You don't really need to transfer anything since superNET will use Nxt addresses. However, probably worth trying out the Jay wallet as someone above mentioned.

Pangea's main dev was ill for a few weeks. He's better now, but we need to give him a few days to get stuck back into the code to figure out a revised schedule (that's what we've been waiting for before giving an update).

Good news from Pangea's point of view is that the superNET plugin system that James has implemented should make integration into superNET much easier.

Don't think there'll be an official launch but rather a series of improvements as more and more features get added. There's a client (1.2b) available for download from the superNET forum but it's early days in its development.

True. But it would be a lot of work for an attacker to get these historical keys, create a new chain that seemed to have a greater cumulative difficulty, fake all the timestamps and rolling checkpoints, and then they'll only fool newcomers to the Nxt blockchain with no one to tell them which is the correct one.

By the time someone attempts such at attack, there may be other protections in place. I know that Consensus Research are looking into options.

Haha, you burnt your old assets to prove yourself trustworthy, then immediately start selling new shares. And people are buying. Amazing!

Just to talk about this. There is little incentive to hoard Nxt, forging fees are very small. It's actually very hard to hold onto Nxt, because of all the assets that are traded in the Nxt asset exchange, tempting holders to invest their Nxt. Most people who follow Nxt closely have invested in various assets. These assets issuers spend the Nxt, and hopefully create a product or service that generates money, then they return the profit to assetholders in the form of Nxt dividends. This Nxt economy is going strong with the assets on the Nxt exchange having a higher market cap that Nxt itself (similar to fiat stock exchanges). In this early stage, there is much more Nxt invested in assets than returning via dividends, which is why the Nxt market cap isn't increasing despite the big community and continuous development, but when some of the projects on the Nxt asset exchange succeed, then that will change. But Nxt is one of the only alts with a flourishing fiatless economy building around it.

So earlier, that Buterin had thoroughly studied the vulnerabilities and found PoS wanting made it clear to you that PoS had insufficient security.

Now, when you find out that Buterin has decided that PoS is the best option (but is dissuaded by others from using it), Buterin is clearly wrong despite his thorough study.

So there are probably no arguments or studies or science that could persuade you that PoS is secure, right?

I wouldn't say far more. There are more forces at work than mining cost, certainly. Bitcoin is the big daddy of crypto and in a world of it's own in terms of price and network effect. But if you compare PoS coins versus non-bitcoin PoW coins over the last year, I'd expect PoS coins to come up on top.

Well, I agree that some PoS algorithms are most likely much worse than PoW. I'm more interested in the potential of PoS, how secure it could be if best practices are followed. PoS is still growing up, Bitcoin is much further ahead in terms of protocol security.

(Edited to remove something I was wrong about.)

Ok, you are referring to a bank that has 10%+ of coins. This should not happen much/at all in a flourishing PoS economy. However, if this is happening, and the market knows the possible problems, the buyer can yet put specifications on his sale such as seller destroying the assets prior to the sale can invalidate the sale.

You understand that long range attacks have proven impossible in simulations. So if a bank buys a large chunk of coins and waits the required number of confirmations, then the previous owner cannot launch any attacks. Or am I misunderstanding your premise?

Can you explain this, please. An attack happens, someone generates an incorrect chain of 20 blocks. Now, everyone waits for 30 confirmations, so they then see that the fork is invalid and no one accepts an transactions. Why is a rollback or hardfork required? 

"Hence, it may make sense for a proof of stake algorithm to still require a small amount of proof of work on each block, ensuring that an attacker must spend some computational effort in order to even slightly inconvenience light clients."

I believe Nxt requires a single SHA256 hash for each block. So it already has an element of PoW as suggested there.


I know the initial intention of ethereum was to be mainly PoW, but with every blog post, Vitalik seems to embrace PoS more, so I'll be interested to see what the final version comes out with. With his last few posts, he seems to find very few problems with PoS (he learned to love weak subjectivity). I guess some others in ethereum might have different views to Buterin.

