O.k. I think we are on the same page when it comes to the A.E. We are just seeing it from different perspective. First, let me say that what the AE represents to me is free market. Not just a free market that someone tells you is a free market, and then manipulates the value of the market currency, or implies involuntary risks to your assets, (taxing you to fund bailouts), or legislates transaction customs.....ETC. But a truly free market. You or I or anyone alive has never seen or had the benefit of a free market in the sense of the free market that NXT has the potential to be. We have the chance to make it so. Maybe someday this NXT thread on Bitcoin forum will be in a archive some where and people will look back at it as a transcript for a convention of the start of something truly great.  Secondly, as I stated above, I think we see sort of eye to eye on a lot of the fundamentals of NXT, and that the differences regarding this topic are simple communication issues (as most differences are.) That being said, the reason I think your Ideas on this topic are wrong is that they impose upon the Idea of NXT as a free market; and the problems that they are intended to solve won't be solved by their implementation. First of I will argue the point you made about squatting. I do think that this is going to happen. People will use the opportunity to purchase domain names and profit by selling them. This may seem kind of ugly, and base, and put a smudgy appearance on the AE, but things like this are a part of a free market. Your line of thought that a 1000 nxt fee will prevent this is flawed in the sense that it assumes people who have the means to pay higher fees are above capitalizing on this opportunity to profit. People will still buy as many names as they can, and still demand the highest price for their sale that the market will bare; but the starting price is automatically going to be more than 1000 NXT, and their will be fewer people holding more in demand domain names, as entry level competition for the names will have been restricted by a price that wasn't dictated by the market. There is going to be a rat race for domain names; a low fee makes it a more fair, more inclusive and more attractive race to get into. No one will pay CRAZY prices to buy a domain name. They will pay what they feel it is worth. Secondly, restricting the AE's use to traditional assets is a violation of free market fundamentals and limits the ways the AE can be used and by whom it can be used by. This will limit the total usability and usage of the AE and make it a less versatile tool. The only restrictions that should be imposed are the ones that are needed for the secure functionality of the AE. If these functional and security restraints don't restrict an asset that is not a traditional asset from being traded, there should be no "sent from above" restriction applied that would limit the market. If the functional and security restraints don't limit the ways in which people can conduct commerce freely amongst themselves. There should be no such restriction imposed by any person or committee of persons. This would eliminate, to a certain degree, creative and innovative uses for the AE. Thirdly, There is no financial need in the fee being high, as the cost in registering an asset, to the system is the same as all other transaction. The High fee cost is an artificial price, and the fee will, in the highest probability, end up in the account of someone who has 50 million NXT. The effects of this are exponential, when coupled with the effects of limiting innovation and creativity. Fourthly, as far as your comment "sell it on Ebay" , I was invisioning more of a "Craigslist". If your Ebay suggestion was an attempt to imply that people selling things in this manor I suggested selling comic books would turn the AE in to an unmanageable, unnavigable clusterfuck, then you should brace yourself; because even if it were not used in this fashion, if it is in any way successful, The AE as it functions now is going to be a clusterfuck. And I don't think the "Tiered" system will prevent this. If the AE is going to be manageable and navigable it will have to be structured differently. High issue fees aren't by any means, structural improvements. High fees and restructuring (tiers) are two different solutions to the problem of the short comings of the functionality of the AE. The high fee solution is a market fixing, ineffectual, demographiclly exclusive, free market restrictive, quick fix bandaid, that resembles the two party government approach to problem solving. The restructuring solution, while not instantly gratifying, is a real solution. And while I do somewhat agree with the idea of the "tier" system suggestion, I don't think that in the long run, even that will be effective. (I do have some ideas regarding this, but that is another topic, the topic at hand is the fixing of issue fees). In short, I am for this AE of ours being a free market. The first free market that anyone alive will ever have access to. So that means I am for anything that facilitates open and unrestricted trade and commerce between anyone and everyone. And I am opposed to anything that is contrary to this, including fees not set by that free market, and socialist gateways to that market, or any other constraint or restriction that is not required for the AE to function securely. And I also feel that all of the arguments that you sited in favor of the higher fee, can be solved with restructuring the AE, and making it even more of a free market and facilitating more free trade and commerce; And this should be the area of focus, and that any future marketing strategies have this as a top consideration. The fees will do nothing to solve these problems. |
|
|
|
|
+1
I think there needs to be someone assigned to newb outreach. I can only imagine what it would be like for someone with only basic computer knowledge trying to stay up to date with the updates, editing batch files, troubleshooting, etc. Hopefully the new Marketing person will allocate some funds towards this end. By the way, I voted for brooklynbtc for marketing comittee as he seems like someone who recognizes this problem and will address it.
