NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs

[jelin1984]

Soon azure I think

[Vlizzjeffrey]

Soon azure I think

you ''think'', seems legit. buying

[dissident]

I pretty much know the answer to this question unfortunately, but I have a NEM stake but don't have the private key, what I do have is the account address and the password I used to create it. Is there any way to use these two items to recreate the wallet without the wallet file?

I suppose lost NEM that will never be recovered could in theory be removed from the total amount in existance.

[patmast3r]

I pretty much know the answer to this question unfortunately, but I have a NEM stake but don't have the private key, what I do have is the account address and the password I used to create it. Is there any way to use these two items to recreate the wallet without the wallet file?

I suppose lost NEM that will never be recovered could in theory be removed from the total amount in existance.

Nope. You need password + wallet file or private-key. No otherway to access a specific account.

[visaco]

NEM faucet is not working for me. Are they off off funds? Or disabled? What is the right link of the faucet?

Its been down for a while now. Dont think its actively maintained anymore.

Is there an alternative somewhere?

http://alternativeto.net/software/microsoft-azure/

[greentea]

NEM faucet is not working for me. Are they off off funds? Or disabled? What is the right link of the faucet?

Its been down for a while now. Dont think its actively maintained anymore.

Is there an alternative somewhere?

http://alternativeto.net/software/microsoft-azure/

Lots of good alternatives to AZURE

[x13]

I personally made great experience using Digitalocean, Google Compute Engine and Heroku. Microsoft Azure is only on the 5th rank of my favourite list.
Nevertheless, it is one of few platform offering BaaS so far. From that point, Azure is one of the best at the moment.

NEM faucet is not working for me. Are they off off funds? Or disabled? What is the right link of the faucet?

Its been down for a while now. Dont think its actively maintained anymore.

Is there an alternative somewhere?

http://alternativeto.net/software/microsoft-azure/

Lots of good alternatives to AZURE

[Nxtblg]

http://cryptoapex.com/#welcome

Looks good. Will there be a NEM/Fiat gateway?

that's exactly what cryptoapex is gonna be.

Sweet!! What fiat currencies are you going to support?

[patmast3r]

http://cryptoapex.com/#welcome

Looks good. Will there be a NEM/Fiat gateway?

that's exactly what cryptoapex is gonna be.

Sweet!! What fiat currencies are you going to support?

I'm sure nembit, rockethead or makoto can answer that in greater detail. From what I can tell it'll be quite a few though.

[Nxtblg]

About the Tweet.  I have written Microsoft for clarification.  Even if that agreement wasn't actually a big deal at all, it is still nice to err on the side of caution. 

I'll report back more after I hear back from them. 

Thanks. I read that Bitcoinist article, but was underwhelmed by the lack of details.

Anyhoo, with the rise of NEM I'm sure the Foundation won't have much trouble paying the bill if they need to.


Oh yeah: Happy 1st, NEM!

[Nxtblg]

http://cryptoapex.com/#welcome

Looks good. Will there be a NEM/Fiat gateway?

that's exactly what cryptoapex is gonna be.

Sweet!! What fiat currencies are you going to support?

I'm sure nembit, rockethead or makoto can answer that in greater detail. From what I can tell it'll be quite a few though.

As long as it includes the Canuck buck, battered though it is, I'll be happy.

[Sjacmur]

Xem will be new Eth soon

[tolikkk]

when considering the future development of the Nem platform and finding the positive side to add Nem to Azure, and getting a global perspective to development ; continuing the process of adding to Azure is seen as a positive achievement and on the same terms on which the developers were going to do to the discussion


''...The tech team worked hard in getting NEM into a docker for Azure. In case some of you who may not know Azure, it is a Microsoft cloud computing platform and infrastructure. Recently, some months ago, Microsoft opened up Azure for crypto projects to place their solutions there in the cloud repository so that testers are able to download and testbed these initiatives from one location.

