Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

HAHAHA im sorry but i find that absolutely hilarious lol not because i disagree, i do agree it is/will be, but because of all the pow buffs fighting the pow corner so hard and then someone, that so many pow buffs have put on a crypto pedestal and someone so high profile, turns around and says pow is dead... after all these PoW buffs have given him millions.. that is priceless!!!!!! OMG LOLZ... hahaha

If Ethereum merged with BitShares and used DPoS it would be hilarious indeed.  I think my fellow "PoW buffs" would agree.  Personally, I don't believe this rumour, however. 

Funny thing about those projects:

BitShares (Invictus) was the sinking ship that Charles Hoskinson bailed from after he bailed from Mastercoin (and bailed from the Bitcoin Education Project before that), prior to bailing from the Ethereum project.

I wonder if there's some common thread between all those projects besides the fact that Hoskinson got involved with them, pumped them up, and bailed...

funny, i was thinking of Hoskinson's role in all these as well.

[cypherdoc]

The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.  

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

i see plenty of differences:

Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork.  an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself.

in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT.  for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it.  this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter.  the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money.  

Except the fork never happened, for all the reasons you just specified, so none of that really matters. Thats really the biggest difference. It's open source software,  anyone can put up a version for people to use but clearly people didn't want to run it. It didn't happen this time and it's unlikely to happen next time.

it does matter b/c the NXT devs (not just anyone) were the ones to introduce the patch and thus have been shown to be susceptible to political and economic machinations/manipulations w/o even bothering to gain a community consensus.

edit:  and the NXT devs have the greatest at stake and thus the most to lose thus making their actions entirely self serving.

[kodtycoon]

The Nxt community was debating "rewriting history" to rollback the theft from Bter!  The users become the attackers, and in their echo chamber they decide to make up whatever truth appears convenient at the time.  If you don't see this, then you don't want to see it.  

On the topic of a single malicious cabal attacking the network, the cabal needs only 51% of what is currently staked, which may be significantly less than 51% of the money supply.  Furthermore, the cabal can attack with coins they once had but have since sold.  This is the nothing-at-stake problem (aka the history-rewrite problem).  This can be prevented with checkpoints or if the developers sign blocks as valid, but then your decentralized currency is no longer decentralized!  We saw this with the viacoin roll back or fork it and get rid of it.

Lastly, the idea that some special sauce known as "transparent forging" will require 90% of the critical resource to attack is a highly dubious claim.  I strongly suspect that the following PoX Theorem holds:

A malicious user controlling 51% of the critical resource X in a PoX distributed consensus system can attack the network.
  

Bitcoin was "rolled back" at one point in the early days.  Whether objective or subjective, no one wanted 92 billion bitcoins to remain in the blockchain and controlled by a single entity.  If that were to happen today I almost guarantee the miners would find a way to roll it back.  

The fact is nxt worked as advertised.  The developers released a patch to roll back the transaction but it was unsuccessful, proving that they did not have complete control over the network and the integrity of the currency remained intact.  POS is subject to similar game theory type stuff as POW.  Why would someone who has a large stake in the system attempt to compromise it?

We can debate whether POW or POS can be compromised, but the fact is cryptocurrency is proven to be sound money once relatively mature.  If 5% (or 7% in bitcoin's case - mtgox) of US dollars had somehow been stolen, you can be guaranteed that the federal reserve would have arbitrarily started a counterfeit program (2008 bailouts and QE).  Our systems are better and the beauty is users have a choice of POW or POS.

i see plenty of differences:

Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs, one of which was exploited to generate a massive output of invalid BTC's and the other which caused a fork.  an immediate consensus was gained from the community to patch the technical bugs with new code prior to it being released; otherwise repeated occurrences of the problems could reasonably be expected which threatened the long term viability of the system itself.

in NXT's case, the NXT stolen was due to a weakness in Bter's security, not a bug in the NXT code, let alone one that threatened the viability of NXT.  for crony economic reasons only, a rollback was offered in the form of a patch from the devs despite what looked like a consensus not to offer it.  this makes it much different from what happened in Bitcoin and was an expression of the biased motives of the stakeholders in charge of the code and that of the influence of Bter.  the next time something like this happens, no one can predict how they will act, whereas with Bitcoin, you can be sure no one will rollback code just to save someone some money.  

Except the fork never happened, for all the reasons you just specified, so none of that really matters. Thats really the biggest difference. It's open source software,  anyone can put up a version for people to use but clearly people didn't want to run it. It didn't happen this time and it's unlikely to happen next time.

it does matter b/c the NXT devs (not just anyone) were the ones to introduce the patch and thus have been shown to be susceptible to political and economic machinations/manipulations w/o even bothering to gain a community consensus.

edit:  and the NXT devs have the greatest at stake and thus the most to lose thus making their actions entirely self serving.

they gave the option.. anyone could have edited the software not just the devs.. and it was rejected.. the consensus of the network was to not adopt the patch.. this, above anything, shows the integrity of the network, that even when the option is available, it gets rejected. this actually proves that the nxt network is safe, because even in the worse case scenario of a malicious entity controlling 5% of the currency and being able to severely fuck up the network, the consensus was to not go ahead with the patch... so in what scenario could you possibly imagine that the consensus would be to go ahead with a reorg or rollback?

it matter not whether the devs provide a roll back or not.. it is the fact that a patch was provided during a worst case scenario of the nxt network potentially being completely and utter destroyed and brought to its needs and subsequent death, the consensus was to not do it.. if that does not say nxt is a secure network and confirms that, at no point in time present or future will such a roll back occur, i dont know what would...