[/quote]
For Sure.
|
|
|
|
What would differentiate a "Class A" asset from a "Class B" asset?
perhaps we could limit Class B Asset to not being able to have as many units/shares. I see. Although I like the idea, let us clarify what our goal is with this.
It's an interesting idea. I think we should all remember BCNext's vision for NXT and his thoughts regarding fees. I agree with BCNext wanting NXT fees to be low. Imo, 1000 NXT for asset name registration is too high. I think you should be able to register an asset name for 1 NXT. By setting NXT fees high, we are excluding people from NXT because they cannot afford the registration price. NXT should be for everyone. you have to remember that what we are talking about here is self issued credit. i think its fair to expect that people who are issuing their own credit have SOME assets in reserve, leverage is good and useful but i don't think we want people leveraged at 0 percent. I don't understand why not? Credit can't truly be self issued anyway. anyone can say "trust me, I am good for it" the credit is issued when someone else says, "OK, I trust you." at that point the fee is just inhibiting private business, which I am whole heartedly against. I can sort of understand the spam argument as a reason for a higher issuing price, as this potential for spam would have a universal effect on the whole community, But I highly disagree with using it as a means of policing private business, and that includes the name squatting arguments, the scam arguments. I could agree with raising trans fees for the AE, but I am with 2kewl on this. How are you going to charge NXT users more than people who are importing assets through gateways? By charging such a fee anyone trying to sell anything on the market starts in the whole that much.Today About $50 bucks. So If you have something worth $100 it is not worth trying to sell. Really you would have to sell $1000 dollars worth of stuff to get the fee down to 5%. 5% is to high. Lower issue fees give more people more opportunity. Think of the applicable uses this would eliminate. For example, If I were to want to sell a comic book collection by individual books, I would have to put a 1000 NXT mark up on every book. Any low cost per asset and high asset volume business would have no place on the AE. Higher fees limit the versatility of the AE in the ways people can use it, restricts the number of users, and restricts the demographics of people who can use it. There are so many creative ways to use this feature if it is not restricted by high cost. ok so perhaps self monetized credit is a better way of saying it. i mean how many of this one type of comic book would you have? you dont need to build a market for 1 or 2 items only. you just sell the one or two items on something like ebay. you only need a market in a product that you either produce or have a lot of. also this helps to protect against domain squatting. thats a really big deal since the person who acquires a domain is the monopoly provider meaning he has the leverage to charge outrageous prices as soon as he knows that someone wants it. if we didnt put a price on it than people would go crazy and reserve every domain imaginable and anyone who wanted to issue an asset would have to pay CRAZY prices. The net effect of making asset registration cheap would be that getting the asset you wanted would be orders of magnitude more expensive than if there was simply a cost for registering to begin with. *edit* incidentally i really like the idea of having tiers of asset classes. that gives us the best of both worlds. I mean absolutely no disrespect, or wish not to come across as attacking you personally, and intend nothing that implies any question of your character Anon136. To the contrary I owe you a debt of gratitude as far as what you have done to offer help and info to me in regards to this topic. But for the sake of being brief and out of respect for the users of this thread, I will be blunt. When it comes to this topic you are wrong. I would like to suggest that this topic and any conversation or debate regarding it be moved to a topic specific forum or thread. This and other basic fundamental policies and applications regarding the AE should really be afforded discussion at length. Out of respect for the common usage of this thread, and due to the fact that this topic cannot be truly debated with the attention it deserves without writing pages and pages, we should continue this discussion in a more topic dedicated place. It seems as though you and others have thoughts about this that can't be expressed in a relatively brief manor, and I know I do. This topic deserves and needs to be discussed at length. Could you set us up a place to talk more about it with out disturbing the common usage of this thread, or suggest a place if one already exists? I think my argument is pretty much entirely laid out in that previous paragraph, valid and bulletproof. however with that said, even though my argument is strong and valid, there could be advantages that i haven't considered which outweigh the mentioned disadvantages of free asset registration, or there could be other disadvantages which outweigh the mentioned advantages to a price on asset registration. In the extremely unlikely event that my argument is flat out wrong or in the more likely event that it is correct but overlooking other advantages and disadvantages that outweigh those described in my previous post, i would very much like to hear about it. I created a thread specifically for discussion related to the asset exchange, tell me about it over there. