for bitcoin a rollback can't be considered now. It was an 8 billion dollar market with all kinds of services built on top and mining spread across the globe. This is the reason why it is so hard to change bitcoin at all let a lone roll it back. I can assure you that if Nxt ever got to that size a rollback would be equally as ridiculous. And guess what, when bitcoin was smaller I believe it went through a number of rollbacks. What about when millions of coins were created? What about when the accidental hard fork happened? Didn't a large double spend happen during that time as well? This was only possible because the community was small, like Nxt is now. As it grows such rollbacks will become more and more impossible, I'd argue based off of what happened during this hack, it is already impossible.

The roll backs or reversions in Bitcoin were due to code bugs and not simply wanting  to rewrite history.

That's great, and there was no rollback of nxt either so it's time to stop hanging on to something that never occurred, or was even close to occurring, just because one lone man offered a choice.
Pages: « 1 ... 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 [611] 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!