[cypherdoc]

lemme know when NXT gets outta this funk:

[cypherdoc]

gold down already $5.50.  struggling to hold 1300:

[_mr_e]

lemme know when NXT gets outta this funk:

Will do. It will be likely sooner then you think. Some killer features are right around the corner... the amazing multigateway being the first piece of that puzzle.

[cypherdoc]

lemme know when NXT gets outta this funk:

Will do. It will be likely sooner then you think. Some killer features are right around the corner... the amazing multigateway being the first piece of that puzzle.

i'm sure it will be amazing!

right after they change the code again!

[cypherdoc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-O--m7Uz80&sns=em

[cypherdoc]

Keep buying dips.

[cypherdoc]

back under 1300:

[cypherdoc]

Bitfinex BTC swaps at intermediate term highs (shorts). 

Time for a short squeeze:

[HeliKopterBen]

In PoW, that consensus is tethered to physical reality because resources are consumed when voting for a chain; in PoS, that consensus is tethered only to popular opinion.  In my mind, PoW cryptos are like gold coins--they take energy and effort to create, and only physical methods can be used to steal them.  PoS cryptos are like share certificates--they can be created for zero cost only based on the desires of stake holders, and they can be voided just as easily (voided by social methods as opposed to stolen by physical methods).  

I get what you are saying.  I am just not completely convinced that work is required to function as money.  I understand that gold and silver required work to introduce new supply but there was no way around that and bitcoin is more or less modeled after gold and silver.  A finite supply is most important imho.  Also, something tells me that Satoshi et al. put some serious thought into whether or not work should be required so I definitely could be wrong.

Bitcoin's "rollbacks" in the past were from code bugs

Good point.  I should have thought about that.

edit:  and the NXT devs have the greatest at stake and thus the most to lose thus making their actions entirely self serving.

Then why did the rollback not happen?

[cypherdoc]

Then why did the rollback not happen?

b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion.  who knows.

the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious.  simply to reverse a hack, mind you.  to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons.  you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT 

[solex]

A finite supply is most important imho.  Also, something tells me that Satoshi et al. put some serious thought into whether or not work should be required so I definitely could be wrong.

This is the main consideration. While Bitcoin is finite, cryptocurrency is infinite. So why should the world be interested in a new "infinite" form of money. At least fiat has *some* control on its issuance by using central banks. How could it be any better to have a currency controlled by the people behind a bunch of colorful avatars on the internet?

So PoW puts the scarcity into cryptocurrency.

[justusranvier]

A finite supply is most important imho.  Also, something tells me that Satoshi et al. put some serious thought into whether or not work should be required so I definitely could be wrong.

This is the main consideration. While Bitcoin is finite, cryptocurrency is infinite. So why should the world be interested in a new "infinite" form of money. At least fiat has *some* control on its issuance by using central banks. How could it be any better to have a currency controlled by the people behind a bunch of colorful avatars on the internet?

Money is a ledger that we use to allocate scarce(*) resources.

In order for the ledger to function, the units must be scarce because the real goods and services they represent are scarce.



(*)In economics, "scarce" means "not infinite."

[Erdogan]

Then why did the rollback not happen?

b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion.  who knows.

the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious.  simply to reverse a hack, mind you.  to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons.  you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT  

It wasn't really a rollback. There was a bug, the code was fixed, and the current chain consisted of illegal blocks. The correct chain would have won eventually, but miners were in agreement that everybody should upgrade quickly, to minimize confusion amongst users.

Edit: The blocks were illegal according to the whitepaper. There is not really a well defined rule definition outside the source code itself, but this was obviously a bug.

[User705]

Then why did the rollback not happen?

b/c the community disagreed with them, i suppose, out of apathy, disdain, or confusion.  who knows.

the important thing, imo, is that the devs were irresponsible in not gaining a consensus before throwing a patch out there this serious.  simply to reverse a hack, mind you.  to my mind, this introduces considerable uncertainty into the NXT protocol when their main devs are willing to make a questionable decision like this to support/save a vested partner Bter for either political or financial reasons.  you'll never know what they'll be willing to do NXT 

and of course there's no chance of that ever happening to bitcoin.  LOL
Wasn't it discussed to not have previous halving done?  The asics saved it that time.  What will save that discussion at next halving?  Currently theoretically it would cost only about 2% of bitcoins total valuation to 51% attack it.  And it's not going to get better because holders of bitcoin and miners have opposing monetary interests.  Mining currently is like a bitcoin annuity since fees are negligible compared to block reward.  The hope is when that transition to mining mainly for fees rolls around it will be enough.  There are no guarantees it will be.  It's interesting that this thread makes fun of gold needing to be dug up, transported and etc... and how bitcoin is so much better but it's ok to have bitcoin mining when it can be considered wastefull.  Maybe in the future instead that big gold rock picture we'll be laughing at big bitcoin mining operations the same way.

[Melbustus]

Yikes:




That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.

[User705]

Yikes:




That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.

At least it will be good to watch what happens and learn lessons about ASIC endgame.

[cypherdoc]

Yikes:




That little "2" all the way to the left may not be there much longer.

yes, it's called the "flush":