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=460343Also remember that i am in favor of tiers of asset classes. This would allow for the market to naturally determine what the right tradeoff is. I would even be in favor of having a tier for (basically) free registration (atleast the cost of a regular transaction to prevent completely senseless spamming) just in case i happened to be wrong. Great. You are a scholar and a gentleman. |
|
|
|
also this helps to protect against domain squatting. thats a really big deal since the person who acquires a domain is the monopoly provider meaning he has the leverage to charge outrageous prices as soon as he knows that someone wants it. if we didnt put a price on it than people would go crazy and reserve every domain imaginable and anyone who wanted to issue an asset would have to pay CRAZY prices. The net effect of making asset registration cheap would be that getting the asset you wanted would be orders of magnitude more expensive than if there was simply a cost for registering to begin with.
*edit* incidentally i really like the idea of having tiers of asset classes. that gives us the best of both worlds.
You're looking at a squatter here. Neither proud nor ashamed to admit it. Ok, maybe a little bit of shame, but I'll take that up with a future therapist if NXT ever goes lunar.  I'm not sure if there are different 'types' of squatters. I've squatted aliases because 1) I see an opportunity and 2) I really have no other feasible way of expanding my NXT hodlings. None of my aliases were registered until after Dec 25, and some of the ones available were amazing. How long have we been talking about Auroracoin? I registered AUR this morning. Squatting? Or people walking past a metaphorical bag of cash on a street corner? I'm asking this sincerely because I have mixed feelings about registering things I have no plans to personally use. With that said, on anything I have no plans to use, I'd never ransom them for exorbitant fees, or would simply give them away. I'm torn on the AE fee of 1 vs. 1000. A fee of 1000 will stop people like me from issuing an asset; on the other hand, it will stop people like me from issuing an asset. It will definitely limit the number of assets I will issue (I hodl about 7900 NXT). Having a fee of 1000 won't stop squatting. Mitigate, but not stop. The fear, I think, is the people who are squatting will control assets to further their self-interest vs. that of the community/ecosystem. Hopefully, people that do sit on an asset/alias will realize that the strength of Nxt is in their self-interest and act accordingly. i never blame people for responding rationally to incentives. if assets were free to register i would probably register as many as i could as well, while still disagreeing with the general premise. its just another example of the tragedy of the commons. my interest is not in blaming people for being rationally self interested, but in crafting an incentive structure where rational self interest leads to outcomes that maximize utility. But you are addressing the problem in a way that restricts utility. If the AE is to be a free market, there should be no restrictions or constraints imposed on it other than the ones necessary for its safe and secure functionality. If you are worried that if making the fees so low that it is going to cause a problem with the number of issued asset making the AE a clusterfuck, I suggest that you plan on it being a clusterfuck anyway; because if it is truly successful that is what is going to be. Charging 1000 NXT issue fees isn't going to stop that. The AE is a beautiful thing, symbolically, but it can't be considered to be a finished product as is. All of the reasons that I have seen for the fee for issuing assets being set at 1000 NXT are all things that could be and should be sighted as functionality issues with the AE, and if looked at this way are only problems that CAN be solved with out implementing any constraints to the free market. The secure functionality of the AE is all we should concern ourselves with. |
|
|
|
also this helps to protect against domain squatting. thats a really big deal since the person who acquires a domain is the monopoly provider meaning he has the leverage to charge outrageous prices as soon as he knows that someone wants it. if we didnt put a price on it than people would go crazy and reserve every domain imaginable and anyone who wanted to issue an asset would have to pay CRAZY prices. The net effect of making asset registration cheap would be that getting the asset you wanted would be orders of magnitude more expensive than if there was simply a cost for registering to begin with.
