Quote from: noviapriani on August 18, 2014, 11:43:07 AM

Quote from: Nullu on August 18, 2014, 11:39:40 AM

Quote from: noviapriani on August 18, 2014, 11:33:23 AM

Quote from: devphp on August 18, 2014, 04:37:07 AM

You guys don't get it.
NXT is supposed to be a social experiment as well as a crypto currency experiment per its founder's original intention.

That's why a choice was presented to the community. The majority of the community were against rollback and voted against rollback with their stakes, which can be interpreted as the majority of NXT community understand the purposes of crypto and why rewriting history is bad, unless it's a technical issue with software of course.

If no choice had been given, the NXT community wouldn't know who stands for which values. It's best to know beforehand while NXT is still small what the community members are up to, because without a community any crypto currency is dead. If no choice had been given, it would mean developers couldn't be sure in the future if NXT is supported just by profiteers or mostly by genuine enthusiasts. Now they can be sure of the latter outcome.

I loved out how the community came together to vote against this, I felt bad for bter but its the community that makes the coin, not the exchanges. I wonder if coins were insured somehow, will it make a difference in saving bter from this, or it can also lead to abuse of altcoins as well?

Deja Vu. Wasn't a rollback considered for a coin that got hacked on Mintpal recently? I agree rollbacks are not in the best interests of decentralised cryptocurrency. Once something is stolen, it is stolen. Takesies backsies doesn't work for crypto.

and What do you think if a coin can have a insured type of backing to it?

In theory it would be nice but how could you stop people "losing" their coins by stealing them themselves and claiming it?