you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. A federation could be fine but homogonizing all gatewayes is a VERY bad idea imo. It allows the externalization of costs from the maleficent actor to the good actors. Insurance allows the homogonization of certain actors into federations by pricing the risk so competative federations could be good, though one homogeneous asset would be terrible. If all the gateways are issuing a BTC asset, why is it a bad idea that all gateway BTC assets are all equal to each other, eg BTC? Also, if we had a multisig requirement for all withdrawals, would that minimize or eliminate the harm bad actors can do? It there is something wrong, I would like to understand it and hopefully fix it. This is why I am asking because Anon136BtcToken is not the same value as SuperScammerSamBtcToken. They are not homogeneous assets. The different risks need to be priced. Insurance companies can help to price in this risk and homogenize it, but if they are homogenizing extremely reliable assets with extremely risky assets than they are infact externalizing the cost of the risk from the risky actors onto reliable actors. By homogenizing scammersamtokens and anon136tokens into a homogeneous asset sam would benefit by making the new asset more valuable than it would have been for just him, and i would lose by making the asset less valuable than if it had been just me. They are causing the homogeneous asset to be more expensive than the reliable assets would have been by its self. This is a transfer of cost from superscammersam to anon136 and a transfer of value from anon136 to superscammersam. with that said there are certain advantages to federating. So even though the problem just described will always exist, if the difference in price between the more reliable asset and the less reliable asset is marginal than the advantages of homogeneity can outweigh the problem of externalized costs mentioned in the previous paragraph. Only when the discrepancy is marginal though. thats why i some federating is good and too much is bad. as for clever scripted workarounds and stuff like that. Like smart contracted bonds or things, or DAC's that allow federation without externalizing costs, that stuff would be great if someone could figure it out. Until we get there though it would be wise to bear some of the previously mentioned things in mind. |
|
|
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk. A federation could be fine but homogonizing all gatewayes is a VERY bad idea imo. It allows the externalization of costs from the maleficent actor to the good actors. Insurance allows the homogonization of certain actors into federations by pricing the risk so competative federations could be good, though one homogeneous asset would be terrible. |
|
|
|
you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive.
It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization.
If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion? so buyer beware.... perhaps our slogan should be "Caveat emptor"?  No but seriously who runs the escrow for bitstamp deposits? |
|
|
|
OK, this is my cue to update status of community gateways. Keep in mind I am talking about the first step along the path toward fully automated DAC solution. No need to wait for that if we can get a more traditional solution in the meantime.
James, on gateways I am a little confused as to how you want them to work. So If I want to buy LTC with BTC via gateways. I deposit BTC with a BTC gateway under my NXT account ID Someone has deposited LTC with an LTC gateway under their NXT account ID They have also posted an exchange offer for an LTC/BTC exchange. I submit a request to buy the LTC at the offered rate. The BTC gateway creates a transaction to move the required BTC held under my NTX account ID to the NXT account ID of the LTC seller The LTC gateway creates a transaction to move the required LTC held under the seller NXT Account ID to my NXT account ID. The gateways would exchange the transaction IDs which would contain the buyer/seller NXT account IDs Only when both transactions were confirmed the exchanges would release the LTC and BTC held under the NXT account IDs on those gateways. This would require some trust/verification between the gateways? Would the transactions appear against the NXT accounts? Assume fee's would be in NXT or would they be in BTC/LTC? Who's keys sign the transactions? I've probably got this wrong but I'm trying to figure out how between the gateways you would create a contract that could ensure completion on both sides. you send btc*1 to bob. bob sends BobsBtcToken*1 to you. you go onto the orderbook for BobsBtcTokens and fill a buy order. Nxt appears in your account. Now you find a ltc gateway. Say betty seems the most trustworthy. Fill a sell order for BettysLtcTokens. Receive BettysLtcTokens*X. Send BettysLtcTokens*X to Betty's nxt address with a message containing your ltc address. Wait for ltc to arrive. It seems overly complicated now but it'll feel natural once it gets rolling and everyone gets used to it. All steps serve their purpose, these extra steps are the cost of decentralization. |
|
|
|
I hear the people in this topic have decided to switch to a 0.1 Nxt fee? I've done some math and that would be only be enough to allow use to break even if we had ~50 forgers at a time. Point is, it's way too low. Fee structure proposal0.4% transaction fee 0.05 Nxt per message 30 Nxt per alias registration Didn't want to clog up this forum with a long post plus it would be really nice if we could start using other forums instead of everything in one place, no matter how loosely related. Point is, here's the math and reasoning to back this up: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=785Please go comment and let me know what you think about these numbers! That is not a good idea. We don't need forgers to have a positive ROI. Most nodes do run now with negative ROI and it is in the intrerest of each NXT holder to secure the network. Don't forget that we are in the early stage of adoption and the system needs to be bigger to become selfsustainable. If we don't lower the fee significantly, we will not grow as much as most of us would like. Also it is a community consensus to lower the fee to 0.1 NXT. My 2 NXT cents + my 2 cents now equals 4 cents. The time for positive ROI will come. It's important. People need to have a reasonable expectation that there will be ROI from forging in the future. But at this time we need to keep our fees low to encourage adoption and forgers should be willing to forge at a loss for the sake of protecting the network they have invested so much time, energy, and resources into. |
|
|
|
|
Ok so I had this idea, feel free to shoot it down, It's just an idea.
It's going to cost me at-least 3 grand to get all the capital to gather that I need to make these nxt themed silver bars. Ultimately I would like to get 6 moulds made if that’s possible which would cost much more than 3k. Maybe we could have a fair way to vote on what slogan to use, while at the same time you guys could help me to offset this big startup cost.