*edit* incidentally i really like the idea of having tiers of asset classes. that gives us the best of both worlds.
You're looking at a squatter here. Neither proud nor ashamed to admit it. Ok, maybe a little bit of shame, but I'll take that up with a future therapist if NXT ever goes lunar. I'm not sure if there are different 'types' of squatters. I've squatted aliases because 1) I see an opportunity and 2) I really have no other feasible way of expanding my NXT hodlings. None of my aliases were registered until after Dec 25, and some of the ones available were amazing. How long have we been talking about Auroracoin? I registered AUR this morning. Squatting? Or people walking past a metaphorical bag of cash on a street corner? I'm asking this sincerely because I have mixed feelings about registering things I have no plans to personally use. With that said, on anything I have no plans to use, I'd never ransom them for exorbitant fees, or would simply give them away. I'm torn on the AE fee of 1 vs. 1000. A fee of 1000 will stop people like me from issuing an asset; on the other hand, it will stop people like me from issuing an asset. It will definitely limit the number of assets I will issue (I hodl about 7900 NXT). Having a fee of 1000 won't stop squatting. Mitigate, but not stop. The fear, I think, is the people who are squatting will control assets to further their self-interest vs. that of the community/ecosystem. Hopefully, people that do sit on an asset/alias will realize that the strength of Nxt is in their self-interest and act accordingly. Thank you. |
|
|
|
What would differentiate a "Class A" asset from a "Class B" asset?
perhaps we could limit Class B Asset to not being able to have as many units/shares. I see. Although I like the idea, let us clarify what our goal is with this.
It's an interesting idea. I think we should all remember BCNext's vision for NXT and his thoughts regarding fees. I agree with BCNext wanting NXT fees to be low. Imo, 1000 NXT for asset name registration is too high. I think you should be able to register an asset name for 1 NXT. By setting NXT fees high, we are excluding people from NXT because they cannot afford the registration price. NXT should be for everyone. you have to remember that what we are talking about here is self issued credit. i think its fair to expect that people who are issuing their own credit have SOME assets in reserve, leverage is good and useful but i don't think we want people leveraged at 0 percent. I don't understand why not? Credit can't truly be self issued anyway. anyone can say "trust me, I am good for it" the credit is issued when someone else says, "OK, I trust you." at that point the fee is just inhibiting private business, which I am whole heartedly against. I can sort of understand the spam argument as a reason for a higher issuing price, as this potential for spam would have a universal effect on the whole community, But I highly disagree with using it as a means of policing private business, and that includes the name squatting arguments, the scam arguments. I could agree with raising trans fees for the AE, but I am with 2kewl on this. How are you going to charge NXT users more than people who are importing assets through gateways? By charging such a fee anyone trying to sell anything on the market starts in the whole that much.Today About $50 bucks. So If you have something worth $100 it is not worth trying to sell. Really you would have to sell $1000 dollars worth of stuff to get the fee down to 5%. 5% is to high. Lower issue fees give more people more opportunity. Think of the applicable uses this would eliminate. For example, If I were to want to sell a comic book collection by individual books, I would have to put a 1000 NXT mark up on every book. Any low cost per asset and high asset volume business would have no place on the AE. Higher fees limit the versatility of the AE in the ways people can use it, restricts the number of users, and restricts the demographics of people who can use it. There are so many creative ways to use this feature if it is not restricted by high cost. ok so perhaps self monetized credit is a better way of saying it. i mean how many of this one type of comic book would you have? you dont need to build a market for 1 or 2 items only. you just sell the one or two items on something like ebay. you only need a market in a product that you either produce or have a lot of. also this helps to protect against domain squatting. thats a really big deal since the person who acquires a domain is the monopoly provider meaning he has the leverage to charge outrageous prices as soon as he knows that someone wants it. if we didnt