So I take the fact that Buterin, and now kushti/andruiman have taken a thorough look at PoS and they are seeing problems, sure, but also seeing solutions to those. If there is no fundamental reasons why PoW is better than PoS, then PoS will win out due to lower cost (imho). So I'm hoping that investigations into PoS continue, and that better solutions emerge, whether it be a stronger PoS algo, a PoS/PoW combo or a TaPoS addition.

Source? As I understand it, he is still deciding between a PoS/PoW combo and full PoS.


So just extend the number of confirmations to 30, then short range attack becomes impossible. (6 confirmations on bitcoin is an hour, so a shorter block PoS coin would still take less time than bitcoin confirmation)

I'm incredulous about it being easy/cheap to get 10% of a stake of a well functioning coin. If you can get 10% of a stake without buying and want to profit from it, the easiest way is not to give back the 10%, and sell the coins on the market.

If you have the resources to get 10% of a PoS coin, often the price to buy enough hashrate to control a PoW coin is much less than 10%. I don't see how the incentives are drastically different. Usually owning a coin gives more incentive to not damage the coin than owning hardware does. For example, say bitcoin falls more, and lots of bitcoin mining rigs get shut off. Someone who doesn't own any bitcoin, and has lots of unprofitable bitcoin miners could just launch an attack at very low cost. Maybe put money on some shorts on bitfinex to offset the cost of electricity while attacking.

The whole point of crypto-coins is that they are safe from doublespend. If someone shows that they aren't, then he is doing a service to the cryptocurrency industry.

Crypto is still in early days. We are building bridges, and it's better for someone to stress test the bridges before they are declared safe for the general population. If these bridges are unsafe, I want to know now (even if I lose some money).

You'll notice that many who are invested in PoS coins want attacks to be attempted. Better it happen out in the open now rather than in secret in the future.

Also, his attacks don't seem to be destroying coins, just showing they aren't safe. No reason coins couldn't shore up their defenses after the attack, and come back stronger.

This attack requires a large % of a coin's stakeholders to be stupid enough to trust 'Pirate S+T'. Why don't you call your bank cryptodouble instead of Pirate S+T? I think cryptodouble is a catchier name, might get more suckers. In the accumulation phase, you are 100% operating a ponzi. How do you convince people to invest in the ponzi (I know, tell them it's not a ponzi, you instead intend to attack the currency)?

Explain why you can't do the same with a PoW coin? Just needs the added measure where you buy hashrate with your accumulated funds, but you would require much less funds. What % of bitcoin, what % of litecoin would it take to buy enough hashrate to attack? What % of a PoS coin would it take for you to attack that.

What happens if your attack doesn't reduce the value of the coin to zero? Does your attack merely consist of double spending?

Pretty cool to see attacks being carried out, and I'm a fan of PoS.

How much does changing the PoS algorithm like this (https://blackcoin.co/blackcoin-pos-protocol-v2-whitepaper.pdf) make it more difficult to attack?

At a certain point, Satoshi owned nearly all the bitcoins in existence. What good is a coin distributed to one person? None, of course, but over time, bitcoin became distributed to hundreds of thousands (via people buying or burning money on electricty/hardware), turning it into the giant it is today. Nxt was at one point distributed to 80ish people, but that was well over a year ago. Now (via people buying or earning Nxt), it is spread among thousands and better distributed than most alts.

The initial seeding of Nxt matters less each day, as more and more people discover it and it becomes more distributed and more useful.

If anyone has questions on the superNETx2 or the new funding model for the centralized production management team, I created a thread here to keep all the info in one place: https://nxtforum.org/unity/supernetx2-and-the-centralized-product-management-team-(cpmt)/

The website linked seems to redirect to localbitcoins.

What gives Papillon units value if there are no transaction fees? Can someone create and use a token on the platform without ever owning Papillon. If Papillon has no/little value, can't someone buy/control 50% easily and thus have control over the network. Who will run nodes? (Maybe some form of merged mining could be used where Nxt nodes could additionally forge the Papillion network?)

If it's free, won't the blockchain become extremely bloated if it gets heavily used. It seems that some built in pruning would be essential for a free service.

You didn't give any details of your ddos protection. Does that prevent millions of free transactions from being added to the blockchain as a form of attack?

BTCD on the MGW is under maintenance right now, while the team work on improvements, so you might have to wait longer than normal.