I did.  I don't think it helped that he kept the same intro and outtro in unpolished form for all the segments of the interview.  I did that once got tons of complaints and it was way shorter, much more edited and audio only  

It's interesting watching your progress, you focus on very unimportant features like the power of the computer needed to mine.  That's totally irrelevant since your system can't give the forging reward to more than a single person, so you have all the same problematic incentives towards centralization and pooling of forging as Bitcoin does, just lacking the reward to actually make people bother with it.  If you had a dividend solution where mining rewards were given to ALL holders who were mining during that period (replacing mining with forging), then everyone would be incentivized to mine whether or not they were the individual node that achieved consensus and stake would just dictate your proportional share of the payout.  

So the raspberry pi stuff is basically a gimmick because someone actually mining with a raspberry pi, unless they have a very large amount of NXT statistically isn't going to be rewarded, and you can't even pool effectively since the secret (which gives control of the entire account) must be sent to the pool operator for them to be able to forge on your behalf which is the same as giving them to the pool operator and hoping that they give them back along with your share of what was earned.

I would really like to see a focus on solving problems, setting long term bounties to bring about specific outcomes in the ecosystem (like "A wallet that achieves more than 200,000 concurrent users before March 2016".   Take the problem "There aren't enough people using NXT and our wallets need to be better", look ahead and see what the solution looks like "somebody who designed a wallet that is being widely adopted and used" and then take a big pile of NXT, stick it in a fund marked THIS 200,000NXT CAN ONLY BE RELEASED WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITION IS MET: REWARDED TO THE TEAM THAT CREATES THE WALLET THAT HAS 200,000 CONCURRENT USERS BEFORE MARCH 2016, and then you put this up on a big page and announce it as broadly as possible.

Over time, the reward will become more valuable because people will be building towards those bounty/goals, so the 200,000NXT becomes a bigger magnet for ecosystem growth the more people work towards it.   Towards the end it will become obvious who the frontrunners are, so this is why it's important to have a long term bounty system that extends say, 5 years with defined-outcome goals.

Who are you trying to appeal to?  Maybe people on this forum but few others would stay past the first few clips.

You guys need to create your own content.  I have loved what Kris has done with the NXT Minute, I think its the perfect mix of update and invitation.  It's obvious you guys are doing stuff and making decisions, the community is active and growing and you're one of the leading players in the 2.0 game. 

But you need more than soundbytes, you need speakers who breath NXT.  Don't look to existing Bitcoin people, everybody I know is crazy overwhelmed with projects right now, you need to self-organize and make this happen.

Speaking in public is not impossible or even difficult, and I'm sure many of your stakeholders do it for work all the time.  Time to pull them out, rip the masks off a few of you and put your name on the line because if you aren't willing to, nobody else is going to do it for you.

Still catching up to the thread...



This solution is *not* foolproof enough for you to simply dismiss any other solutions. It's a little... arrogant to say things like "others can't see the solution" and are somehow "disturbing 'real work' by posting in this thread" - but anyways, consider this:

There are two categories of companies that will be affected differently by the AE:

1) Existing companies

The URL method works *great* for existing, established companies with *trustworthy* websites (note: they bought these websites... literally the same system as unique suffixes) to verify their identity.

2) New companies

This is where this system is less than perfect. Say I make a startup company, books.net, and say, "hey everyone, this is my *real* NXT asset issuing ID, add me!". And then a scammer comes along and makes the website "book.com" and says, "hey everyone, this is my "real" NXT asset issuing ID, add me!". How do you know which is which? In this case, the user will have to do their due diligence, and research both websites to determine which is the correct one. Or what if hackers manage to break into the server and change the address? No one would notice unless looking really closely, because account #'s are not in human readable format.

Additionally, new companies will not have to worry about squatting of unique suffixes, as they can register their unique name before announcing their company. So over time, the % of companies being squatted diminishes to a near-zero value. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree the that # of future companies that will exists is >> than the # of companies that exist today.

So now let's discuss unique suffixes:

1) Existing companies:

They will likely be squatted, this is a fact. However, they can get around this by telling users to add them (using the URL method mentioned above) to the user's trust list. The user can name this new "trustline" on his list in any way he wants. Even if Microsoft's real unique suffix was Microsoft123, when the user adds Microsoft to his list, he can simply type in "Microsoft" as the name, and have a little checkbox to override the original name, and ignore any other "Microsoft" not on his trust list. We can even show a little "verified" icon next to Microsoft to indicate that the user can validated this particular issuer. This is the exact same method CIYAM and others are pushing. So things are on even footing right now.

2) New companies

New companies can register their unique suffix without being squatted.  Of course, users will still have to do their due diligence to check whether or not this is a fake, but as mentioned earlier, the # of future companies if infinitely larger than the companies that exist today. So overtime, squatting becomes a non-issue. In fact, it is only in this "bootstrapping" phase, that we need to heavily rely on URL identification. This is in addition all the possible service providers that can provide authentication for assets in the future.