We spent a considerable amount of time getting this done. Unfortunately, at the last stage of our submission we were shown the agreement. In the agreement, to put our solution up there, requires us to give away all our rights. This is not quite palatable. ...''


on whether to add, referring to the Nem system with a private cloud nis, i.e. a free version and open data sources, as it happens now in most cases with other platforms ; I think that although it should consider separately the developers Xem, in more detail Sastras on the rights of the owners of the source code and so on, but with a paid membership to Azure while retaining the copyright to a is also acceptable ( as it is known, Nem locates the source code for free, leaving only the right links to your brand ) ; I think add to Azure in the original version of the strategy of development of the Nem platform, more acceptable and causes


the copyright issue is treated quite seriously, when we talk about information of this kind : kernel, security, Protocol, etc. and that this information is open source, fair use is only a reference to the brand of the source, but in fact being free and open that in a conversation about copyright only superficial and the terms of ownership or owner of these rights is only conditional, and that under these conditions conversation copyright is reduced to a system of open source materials on specific resources and any value that this information not be due to the fact that it is free ; although developers and it is advisable for the future to further assess the situation in this direction and future role of open sources of information including about the copyright status in the event of a change in the condition of information distribution, open another form, I think that assessing the value of the output data or allowing third-party users use of the source code, developers should consider all options and make a more acceptable and less problematic, but with the expectation for the future and further development of the platform Nem


most likely both options with open rights or preserving the right to control their own information is the norm, and that a more accurate variant with the aim of justifying the feasibility and in terms of strategic development of the platform lies in developers and large investors or owners of the platform, and given the strategy of public or corporate way of building, a particular way of adding to Azure should be used, although there is my opinion, thank you

[McDoxy1]

Sry tolikkk but I didn't understand a word of what you just wrote.

[nzminer]

when considering the future development of the Nem platform and finding the positive side to add Nem to Azure, and getting a global perspective to development ; continuing the process of adding to Azure is seen as a positive achievement and on the same terms on which the developers were going to do to the discussion


''...The tech team worked hard in getting NEM into a docker for Azure. In case some of you who may not know Azure, it is a Microsoft cloud computing platform and infrastructure. Recently, some months ago, Microsoft opened up Azure for crypto projects to place their solutions there in the cloud repository so that testers are able to download and testbed these initiatives from one location.

We spent a considerable amount of time getting this done. Unfortunately, at the last stage of our submission we were shown the agreement. In the agreement, to put our solution up there, requires us to give away all our rights. This is not quite palatable. ...''


on whether to add, referring to the Nem system with a private cloud nis, i.e. a free version and open data sources, as it happens now in most cases with other platforms ; I think that although it should consider separately the developers Xem, in more detail Sastras on the rights of the owners of the source code and so on, but with a paid membership to Azure while retaining the copyright to a is also acceptable ( as it is known, Nem locates the source code for free, leaving only the right links to your brand ) ; I think add to Azure in the original version of the strategy of development of the Nem platform, more acceptable and causes


the copyright issue is treated quite seriously, when we talk about information of this kind : kernel, security, Protocol, etc. and that this information is open source, fair use is only a reference to the brand of the source, but in fact being free and open that in a conversation about copyright only superficial and the terms of ownership or owner of these rights is only conditional, and that under these conditions conversation copyright is reduced to a system of open source materials on specific resources and any value that this information not be due to the fact that it is free ; although developers and it is advisable for the future to further assess the situation in this direction and future role of open sources of information including about the copyright status in the event of a change in the condition of information distribution, open another form, I think that assessing the value of the output data or allowing third-party users use of the source code, developers should consider all options and make a more acceptable and less problematic, but with the expectation for the future and further development of the platform Nem


most likely both options with open rights or preserving the right to control their own information is the norm, and that a more accurate variant with the aim of justifying the feasibility and in terms of strategic development of the platform lies in developers and large investors or owners of the platform, and given the strategy of public or corporate way of building, a particular way of adding to Azure should be used, although there is my opinion, thank you

This is what concerns me with Azure, I just dont trust Microsoft.
Why should we become under microsoft's control?
Its like a way for them to destabilise crypto and give them full control over it.
Thats not the way open source projects work.
I would be very careful after learning this, i had read other threads with similar concerns also.
Just dont know why so many coins including ETH have signed up to it? Is BTC on Azure?

