Interesting project. Please keep up up-to-date.

joined the airdrop! thanks!

Interesting project! Moon and beyond.

Please add bounties asking people to jump through bizarre hoops!

My guess is that this is driven by a student doing his thesis about game theory.

Joined airdrop. Pm sent.

Genesis Sentence: Better safe than sorry brother.

With no information available, one way to determine a price would be by the fact that the number of distributed assets is 1/10th that of NXTventure. With NXTVenture trading around 77 NXT, 7.7 NXT seems like the right price for Atomic to me right now.

The volume for NXT/VIA is not correct.

http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/pair/nxt/via/nxt-mgw

The mgwVIA asset was never traded on the AE yet.

Hi Dario!

Would love to see VIACOIN added: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.0

Thanks!
Marcus

Now all that's needed for a "fair distribution" is a post-announced cap on the amount allowed to invest per address. Since this was not announced previously, chances are excellent that not too many investors used multiple addresses in the pre-sale.

I'd propose to use the median value of about 0,5 BTC as the maximum amount for all investors, which would still result in around ~160 BTC total. This would mean that the developer would  have 450 BTC less than without the cap, but this would be a very strong sign that he is interested in a fair distribution. Any accusations that he himself is the top investor with 75BTC (12.29%) would also no longer make sense.

Best of luck for Kora.

Thanks for your answer! :-)

I'll skip asking why DRK, PPC and DODGE are listed then and simply ask again in like 3 1/2 months. :-)

It's 3 1/2 month later and NXT is #3 by market capitalization: http://coinmarketcap.com

Does it have to overtake Litecoin to get listed? :-)

Interested.

I had an answer ready, then read it again and had the feeling that everything has been said already and we are not getting anywhere.

I think I have made my points. I disagree strongly with you about node operators not being of any concern, but I'll leave it at this.

While I don't follow your statements regarding Tor, I agree that the pros and cons should be checked again.

I agree that the SSL certificate for the Wiki and the forum make sense and you have my vote for funding from InfCom.

Regarding, if it has to be an anonymous certificate, I'll back out and let the other members of the commitee decide.

I'll update the InfCom issue at https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issue/20/ssl-certificate-for-nxtcryptoorg accordingly in a minute.

Ok, here's my effort in ignoring the personal accusations and your assumption you make in your post.


Which data do you think needs to be encrypted using SSL and thus be protected from the node operator (and the exit node operator when using Tor)?

Can you please name what you are trying to protect with SSL? Is it transaction data? Is it the accountSecret parameter in URLs? Is it the IP number of the NXT client end user?


EDIT: I've read your post again and I think you are trying to protect the IP of the NXT client end user:


With Tor, neither the exit node operator nor the NRS node operator know the IP address of the end user.

Here's a copy of my answer from the now dead monster thread:


IMHO you've just made a bolder claim than I did.


Why is that?


Have you read that it took just 2 hours to implement support for Tor in my client and all that the end user has to do is ticking a checkbox? Why is this not feasable?


The SSL correlation is not my main problem with SSL.

My main problem is that the way I would attack privacy and security of NTX is like this:

1.) Set up and run lots of NRS nodes.
2.) Protect it by SSL and make sure I myself stay anonymous.
3.) Encourage NXT user to use the nodes under my management, because they are more secure than others due to SSL.
4.) I'd end up with a substantial amount of the NXT client<->NRS communication under my control.

No, this is not an accusation that this is what you are trying to do. I'm personally very grateful for what you do for NXT.

However, I would like to prevent that the general perception is that SSL has a real security/privacy benefit for client<->NRS communication.

• You are not being ignored. You previously failed to follow-up on InfCom comments and questions. If you had answered my last post in the InfCom thread regarding the SSL for the Wiki with just "but what about the username/password" pairs, which I previously missed, you'd had me in your boat within 5 seconds.
• You seem to have the idea that InfCom consists of five infrastructure gods/super-heros. This is not the case. We are as good and qualified as everyone else. This is why we ask you to make your case. And this also means that we are not above you or anyone else in the NXT community, so there is really no reason to play the "but whatever, just ignore the dev/average user/small investor/whatever" card.
• Regarding me not caring, I'll keep my mouth shut on this. Just note please, that committees are not there to run NXT and decide for the NXT community. It's the job of everyone, so if you think Tor stinks, please do the research yourself and make your case. The issue I've created for it is here: https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issue/33/tor-enabled-capable-nxt-clients  It needs feedback.

Wouldn't it be possible to let someone like rickyjames make the order for the (non-anonymous) SSL certificate?

If you ask us to, we probably will do it. If you want us to decide, there would be just four, not five people to vote, since I am a client developer myself and also in InfCom and I would absolutely vote for my client, since I think I deserved it. ;-)

I'd say yes.

Regarding SSL for the nxtcrypto.org wiki, no, this was not discussed when we discussed opticalcarriers application, so we should probably do it now.

Generally, the problem with exit point operators being able to read the unencrypted communication going through them in the Tor network is valid.

I don't understand though what exactly needs to be protected when editing a public Wiki. I don't see the security problem (and there definetly is no privacy problem in regards to tracking the editor's IP when editing the Wiki through Tor).

Have you checked what InfCom has been done until now?

https://bitbucket.org/nxtinfrastructure/committee/issues