Lastly, these unique suffixes, even if they may be fake, are in *human readable* format. I suppose sometimes we forget in NXTworld that most people can't remember entire brainwallets ie. popularity and demand for wallet.dat files. Tell me, which one is easier to tell is a scam: 123123312333 vs 123123123333 or Microsoft123 vs Microsoft? In the first case, someone might not even realize that something is wrong, and think that they have "checked the source" sufficiently and trust it. In the second case, it is 100% clear that there are two Microsofts. The user will then do his DD and figure out Microsoft123 is the real deal, and rename it to Microsoft on his trust list and ignore all others.

In conclusion, unique suffixes can do everything CIYAM and others want random account numbers to do. There is no difference in this matter besides the human readable aspect. Without verification, users will be scammed by both fake 123123312333 vs 123123123333 and Microsoft123 vs Microsoft (however, the latter one is easier to spot). With verification, users will figure out the correct issuer, regardless of the original name.

What unique suffixes *will* allow, is that in the future (maybe a decade, or perhaps a century - when squatting issues go away), NXT AE can operate independently - or at least minimally - of external URLs for verification. As time goes on, the ratio of fake original names vs. real original names will only shrink smaller and smaller towards zero. By then, established companies (if they are still being squatted), will have the volume, branding, and presence in the NXT ecosystem, that everyone will know they are the real issuer anyways.

Honestly, we should just provide users both options (how are you going to stop something like this?) and see how it turns out.

For some reason, people seem to always doubt what I say. (Which is good actually, trust no one, right?) If you want, check my post history - most of what I've said has been true. In fact, who was the one that proposed a working solution for non-unique asset names?

Pandaisftw

EDIT: Also thought of another point while in the shower:

What if the asset issuer do not have or need an external website? How will the issuer the issuing establish or validate his brand then?

This is being worked on (called Nodecoin, an asset earned by running a node to support the network), but unfortunately it is a rather touchy and polarizing subject in this thread at the moment.


Currently, this is true.  It is also being worked on.  It will be possible soon to lease forging power to others.

I am a newbie and to be honest don't know much about bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, but I like a brain wallet much better.  These might not be good reasons for other people, but these are the reasons I like them.

1. I am not very computer savy, not like many other people on this thread.  I read about how to get a bitcoin wallet, install linux, save it some programs, back it up, encrypt it, and don't ever use that computer to connect to the internet, (this might not be the exact order as I couldn't figure it out anyway) and it was all too much and way too many points and steps along the way for me to mess something up and lose my money.  I hear stories about people losing their hard drives, people having malware on their computer (the average person can't fight this well) and having their bitcoins stolen.  Even the big exchanges who are "pros" are getting hacked and ripped off, so what does that mean for me.  So for me, just the average guy, I have to keep my bitcoins in Coinbase.  Yes... it is a risk, but when I consider all the possible points of failure and steps I go through to have to store my bitcoins "off line" it is really difficult.  Also, as an average consumer that is buying bitcoins hoping to spend them on the internet later on when they are worth more, having them offline kind of defeats the purpose.  The problem now with keeping them on Coinbase, while being easy, is I am trusting a third party with my money, and this is kind of going against one of the reasons I got into bitcoin in the first place.  Still.... honestly, I wouldn't have ever bought bitcoin in the first place had it not been for Coinbase, I just wouldn't have been able to do it.  Coinbase made it super easy for me as a regular consumer.

2. With the brain wallet, I can make a passphrase unique to my life, like my childhood address, name of pet, first girlfriend, favorite food...... String them together and I have something that is really easy for me to remember.  Now even if my computer breaks or is stolen, I can just download a new client on a new computer and have my nxt safe, just as easy as logging into coinbase.  With nxt, there is only one thing to write down and keep safe, with bitcoin I have to do soooo many things and along the way trust many other people.  To me, the point of failure for nxt is somebody steals my password or I forget it.  With bitcoin, these are also points of failure plus many more points of failure, most of which are out of my control as a normal guy user.  I have 7 different coins, but nxt is the only one I haven't had to trust to a third party.  People might call me silly for not being able to protect my bitcoin, but guess what, I am the every day guy and I AM THE FUTURE if it ever has one.  Compared to my gf, friends, and most of my family, I am way more computer literate.  If I can't do bitcoin well, neither can they, but if I can do nxt's passphrase well, maybe they can too.

You don't need "at least 50" - these are numbers that are just being thrown around (and getting bigger it seems) rather than base upon "math" unfortunately (but yes a brain wallet cannot be a small pass phrase).

Sorry about the link. The Offspring wallet can hold these long pass phrases in the wallet.dat. The user the uses a smaller password to unlock the wallet.dat

As I understand it, the way Nxt currently picks the next person to forge a block is that it hashes the account balances of the accounts that forged 1440 blocks ago, right?  Somehow this hash is weighted based upon the amount in people's accounts, right?

And the advanced consensus problem is that you could really quickly move money around between accounts balances so that you will be chosen as the next account to forge, right?

It has nothing to do with 1440 blocks ago - the next "best" forging account is according to the hash of the last forged block (which is weighted by the account balance).