Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[devphp]

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]

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    

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 .

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.

[cypherdoc]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[_mr_e]

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.

[Damelon]

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.

Yes, of course it was controversial, and rightly so.
However, controversial does not necessarily mean "bad".
Bitcoin has quite a long history behind it, and has had it's fair share of tense situations.
How you weather these situations are what's important.

You take the position that even considering it is inherently bad. Fine, that's a position.
Other people, including me, take the position that these testing grounds are a way to learn and determine who and what you are.
I find that much more important that aiming at an ideal situation that is arrived at by not having a choice at all (once more, in this specific situation), especially in the crypto space. 

[cypherdoc]

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.

As I understand it, JL is a  core dev right?  He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.

[_mr_e]

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.

As I understand it, JL is a  core dev right?  He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.

So what are you looking for exactly? "Ok boys, JL wasn't responsible. Therefore the whole project is a farce and a sham and we should just shut the whole thing down and pretend it never existed. Move along, nothing to see here."?

People make mistakes and do what they think is right in time pressure situations. What's done is done. The project is still up and running, the codebase is still solid, the value is increasing after a long serious of blows that have all been survived, the community is now stronger and have a deeper sense of their place in this ecosystem, and some of the strongest innovations I have seen in the space are right around the corner. It's time to move on my friend.

[ShroomsKit_Disgrace]

I must LOL at the conversation brought by cipherdoc here.  Are you trying to say something at all or are you doing it for the sake of trolling?
I expected higher standards from a "legendary" user of the glorious Bitcointalk Forum.

At least, yesterday's Garzik posts agains NXT had some (tiny) valid points.

[cypherdoc]

incredibly relentless.  no problems here:

[cypherdoc]

going to challenge the old high:

[cypherdoc]

I must LOL at the conversation brought by cipherdoc here.  Are you trying to say something at all or are you doing it for the sake of trolling?
I expected higher standards from a "legendary" user of the glorious Bitcointalk Forum.

At least, yesterday's Garzik posts agains NXT had some (tiny) valid points.

nice job attacking the messengers and ignoring the messages!

[User705]

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.

As I understand it, JL is a  core dev right?  He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.

How?

[notme]

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.

As I understand it, JL is a  core dev right?  He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.

How?

He could start by removing himself as the person responsible for releases through a system of deterministic builds and necessitating a form of developer consensus for official releases.  Even if you trust him, he could be put under duress.  He has enabled independent developers to fork snapshots of the code, but you need live repositories to have time to vet the code before release as well as to enable others to contribute their improvements back more easily.  Yes, there are some extremist opinions flying around here, but there are some very large holes in the security model of the development process that would be addressed by a responsible leader of a crypto currency platform.

Edit: stumbling around http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/Nxt_Wiki I see this referring to PoS:

The Proof-of-Stake algorithm is efficient enough to run on smartphones and small devices like the Raspberry Pi platform. In addition, this method effectively removes a large security risk inherent in most other coins: the issue of a 51% attack and many of the other vulnerabilities inherent to Proof-of-Work coins are gone.

51% attack isn't gone, it just moves from requiring scarce natural resources to requiring scarce tokens.  Neither is easy to come by.  My real problem with PoS though is that transaction fees are awarded to those who already have high stake rather than those who are providing hardware.  Also, if they think a Raspberry Pi will be able to handle the throughput needed to scale to be bigger than bitcoin, they are crazy.  Otherwise, they are simply dishonest.  Granted, the wiki is probably not JL's responsibility, but it is indicative of the level of quality and attention to detail in the community as a whole, which is more damning than the failure of any one person.

[cypherdoc]

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.

As I understand it, JL is a  core dev right?  He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.

How?

so what is this "pressure" every pos guy is talking about here?  is it related to the fear that the hacker would dump the NXT onto the open mkt and crash the price?  that, by itself, tells you that the stakeholders are terrified of open mkt price discovery.  Bitcoin doesn't care about those things and is happy to suffer from a price crash when those things happen as the community understands the sanctity of what a digital currency is all about.  and it's not roll backs.

i don't need to repeat myself but if you read what i wrote, JL could've avoided the wasted time and effort into making the patch if he'd taken the time to act as a core dev and leader should do and measure the consensus of the NXT community.  for outsiders like me looking in, it makes me question the economic understanding of those in charge.  like Amir says, the software can be a reflection of the political stance of its developer.

regardless, i don't want to beat this to death.  if the NXT supporters are happy with their actions, so be it.  i just don't think it was handled correctly.