put a price on it than people would go crazy and reserve every domain imaginable and anyone who wanted to issue an asset would have to pay CRAZY prices. The net effect of making asset registration cheap would be that getting the asset you wanted would be orders of magnitude more expensive than if there was simply a cost for registering to begin with. *edit* incidentally i really like the idea of having tiers of asset classes. that gives us the best of both worlds. I mean absolutely no disrespect, or wish not to come across as attacking you personally, and intend nothing that implies any question of your character Anon136. To the contrary I owe you a debt of gratitude as far as what you have done to offer help and info to me in regards to this topic. But for the sake of being brief and out of respect for the users of this thread, I will be blunt. When it comes to this topic you are wrong. I would like to suggest that this topic and any conversation or debate regarding it be moved to a topic specific forum or thread. This and other basic fundamental policies and applications regarding the AE should really be afforded discussion at length. Out of respect for the common usage of this thread, and due to the fact that this topic cannot be truly debated with the attention it deserves without writing pages and pages, we should continue this discussion in a more topic dedicated place. It seems as though you and others have thoughts about this that can't be expressed in a relatively brief manor, and I know I do. This topic deserves and needs to be discussed at length. Could you set us up a place to talk more about it with out disturbing the common usage of this thread, or suggest a place if one already exists? |
|
|
|
What would differentiate a "Class A" asset from a "Class B" asset?
perhaps we could limit Class B Asset to not being able to have as many units/shares. I see. Although I like the idea, let us clarify what our goal is with this.
It's an interesting idea. I think we should all remember BCNext's vision for NXT and his thoughts regarding fees. I agree with BCNext wanting NXT fees to be low. Imo, 1000 NXT for asset name registration is too high. I think you should be able to register an asset name for 1 NXT. By setting NXT fees high, we are excluding people from NXT because they cannot afford the registration price. NXT should be for everyone. you have to remember that what we are talking about here is self issued credit. i think its fair to expect that people who are issuing their own credit have SOME assets in reserve, leverage is good and useful but i don't think we want people leveraged at 0 percent. I don't understand why not? Credit can't truly be self issued anyway. anyone can say "trust me, I am good for it" the credit is issued when someone else says, "OK, I trust you." at that point the fee is just inhibiting private business, which I am whole heartedly against. I can sort of understand the spam argument as a reason for a higher issuing price, as this potential for spam would have a universal effect on the whole community, But I highly disagree with using it as a means of policing private business, and that includes the name squatting arguments, the scam arguments. I could agree with raising trans fees for the AE, but I am with 2kewl on this. How are you going to charge NXT users more than people who are importing assets through gateways? By charging such a fee anyone trying to sell anything on the market starts in the whole that much.Today About $50 bucks. So If you have something worth $100 it is not worth trying to sell. Really you would have to sell $1000 dollars worth of stuff to get the fee down to 5%. 5% is to high. Lower issue fees give more people more opportunity. Think of the applicable uses this would eliminate. For example, If I were to want to sell a comic book collection by individual books, I would have to put a 1000 NXT mark up on every book. Any low cost per asset and high asset volume business would have no place on the AE. Higher fees limit the versatility of the AE in the ways people can use it, restricts the number of users, and restricts the demographics of people who can use it. There are so many creative ways to use this feature if it is not restricted by high cost. |
|
|
|
It's an interesting idea.
I think we should all remember BCNext's vision for NXT and his thoughts regarding fees. I agree with BCNext wanting NXT fees to be low. Imo, 1000 NXT for asset name registration is too high. I think you should be able to register an asset name for 1 NXT. By setting NXT fees high, we are excluding people from NXT because they cannot afford the registration price. NXT should be for everyone.