Since there is so much disagreement on what sort of slogan i should put on the bars, what if I made a nxt address for each submission and let people vote with their nxt. Who evers submission has the most nxt donated to it win the right to have his/her slogan engraved on every bar I produce for the foreseeable future.
Ill probably only get one mould if I have to convince my wife to let me spend this money. But any additional funds I raised this way would be put towards the purchase of additional moulds, thus greatly increasing my productive capacity and thus reducing the price that I'm able to sell each bar at.
Again just an idea. I'll totally understand if you guys think it sounds greedy or something and don’t want to have any part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
my very smart wife suggested that perhaps the reason why the price is rising is because our whale is out of power.
|
|
|
|
Why the price is rising? Something happens today?
we have always had lots of new comers and lots of demand. if the price is rising than its probably coming from changes in the supply side not the demand side. we probably FINALLY worked through the massive resistance of w/e monster stake holder was selling any time the price rose above 0.00007 |
|
|
|
So if we ever make coins or something we will need a slogan. USD has in god we trust. Bitcoin has "vires in numeris" which means strength in numbers. I thought for nxt we might use "In emergentia speramus" which translates to "in emergence we trust" I wanted to write something else underneath the nxt logo that i put on my silver bars so "In emergentia speramus" is what i came up with. All constructive comments welcome. Big thanks to cryptonikus for approaching a latin professor on this matter. |
|
|
|
sweet! so did you claim my bounty? Not mine, I'm just the subreddit crestor.  I think we should wait until the source is public, then give the guy the bounty. His NXT ID is in the reddit post. ah yes i agree. i hope he publishes his code so he can receive the bounty |
|
|
|
EDIT: Also: ... this transaction can not be eligible for inclusion in the blockchain...
BCNext, found you!  This explains a lot... im really glad you read my post cfb. if worst comes to worse than it should offer a pretty simple way to do crowdfunding. |
|
|
|
Hey you know, what ever gets the job done. Smart contracts sound awesome, but if for some reason that plan fails I hope that I offered a pretty reasonable and simple to implement alternative. |
|
|
|
sweet! so did you claim my bounty? |
|
|
|
U? No. More infos soon. Hey Passion_ltc, I have a particularly exciting idea. Is it possible a company to make their own "voting" page where only people who entered their authorization token, linked to an account that owns the company's assets, can be eligible to vote (based on their stake). Basically, you would just find what account owned that token, then check for the number of X assets they owned, done. Voting would take 1 NXT to vote will all their shares. Pandaisftw i will pay 500 nxt to who ever makes this also it will need to include some form of proof of honesty such as publishing all of the tokens for each poll |
|
|
|
Would like it. But I would prefer more 5 Oz or 10 Oz as size (I guess the 10 Oz you have already in mind) Yes I will be doing 10 troy ounce (assuming everything works out) i still need to find a machinest capable of helping me produce the mould. Does anyone here happen to know an experienced and talented machinist in the crypto community? |
|
|
|
this is the rough shape that ill be going for  im going to try to make a stackable design thats sort of thin in the z axis but wide and tall in the x and y so that it stacks well |
|
|
|
@Anon136
I was thinking about crowdfunding some more. Instead of having it built into the protocol or done via service provider, it could be done via smart contract. e.g. Kickstarter-style could be done via:
1. The person(s) seeking funding create a holding account for contributed Nxt or other issued coins. The smart contract will act based on transactions to this account.
2. They publicize what they're offering, the reward tiers, the funding goal and the deadline.
3. Interested investors send nxt/coins to the holding account. (Maybe with an accompanying AM if they need to specify options)
4. Once the deadline is up:
a) If the funding goal is not reach, the smart contract will return all sent nxt/coins (minus transaction fees)
b) If the goal is met, it will issue and send out asset tokens to the investors. Different tokens, and # of tokens depending on which tier/options the investor bought into. And it will send all contributed nxt to the person(s) seeking funding.
5. The smart contract then automatically returns any further contributions for a set period of time, before expiring. (this is in case people mistakenly send funds after the deadline has passed. Or maybe account control could provide a way to prevent an account from receiving transactions)
Smart contracts could be easily customizable, so people can experiment with different types of crowdfunding models and choose what they prefer without having to go to different service providers.
Once account control is implemented, I wonder if smart contracts can automatically lock and unlock the holding account, without revealing the key to anyone? Without something like this, you'd still have to trust the people seeking the funds to not run off with them without issuing tokens, or some 3rd party to be in charge of the account.
Sent out nxt to the last few requesters, and a bunch to swartzfeger.
this is the key part here. Once account control is implemented, I wonder if smart contracts can automatically lock and unlock the holding account, without revealing the key to anyone? Without something like this, you'd still have to trust the people seeking the funds to not run off with them without issuing tokens, or some 3rd party to be in charge of the account. if we could do that with smart contracts than that would be ideal for sure. but if not than it would probably be nice to be able to have people issue signed transactions with conditions, such as this transaction can not be eligible for inclusion in the blockchain unless executed unless in conjunction with other signed transactions totalling a certain amount. the person operating the crowd funding could simply collect signed transactions and wait to publish them until he had enough and infact would only be able to publish them if he had enough. |
|
|
|
|
does anyone know of any machinists in the nxt community?
|
|
|
|
This is a really good idea, I want to live in the town to how can I signup?
I only dont like the location you should choose a country where guns are Banned.
And Where smoking and growing weed is legalized.
Mexico is dangerous to with all the cartels.
Better choose a country where Eu-Usa cant touch us, and where they have nice weather!
wait what? why would you want to live in a country where guns are banned? unless you are a criminal, how would you defend yourself from criminals who would have guns whether they were banned or not? |
|
|
|
@VanBreuk - go post this in the Doge thread, show your work, you have skills.
i did that already. if he posts it ill delete my post to give proper attribution. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
