On the long run, it may be cheaper to hire experienced developers who can handle wallet upgrading without creating losses for NUD businesses.


One tiny difference: With Bitcoin, the torrent-distributed blockchain is the same as the one you get when letting the client download it from other peers. So, it is just a speedup. With NUD, the blockchain is rather small until now, so no real point in doing so if it was for mere speeding up the download. However, it turns out that the consensus-driven process that gets you a blockchain by running the wallet leads to a different blockchain than what is available for donload by HTTP. So, it seems like someone on nud.fi wants to override the consensus from the network by his own transactions.

This is not a surprise at all. Anyone who compared 0.0.0.4 and 0.0.0.5, and who also has some background in cryptocurrency implementation, would see that the patch that was applied would be highly likely to lead to forks. It seems unlikely that it wasn't known before releasing 0.0.0.5 (unless the developers were hobbyists, but that seems out of the question - I read something about a brilliant team of engineers being involved).


How should users proceed whose transactions are not included in the blockchain available for download? Overwriting the consensus-generated blockchain created by the wallet client by the one crafted by the developer team might lead to loss of balances, so I assume the losses can be compensated somehow.

If you require users to download the blockchain instead of having the nodes distribute it, why bother with a blockchain and peer-to-peer at all? Wouldn't it be easier if you make your coin a mere wallet website where people can login and view their balance, transmit coins etc.? Then you can edit the balances as you wish, without creating synchronization issues. This would also cut your development costs as you would not have to bother with all that cryptocurrency stuff anymore (which seems to go wrong regularly, anyway).

This would require all nodes to run Tor! Why not do the CoinJoin negotiation over BTC's network protocol, which the nodes participate in anyway? This way, those who use BTC through Tor also do the negotiation through Tor, but no one has to.

I wonder why there isn't more effort put in the direction of implementing QoS mechanisms (like throttling blockchain downloads) in the protocol. After all, the network as a whole does not become more efficient when single nodes hog down other nodes due to misconfigured blockchain downloading.

No need to blame C-Cex. The NUD core team created an update which makes it impossible to include transaction into the blockchain, so withdrawing won't even work. The NUD saga continues...

I don't know why anyone even installs these hardforking updates. The previous releases already showed that this coin lacks core developers able to handle slightly intrusive updates without severely messing up things, so responsible users should always try updates on a testnet first.

The convenience source code branch https://github.com/nudnud/nud-unofficial/tree/convenience has been updated to reflect the latest release.

As stated before, more seed nodes would be good in order to allow robust connection to the network. Therefore, if you can share any node IPs, or even better, DNS entries, please do so, so they can be integrated into the source code.

When doing so, please do also state which version (before or after the postmine update) you are running, and which version you are preferring. It is currently considered to continue supporting both blockchains because a postmine is highly controversial and may not be agreed to by everyone.

Are there other software clients available apart from the official one, which are compatible to the network and blockchain?

Anyone in the community can contribute skills and thereby add to the confidence. What exactly are you missing?

Well, the question would be if Bitcoin should be developed explicitly to match existing jurisdictions for financial products (if so, what jurisdiction), or if we should rather continue letting jurisdictions deciding themselves if they want to call Bitcoin a financial product (and if so, what kind of financial product).

Bitcoin has been adopted and has grown quite a bit even before considering if it can be considered as a financial product in jurisdiction X.

Is the bounty reasonably high so it would justify quality developers to invest resources?

Also, what guarantees are there on its payout? There has been quite some distrust in the NUD community, so a developer might consider it to be risky to write an external miner.


I have seen that some people were able to connect by customizing their configuration. Still, there were many reports of people who could not connect. Access to the network should be easy for everyone, ideally without customizing their configuration at all. So, some people managing to work around the seeding bug does not imply that a fix is a bad thing. Letting all interested users connect adds to the decentralization of the altcoin, and thereby to its robustness.


