Here is a generalized diagram of how the Gateway feature works.

NHZ has "business for profit" opportunities for server operators who wish to run gateway servers to provide access to the NHZ network for other crypto currencies.

 The gateway feature to the NHZ platform is a holding account that allows coins such as Bitcoin, Litecoin, etc. to be imported and exchanged on the NHZ blockchain. In fact, this feature is functional for most coins based on Bitcoin, with more coins soon to come.

 This is a non-technical description of how it works:

 A Bitcoin user lists his Bitcoin address and his NHZ address with the gateway. Once he has given this information, he can send Bitcoins from his Bitcoin wallet to the gateway. The gatway holds his Bitcoins and sends Bitcoin Asset to his NHZ wallet. These Bitcoin Assets can then be exchanged on the NHZ network through the decentralized Asset Exchange, or by transactions between NHZ users (payments, tipping etc.).The user can feel confident in trading in these Bitcoin assets because they are backed by real Bitcoins in the gateway. When he so decides he wants to have his Bitcoins in his Bitcoin wallet, he sends the Bitcoin Assets to the gateway, and the gateway releases his Bitcoins back to his Bitcoin wallet. So in a nutshell the gateway is a storage wallet. (see diagram).

 The gateway operator charges fees for these transactions.

 As a security measure NHZ gateways offer a multi-party system of accountability . Gateway operators can set up gateways as multi-signature (multi-sig) accounts. This security feature requires a minimum of two parties to approve access to the account. This means no one person can access the account without the others knowledge and approval.

 To run a gateway you need 2 servers (one for web, the other(s) for the wallets). For additional security and further decentralization you can set it up with multisig wallets.

 For more information, please use the link below to visit the NHZ forum, and contact an administrator.

http://forum.nhzcrypto.org/index.php/topic,210.0.html

I have had issues with almost every exchange I have used.... but it always worked out. Took a few weeks once and I was sweating over it, but I got my coins.

LOL. I mean let the user have the choice. Give the option to hide or not hide.

Some times people place bids and asks for psych. effects.

Would it be possible to offer a choice of hidden/not hidden.

I disagree about the decentralization part. I do think a lot of people care about that; they just don't care as to how it gets accomplished. It seems like all the verbal/ media attacks against NXT go to measures to try to point out that NXT is not decentralized to certain degrees. They seem to try to make lack of decentralization seem like a weak point of NXT.

Not saying you should waist time arguing to defend NXT against BS statements, I just think decentralization IS a big selling factor.... or else why would the competition keep bringing it up?

Don't lock this thread. Please!

 :thanks

I do understand your counter arguments. If a certain mathematical proportion of Bitcoin is traded it will case the price to fluctuate in "chaotic" ways. But what does that mean exactly? If You look at the history of Bitcoin price, has this math ever been relevant? Has it ever been indicative of anything? Can you site an example of when this math has ever been a reason for market fluctuations? Bitcoin has had price fluctuations but these fluctuations have been related to confidence and speculation and not this math.

If the parameters of the AE are set to allow for NXT only trades, and someone puts a billion USD's on a listing, What would you infer from that? I would suspect that they wanted to get rid of their USD's, and that they wanted to trade them for NXT. At the current market cap for NXT, this would be impossible; But the cool thing is, the price of NXT is not fixed, and therefor the capacity is not fixed. If people who own NXT are willing to adjust there expectations for the price of their NXT,  (which I am sure that they would), then your math would be the effect of this; then, assuming that there would be enough people who didn't recognize the implications of this loading of a billion USD's onto the exchange, and hold tight to their NXT to get as much for them as the billionaire could bare to pay for them, there would be an exchange in proportion to the total in circulation currency that would cause the price of NXT to be "chaotic", as it would shoot up.

So the math would be the effect of the market. The math doesn't take into account the human aspect of self interest, and the ability of people to recognize situations, and act according to their interests. Math can't smell blood in the water.

So now that our investor has around a billion USD's worth of NXT, would you expect him to act in a way that would be counter to his interests and dispose of his NXT in a way that would decrease their value? He would assumingly have a fairly large number of NXT (how many can not be determined as the market would have set the price for his trades and the price would dictate the total quantity of his NXT holdings). He would essentially be in the same situation as some of the NXT stakeholders. Has there ever been an instance that a NXT stakeholder used your math to devalue their holdings? There have been price fluctuations in the NXT currency, but it, to my knowledge, has never been for the reason that you are implying. And if the investor wants to exchange his billion USD's worth of NXT for another asset listed on the AE, will there be an asset with a billion dollar capacity? Will the AE have a billion USD's worth of total assets?

If there were parameters set that allowed exchanges in any currency or asset, and someone puts a billion dollars on listing, I would still suspect that they wanted to get rid of the USD's, but would there be a billion dollar capacity asset? Would there be a billion dollars worth of total assets? The billionaire would be listing his USD's from a whole other vantage point. His holdings would be the strong holdings and he could set his price. The most likely outcome of this situation would be that this imported currency, because of it's capacity, would become the base currency for trading, as it would come to the exchange with an inherent confidence, and a capacity to back trades across the entire exchange, and the native currency would most likely have no means to recover or compete with this import; and sadly this import would be fiat.

