ok, good, we're getting somewhere...

So are you saying that as subsidy declines, we should expect BTC's fee per transaction to rise?  Its obvious that right now, NXT fees are fairly high when compared to BTC's fees.  .1 fee right now equates to around $0.003/transaction, a good start.  But if we want to beat BTC, we'll have to do better.

I dont understand a bit how these correlate to any defined computational effort.  How are some transactions more computationally intense than others?  Also, consider that AM are periodically purged, so perhaps their fee structure should be a little different somehow?  (smaller, larger, not sure)

FTR, I am 100% against charging fees based on amount of NXT being transferred.

Well the stance some of us are trying to make is to move to .1 as lowest fee and scale up from there based on a multiplier of how much bigger in bytes a transaction is compared to byte size of a NXT transfer.  Then in the future we just have to change 1 figure to scale everything.

But everyone  HAS to admit that .1 is high, at least for long term.  Consider BTC now and how extremely low fees are.  This is because BTC is still in mining phase now; consider what BTC will look like is 2140 when no more coins are generated and miners are then paid only in fees.  Hell, consider what will happen to mining soon when block subsidy is halved again - drastic ROI change.  Does anyone know when this happens again?

Anyway, yes .1 for now, and a sliding scale based on byte size is what we are suggesting.  With a vision for the long term of what those numbers should be lowered to.  The thought is that the lower the transaction fee, the higher the utility.

Does anyone else have their 0.8.x client, when forging, run off on its own fork and generate every single block?  This happens to me multiple times per day.  At first my client would just stop receiving new blocks; I thought it was caused by forging behind TOR, but I stopped using TOR and now every so often I just go off on a fork all by myself.  0.7.7 works fine though.

I rebooted, same thing.  Im using ubuntu.

Any ideas?  I enabled debugging but the log file doesnt really show anything.  What other diags/debugs can I enable?

interesting... what do you mean by computational effort?  It seems I am missing an aspect of something here.

this is what completely untie'ing all fees from any fiat representation, and setting it to a fee/transactionByteSize ratio will do for us

I say for now, as soon as fractional NXT is possible, that we go to .01, but the community voted for .1 some time ago, so that is prob where we will start.  But I can see it changing in the future.

I realize that we still have some discussing to do on non/unique "names" for assets.  I just laid out some very good reasons why I think we should change it to be non-unique:  the squatting issue, and by doing so it allows us to reduce fees for assets which in the event price of NXT shoots up, this low price for issuing assets will be SORELY needed on the AE.

That being said, if we do choose to go non-unique route, then we MUST move from using the term "name" of the asset to "description" of the asset to really send home that it is not a unique value.  And then, all client devs should, on the asset purchase page of their client, put big warnings up for users to be sure that the asset they are purchasing is the one they want.  Maybe even show them that there are lots of assets with the same description so that they realize that they need to do some due diligence.  And for them to click "yes im sure" once more just before actually doing the purchase.

OK a few more people chiming in... good lets get some traction.  Do we know what the smallest possible size transaction is?  Assuming that it is 128bytes like a NXT transfer is, IMO we need something even smaller than .1 NXT, I would prefer at least .01 NXT as smallest possible amount, then scaling up from there.  But that is a different conversation on the base transfer size/fee ratio is.

And another thing, Im glad that it looks like we are going the direction where an assetID is what is unique, not the text.  This will prevent squatting.  And, Im also in favor of reducing the asset purchase fee to correlate with the size/fee ratio we come up with, but this will require us to dramatically increase the number of digits used to identify each asset - possibly just moving to hex even.  The non unique names and increased number of possible assets will accomplish multiple needed things for us:

1) prevent squatting
2) reduce fee for asset, effectively also untie'ing its fee from fiat, and moving it equivalent to the rest of NXT, based on its size in blockchain.
3) overcome spam.

I think itd be a good idea for the system to be able to completely purge an asset from the blockchain if all of its qty is sent to genesis block.  then someone should be able to reissue the same name/ID.  OF course this will require a good bit of code, so mayby its not that urgent right now, Id prefer to see ability to split NXT down to 8 decimal places first, reduced fees, and also leased effectiveBalance and account control first.

*sigh*  ill say it again.  I've had just a few people back me up, but no one yet to say why its a bad idea, if it truly is...

not sure you get how pin was 'attacked', it was just a few musings and coincindences.  what he did certainly was attacking though.

oh i chased you away?  OK so after I made you mod at 2 different forums sites and give you leave to operate there how you see fit, all I have to do it point our a few coincidences (while in no means being rude in any way) and thats considered "chasing you away"?  Sounds to me like you werent very committed in the first place.

Nobody is/was attacking you, there is no proof anyways, we are simply pointing out some coincidences.  Untwist your panties and stop being a baby. 

LOL wait, hang on everybody.... Besides pinarello, guess who the ONLY OTHER member here who accused me of chasing off someone was?  any guesses?

wow, quite a reaction there, must have really hit a nerve, and now you are calling him a thief, just like emule has, after admitting to dumping, after emule has

There doesnt appear to be a timeline of any sorts, but do we know which features will be released first?  leased forging, AT, AE, UDP/binary, etc?  Im primarily interested in leased forging, and would like to get an ideas as to the APIs that will be available for issuing, recalling, and stats.

what you are discussing can be done voluntarily now, but manual work and overhead required to accomplish your goal will be extremely high, and  everyone involved will have to trust everyone else, as in a mesh:  (n x (n-1)/2) links of trust.  Actually, will even need to multiply that figure by 2 since the lines of trust have to be 2 way.  This is why no one is responding to your suggestion - it will end up being a nightmare to manage manually, and just about as much of a nightmare to design/add/test the code for it to be done automatically by the network.

The way leasing will work in the very near future is that there is MUCH less trust involved, n-1. where just 1 way trust from each leasor to the single leasee.  The leasee will still be responsible for calculating and returning the gains, though this *could* be enforced via code by the network, with a bit of work - certainly nowhere near as much work as would be required network enforcement of your shared idea.

I do get you point on it though, you get the psychological effect, then there are still more forging nodes out there; but unfortunately I dont think we will ever see it implemented in code as what you are describing will require tons and tons of work.

im having a hard time with this POW pool thing.  I have no clue on running pools, but I should be able to come up with some cron scripting to handle the API between the pool and coinwarz, and between the pool and an exchange.  so if someone that has experience with pools wants to work with me we can split the bounty.

Or if someone can point me to some pool server software.  All Ive found is eloipool, a python based one, but is seems to come with no self-registration webpage, etc etc.  so if anyone can point me in the right direction on this or wants to work with me let me know

im having a hard time with this POW pool thing.  I have no clue on running pools, but I should be able to come up with some cron scripting to handle the API between the pool and coinwarz, and between the pool and an exchange.  so if someone that has experience with pools wants to work with me we can split it.

Or if someone can point me to some pool server software.  All Ive found is eloipool, a python based one, but is seems to come with no self-registration webpage, etc etc.  so if anyone can point me in the right direction on this or wants to work with me let me know

hes suggesting an idea but I cannot tell how he intends the network to enforce it

Holy crap,  someone decode this hallmark:


Well, Ill save you the time, it goes to account number 2319251