Being confused by a bugfix would indicate severe impairment of cognitive skills, as if the user has been dropped as a child too often. Cryptocurrencies, on the other hand, are tools for the discriminating, smart people. Improving them should not be dictated by possible issues it would create for the cognitively impaired.

Apart from that, the official website does not state any updates for weeks as of now. Malicious gossip would even have it that this resembles what can be seen on AbandonCoins. So, it would normally be expected that bugfixes being posted more often would actually add to the confidence put into the coin.

It's not so different from write-behind caching. Would be the responsibility of the printer driver supplier to properly implement a synchronous printing mode. Anyway, the best hard disk or printer driver won't help if the Bitcoin client doesn't enforce synchronous writing of private keys on its side.

A cryptocurrency which can be depended upon is transparent enough so the free market alone allows exchange operators to make educated decisions about supporting it.

Nepotism between coin developers and "exclusively supported" exchanges does not add to transparency. In fact, it could be considered as a risk from the user perspective.

That's the point. If I have a wallet software which does predictable syncing of private keys prior to their usage, it can be plugged to a filesystem abstraction offering additional security like redundant storage (thereby handling your flaming smartphone concern).

Secure software isn't normally designed using the "we don't need security because things could catch fire" paradigm.

Observation:

There are still people complaining about getting no network connection. Instead of fixing the seeding code, people send around addnode entries for the config file. For a properly seeded network, this should not be necessary.

A preliminary seeding fix based on information found on the forum is now available in the unofficial convenience git branch: https://github.com/nudnud/nud-unofficial/tree/convenience.

Still, they are way too few seeds. It would help if some people would setup more seeds to be integrated into the source code.

I agree. If the "dev" implemented scrypt as the sole algorithm that allows mining in the beginning, then it's weird to call those who also figure it out and try to also get some coins "scammers". I fully understand if the "dev" is upset considering that it may have costed him quite some coins to have someone post the scrypt thing publicly. But calling it "scamming"? If at all, then releasing a coin and advertising a wrong algorithm could be considered "scamming".

Anyway, there are still people left who did not let themselves scare away by the shady actions early on. I would be glad if the "dev" would also see the community thing more positively. I doubt that any one of the early miners who found the coin through this forum thread had anything bad in mind when they decided that they would not want to leave all the early mining to the "dev" team.

Yes, I'm aware of deterministic wallets and how they work cryptography-wise. It would work in cases where the determinism is permissible. However, a setup process where you have to write something down would be bad for automating. Electrum, supplemented with a printer interface which blocks until the key has been printed out could work. But I understand that there is no ready-to-use solution yet which automates the process of having keys securely synced before being used on the network.

As stated before, if there is enough interest in the community, I would be available to contribute towards a coin which works in favour of the community still left. I would do so no matter if the "dev" decides to abandon his release or not. Using the already existing blockchain(s). After all, we have almost everything needed: a network with nodes, helpful people on the forum, a source code repository, and ideas to move forward. After all, this is a cryptocurrency, and not a centralized service like PayPal. So even if the "dev" decides to act like a prima donna just because not everybody likes to lick his boots, and provides the community with yet another "fuck yourself", cryptography protects our investments.

To be clear: Some people like to play down my comments, stating that I would not like the "dev". I do not even know the "dev". I like some things he did. I don't like other things he did. I'm just doing my best to be objective in presence of controversial decisions I see.

To be more clear: I think creating a clonecoin is a stupid idea. Those who read the earlier posts know that I even found the "dev" creating a clone blockchain to be a stupid idea. But we don't need a third blockchain on the same codebase. So I would hope that those thinking about creating a clonecoin would rather join forces with a possible community effort we may create. By working together, we have a much higher chance of being competitive.

Bitcoin does not connect addresses to names. But most Bitcoin users decide to sacrifice their anonymity for convenience because they want to buy Bitcoins on exchanges, which are usually regulated.