In my opinion, it would be error to undercut the NXT currency in order to accommodate usage of the AE because it would weaken the NXT platform as a whole. NXT is more than just an AE.

If 10% of NXT is traded it will cause the market to fluctuate to levels of chaos. And if the Earth is hit by a meteor the diameter of a small city, it will cause the atmosphere to be incinerated.

Trust issues aren't an issue if the parameters of the AE will allow for verification of sellers. There will also be the opportunity too include service providers to secure purchasing. And people should get to decide "trust" issues for themselves; no one should be able to tell someone else what an "asset" is.

That is what I mean. You compared registering an asset with incorporation..... some thing about the fee for registering an asset being cheaper to incorporate in most countries..... My response points out the fact that asset registration will require multiple fees and that incorporation is a one time fee.... so your analogy to the registration fee being similar to an incorporation fee is not a fair comparison.

It would be more analogous to relate alias registration fees with incorporation fees, as they are both one time fees.

Right on Anon. Who should be able to tell who what an "asset" is? Do Bankers and Wall Street types hold all the "assets"?

Webster's Dictionary-: Asset- (a) valuable thing which belongs to you. (b)anything owned which can be sold to pay debt.

It would allow for the sale of less expensive assets without creating initial overhead.

Yes, but you only have to pay to incorporate one time. This 1000 NXT fee would be charged for every asset. Maybe Alias registration fees should be higher. Alias registration is more in line with incorporation.

If they are forced to use only NXT for their trades then the demand will generate a higher price for NXT. That is how the math works. Do you expect that their will such a tidal wave of business inflow that the price of NXT will not be able to keep up? I think that would be when it would actually go to the moon.

And if someone wants to trade in Euros he already has the option to do so. I don't think you acknowledge the fact that this is the case. By allowing these kinds of trades, it would subordinate the NXT currency and result in it being less dependable, and in people holding less confidence in it as anything other than a fee coin. If someone wanted to fork NXT and eliminate or greatly reduce these fees, we would still be the kings of an abandoned currency. I think the point should be to make the NXT platform a desirable platform to use, and people will use it. By undercutting the base currency for this platform, do you think that this would strengthen the platform as a whole? Do you think that the fact that Bitcoin has the same advantage as being the base currency for essentially every other crypto currency has no effect on it's strength as a currency? If people could buy any crypto they wanted with fiat, do you think Bitcoin would have the same worth that it does? Is the idea of cryptos, in general, to get away from centralized fiat currencies or to provide a platform to encourage their trade?

By forcing the trade of NXT, initially it may result in fewer transactions, but as the value of the NXT currency became higher, more dependable and established its self as the base for a broad economy, confidence in its sustainable worth would go up. This would help to strengthen the NXT platform over time.

In the short term it may generate more usage of the network to allow external currencies this type of leverage, but in the long term I think it would stunt the growth of NXT or any other platform that allowed these types of trades.

IMO

I agree fully. Due diligence is the key really. Verifying who you are buying from is more important than what they call their asset. As long as there is a way for this to happen, that would be best.

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.

I am with ya

What would guarantee its universal acceptance? If trading anything on the network for USD's is allowed the only guarantee is that NXT will be the currency that fees are charged in. I think this would only serve to make the NXT currency less accepted and less in demand. I agree that NXT should have to compete for dominance, but as a platform on a whole; and the base currency of that platform should not be undermined by allowing other currencies that level of influence within the platform.

If you look at the reason that the USD is so strong, it is because of legislation that made it THE legal currency for a strong economy.  The USD does compete with other currencies for statuses of worth and purchasing power and rate of exchange, but it is allowed a high degree of no competition in its native economy. if you want to buy something with Euros, you have to buy from Europe. If you want to buy something with Loonies, you have to buy Canadian. It should be the same with NXT. If you want to buy something in the NXT ecosystem, you should have to do it with the native currency.

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.

As long as the option to use third party services is an option, and as long as people have the right to choose to use them or to develop their own trust.

I just don't think that there should be protections that are "built in" to the network that would eliminate the potential for private enterprise and business. People should have both options. If you want to buy something on a basis of trust that you have determined yourself, you should be able to. If there is a business who wants to offer services for secure purchases, they should be able too.

There is no need for voting or auction,  or overcomplicating implementing  of the feature to protect buyers or sellers. I think that unique aliases and accounts being used when creating assets instead of unique asset names would help to do this by helping sellers build reputations; and just because the AE allows for anonymous sales doesn't mean that all sales need be anonymous. Sellers would have the option of determining how public and in the open they wish to make them selves, and could even provide buyers with there specific location and contact info, and make themselves and there transactions open and transparent. Good sellers will do this. Bad sellers won't.