[cypherdoc]

more deflationary destruction out of Japan:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-17/abenomics-crushes-sony-electronics-giant-forced-cancel-dividend-first-time-ever

[_mr_e]

Also one of the benefits of nxt is the that the code is so simple to read and update, while the community is very anarchic and believers in choice and freedom that just about any person could have easily made that modification and released a fork. We didn't need JL to offer it. This is a true benefit of nxt, not something that should destroy the basis for the entire project as your suggesting.

As I understand it, JL is a  core dev right?  He's probably also a major stakeholder. He's a leader and has special code writing privileges I'd reckon. He should have been more responsible.

How?

so what is this "pressure" every pos guy is talking about here?  is it related to the fear that the hacker would dump the NXT onto the open mkt and crash the price?  that, by itself, tells you that the stakeholders are terrified of open mkt price discovery.  Bitcoin doesn't care about those things and is happy to suffer from a price crash when those things happen as the community understands the sanctity of what a digital currency is all about.  and it's not roll backs.

i don't need to repeat myself but if you read what i wrote, JL could've avoided the wasted time and effort into making the patch if he'd taken the time to act as a core dev and leader should do and measure the consensus of the NXT community.  for outsiders like me looking in, it makes me question the economic understanding of those in charge.  like Amir says, the software can be a reflection of the political stance of its developer.

regardless, i don't want to beat this to death.  if the NXT supporters are happy with their actions, so be it.  i just don't think it was handled correctly.

I think we'll just need to agree to disagree and let the system speak for itself over the next few months.

And I was more worried that the type of people that kept their nxt on an exchange were the exact type of smaller fish that we have been trying to distribute nxt too. This would have destroyed the accounts of every day users and left the whales to scoop up cheaply dumped coins - Greatly hurting nxt for a long time much like the gox hacks hurt bitcoin. Which is why I am very pleased with how it turned out, and hopefully tought users a lesson about keeping things on exchanges. Especially when nxt has already done away with the centralized exchange with the multigateway.

[Damelon]

so what is this "pressure" every pos guy is talking about here?  is it related to the fear that the hacker would dump the NXT onto the open mkt and crash the price?  that, by itself, tells you that the stakeholders are terrified of open mkt price discovery.  Bitcoin doesn't care about those things and is happy to suffer from a price crash when those things happen as the community understands the sanctity of what a digital currency is all about.  and it's not roll backs.

i don't need to repeat myself but if you read what i wrote, JL could've avoided the wasted time and effort into making the patch if he'd taken the time to act as a core dev and leader should do and measure the consensus of the NXT community.  for outsiders like me looking in, it makes me question the economic understanding of those in charge.  like Amir says, the software can be a reflection of the political stance of its developer.

regardless, i don't want to beat this to death.  if the NXT supporters are happy with their actions, so be it.  i just don't think it was handled correctly.

Also my last post on the subject, again much more related to the way of debating than to the content.

"Every" PoS guy? Sorry, but that's just a unsubstantiated generalisation. Personally, I've never felt any pressure. So that's me out already, and I know many more that weren't feeling it either. That does not take away the fact that others díd feel it. Like it or not, a community is not run by computer processes, but has a social context, too.

is it related to the fear that the hacker would dump the NXT onto the open mkt and crash the price?

This is a leading and suggestive question. There are several other reasons why people may have reacted negatively. Pure anger could definitely be one, for instance.

Your answer to this question, which leads directly to the point you actually want to make "Bitcoin doesn't care about those things" isn't really valid as it needs the support of your own leading question.
That's just bad arguing, I am sorry to say.

Nothing wrong with people completely disagreeing with how Nxt handles things. Nothing wrong with rather seeing it gone.

I just don't like a debate that is held by using techniques that aren't really aimed at addressing the (valid) issues, but instead seem to be about proving that a personal point of view is right.

That goes for the Bitcoin ánd for the Nxt side of this debate, by the way.