[nzminer]

heres the link to the nem forum thread regarding azure.

https://forum.nem.io/t/status-on-the-azure-project/2017

absolutely the right decision.
everybody should read this and the linked article.
http://bitcoinist.net/microsoft-bullies-open-source-is-the-blockchain-their-next-target/

GOOD move, there was a reason they seemed to be open and accepting any & all blockchains to Azure.  
Even coins like LISK/IOTA were getting on there before even launching or any testnet whatsoever  

Kudos to the devs or whoever submitted the application that took the time to read the agreement.

This could actually get us some good press NEM rejects Microsoft's Azure Cloud


we should reach out to crypto news sources with the nem forum link above

I completley agree.
This is actually more serious than what i originally thought.
I had read some bad press about Azure's contract, but this says alot.
Microsoft do NOT like open source projects, despite them recently adding code to the linux kernel.
They will do anything in their power to crush any Crypto.
We dont need Azure, we are BETTER!

What does this article suggest?
It appears the Micro$oft hold a stake in blockchain technology and that Ethereum could even be seen as a patent infringement!?
What does this mean for other cryptocurrencies? Is this why they are so keen to get as many coins on the Azure band wagon as possible?
http://bitcoinist.net/microsoft-bullies-open-source-is-the-blockchain-their-next-target/

[b1007]

subir imagenes

Few lines of code? Is that what it is? So simple as that?

Gotta love it when people tweet about someone or something but not at that person/project.

It's actually one of the first tweets I ever made about any other project on my Twitter account.
I don't normally do it, as I think it's rude, but in this case you had me up in the trees.  

I really meant it when I tweeted that, as it looks as if you are confused as to what such a license agreement actually can do.

It only applies to the code you submit to Azure, which isn't all that much. The code only facilitates getting the real software from an external source, and that source is never put on the Azure github.

Furthermore, there is a a lot of confusion when people talk about copyright and licensing.

Simply put:

Copyright is about ownership. It can not be taken away. You can sell it or give it away, but it cannot be taken by force. In a piece of software like NEM, it belongs to the people who wrote it, so the whole team would need to be involved if it was even considering to sell it or give away.

Licensing is about the USE of the product. This can take many forms, but in open source, we see forms like MIT and GPL (version whatever). This is about the conditions under which the software may be used freely. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the copyright. It's about how the copyright owners allow the use of their property.

tl;dr

Because the NEM code is at no point submitted, Azure can at no point make that license stick, even if it were meant for that.
If the person submitting the code has no position in the core team, they have no ownership and so could not sign the license legally anyway.
If the person were a member of the core, he could not sign it on behalf of the whole core team to sign away ownership. Again, the license would be null and void.

The conclusion is that Azure cannot take ownership in any way of the NEM project by adding it to Azure. The most it could do was take ownership of the code that allows people to put it on a server automatically and there is no point in that.

I hope this post is seen as more constructive than my earlier tweet that was 140 characters of snippiness

Have you read the agreement? ;

[yshin365new]

Becoming added to the Microsoft Azure platform would have given Microsoft the right to “grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Code (means the computer software code, whether in human readable or machine executable form, that is delivered by You to Microsoft under this Agreement ) directly or indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the Submission (means the Code and any other copyright able material Submitted- is the act of uploading, submitting, transmitting, or distributing code or other content to any Project, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Project for the purpose of  discussing and improving that Project, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by You as “Not a Submission.”- by You, including any associated comments and documentation) to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties.” Signing an agreement with Azure would have also have given Microsoft, and those who receive the Code directly or indirectly from Microsoft, “a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license under your patent claims that directly read on the Code to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and import or otherwise dispose of the Code.”

So the way I read it; if you sign the agreement, MS owns the Code and the Submission. Code+ Submission= entire project. So agreement= MS owning the entire project. Ofcourse I am not a laywer but it's better to be safe than sorry and so I think the NEM team deserves a lot of respect for acting the way they did.  

I suppose several versions of terms of agreement can be exist.
Each reflect the bad principle "Weak for the strong, strong for the weak."

[apullman]

Is this the agreement? Or is it some other doc?
https://windowsazure.github.io/docs/Contribution%20License%20Agreement.pdf

[jelin1984]

We wait jabo38
Do have answer from Microsoft first