imo, I don't really care the price of issuing asset. It could be lower. Just need to define what is low. 1000nxt seem low to me, but if poeple think it is high, maybe there is a reason. It true that since name is not unique, price could be cheap.
With the name not being unique anyway - it is easy enough to lower fees as we go. I am not against "low fees" but would rather that *at first* we have a less *spam* basically. (just to paint a nicer picture before we let every kid in the world scribble on it) |
|
|
|
why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.
I think the cost is the "image" of the project - if we are wanting to court more business types then fees such as 1000 NXT are not going to frighten them at all. But kids having fun are going to create Assets left, right and center if we make it the same price as creating an AM. |
|
|
|
think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it.
I read it - but I think that we need to progress "step by step" rather than "jumping into the deep end". We may well end up with 1000's of "Junk Assets" eventually but does it look good to "start with that"? |
|
|
|
im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.
It is easy enough to "lower the fees" once we have got things started and have seen how that has "panned out". If it wasn't for OTC then pirateat40 would never have got so far (if it had cost say 1000 BTC back then he wouldn't have been able to even start his ponzi - when he started it BTC was around 2 USD from memory). |
|
|
|
Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.
Agreed - to incorporate in most countries is nowhere near as cheap as 1000 NXT. |
|
|
|
12363381624583325837
Sent you 10K. |
|
|
|
|
The fatal flaw is not as complicated an attack (as CfB has hinted at) and Nxt itself is *safe from that* (so think - why would it be safe from that?).
|
|
|
|
Well, I am pretty sure the fatal flaw is the following one:
Not the fatal flaw although yes "mining of account ids" that are "not protected by public keys" currently would be possible (still no easy thing to do as no-one has demonstrated having done so yet). |
|
|
|
I think I see the jest of what you are saying. By using unique assets, it allows for consistent and non-unique seller ID's; which make it easier to cross reference and verify who the seller is. The asset ID is unique and doesn't matter as there will be a label for the asset that will be non-unique, and anyone selling Bitcoins can ID there asset with any unique ID and label it as Bitcoin, and the label will be what is referenced to ID the asset to buyers.
Yes - am glad that you *get* the point. Scamming is always going to happen but "helping scammers" by "denying real companies to use their own names" is not what I think Nxt wants to be about (if it has any chance at all to appeal to "legitimate business"). |
|
|
|
NXT is like PRISON? MMMM This sounds good to me
Hmm... CfB is that your double? |
|
|
|
The controversy is in whether or not the listed asset names should be unique to one issuer, or if whoever issued an asset could call it what ever they want.
And the controversy has been answered in that it is no different to a Bitcoin address. Do you just send money to 1MSFT first bits? Of course not - you'd do your "due diligence" by going to a company's "official website" (in HTTPS) and find where they have the Bitcoin address for you to "copy and paste". If you guys think it is a good idea that we should spend days and days discussing everything like this in circles then fine - but please understand that the "real work" that needs to be done (which depends upon things like this) just gets *delayed* and *delayed* (probably *exactly* what Ethereum and others would be *very keen* to see happening). |
|
|
|
"approved" means controlled. means centralized.
An AT doesn't *need* to be set up as a "controller" - that is simply one option (that might fit into the way current corporations function). Understand I am not trying to limit the DAC concept to *one thing* but to allow various different types of ATs to be created to handle various different types of Assets. |
|
|
|
how do we take an existing AT, with shares sold and convert it to a DAC?
I guess a DAC has more voting control and so on, and the decentralized part could be a centralized decision, ie stakeholders in the company have a centralized vote to become DAC
I am thinking along the lines of there being perhaps "different ways of selling" Assets that were issued by an AT which would require all sales to be "approved by the AT itself". This needs a lot more thought and I need to learn more about the way typical corporations function to even have a "half decent plan". |
|
|
|
There's always going to be an element of social darwinism taking place when it comes to this technology. As always, programmers should always be aiming to keep the IQ minimum to as close to a two digit number as possible.
True - but what we are proposing is no more of an issue than people doing "the same check" for a Bitcoin address before sending off funds. |
|
|
|
|
Agreed that the creation of a DAC is not going to be anything as simple as creating a "lottery" or a "savings account" or "an escrow".
It will probably take several months of design and construction (no wonder Ethereum aren't *rushing things*).
|
|
|
|
I imagine the AT for MSFT will be set up by the issuer? and will handle ALL the MSFT trades EVER? with 0%?
Now that is a far more interesting question - and yes I have been giving it some thought. If we are wanting to be able to really create a DAC then we are going to have to consider about exactly how we should treat its Assets. The issue gets more complicated if you consider that there might be "rules" (such as for buy-backs) that means that an AT may have to "restrict" trade quantities. There could even be a requirement for "votes" by other shareholders. |
|
|
|
Its funny this argument along the lines of "what is joe sixpack going to do when he wants to buy microsoft stock". Like there is some sort of built in assumption that people are supposed to be able to buy an asset with out doing ANY research on it first.  Exactly - I have been doing stocks since before you could do that electronically (so literally calling up brokers and filling out forms and keeping "certificates"). Now it is too much to ask someone to go to an official website and put something on the clipboard (reminds me of a film where everyone in the future had an IQ <80 or so)? |
|
|
|
So frustrating that some of these other guys cant see what an elegant solution this is to an age old problem.
Indeed - also practically speaking the "list of Assets" will end up being huge (so you are not likely to be searching for an Asset by scrolling through a list). |
|
|
|
no, non-unique names is a trolling thing, that make as go in yet another circle - as perfectly shown by wesleyh. Bravo, wesleyh!
I only have 1 forum member on ignore - I think that might be about to increase to 2. |
|
|
|
this really is a much better solution than "unique-names" (a bad description since we have unique names with both proposals)
Yes - with this approach you will end up seeing the name Microsoft rather than Microsoft2014 or whatever. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