We should first talk about WHAT we want to accomplish and WHY. I don't want to hear "uh, it's interesting", "yeah, nice idea" or "BCNext said fee must be low". I want your motivation behind this first. After we discussed that, we could talk about possible realization. If you cannot pay 1000 NXT for an asset, then what is your asset going to do anyway? If you paid 1 NXT for it would do the same thing as if you paid 1000 NXT for it. I don't see the motivation in setting it so high as 1000 NXT. It is kind of similar to the low gateway fees. Let people use the AE. |
|
|
|
What would differentiate a "Class A" asset from a "Class B" asset?
perhaps we could limit Class B Asset to not being able to have as many units/shares. I see. Although I like the idea, let us clarify what our goal is with this.
It's an interesting idea. I think we should all remember BCNext's vision for NXT and his thoughts regarding fees. I agree with BCNext wanting NXT fees to be low. Imo, 1000 NXT for asset name registration is too high. I think you should be able to register an asset name for 1 NXT. By setting NXT fees high, we are excluding people from NXT because they cannot afford the registration price. NXT should be for everyone. Agreed. It shouldn't be anymore than a few USDs fi not 1 NXT. |
|
|
|
I dont know why I thought it wasnt possible to do cold storage for the multisig deposit acct.
On a typical day, less than 10% of overall deposits would be withdrawn, maybe much less. There is no need for a super complicated shifting of funds to and from many multisig accts. We just need to have a multisig cold wallet using 2 of 3 signers where the signers would be Anon136, rickyjames and klee. When the gateway multisig acct gets excess deposits, each server would authorize transfer to the cold multisig wallet. When a big withdrawal comes in, then 2 of the 3 cold wallet signers would need to approve.
All of the deposits and withdrawals and multisig acct info would be public, so all these funds transfers will be visible to all.
The incentive for two of the three gateway operators to collude is reduced dramatically. The trust required for gateways drops 90% and shifts to the cold wallet trio.
What do you think?
James
Sounds smart. Plus it would seem the more accounts the funds are dispersed in the more secure they would be. But that also raises a concern: Has anyone verified the legal / accounting requirements for establishing this holding account? Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but if there are going to be people signing anything you may want check in to this if you already haven't. |
|
|
|
I think you can ensure that per gateway there is only one AE asset type for a RL Asset e.g. USD, I think this will avoid confusion, if you have a legit USD and a scammer can create US or USd or some variant people will get scammed.
We cannot force other people not to build a gateway on their own. We can build a nice community-drive gateway which could become very big and everyone uses it. But that's about it. and be clear on the AE which gateway and asset is being traded through.
Absolutely. Just a stupid question: How to distinguish different issued assets with same asset name by different issuers on AE ? I think that that is what the gateway does. It makes external assets appear as they are from the same set of assets, created at the same time, by the same account, no matter when or who creates them. A doge that comes through the gateway today will be seen the same as a doge that comes through tomorrow or a week or year from now. I don't know by what coding magic this is done but that is how James explained it to me in laymen terms. |
|
|
|
What if the gateway were used as a marketing tool to the exchanges? This would put them in charge of managing the gateways, and put any risk involved on them, allow them a way of participating in the AE instead of competing with it, and give them incentive to trade NXT.
It would also decentralize the use of the gateway by making it a private enterprise.
+1...good idea. Thanks. And by the way, what is the +1 thing about? I see it a lot, but I think I am missing the meaning. |
|
|
|
Holy crap, that is *beautiful*! Well done!  Nice |
|
|
|
is it wrong to have a video about Nxt and decentralized internet 14 minutes long?
whatever it takes. if an idea is seen as a photon it can be anywhere, and travels all possible paths, and can be in more than one place at once. You must collapse the wave function to find its true position. That can only be done with observation and information. if it takes 14 minutes, so be it. |
|
|
|
No matter if there are 3 or more servers running the gateway stuff, it is centralized (since 1 guy could be in charge of these servers). I think no one can change that. So we have one centralized gateway. With full transparency, but it is still centralized.
If there would exist many of these gateways (N) from different people/companies/entities, we could foster some decentralization and, therefore, trust in the Nxt ecosystem. The result is that we would have N different Assets for a coin. Now the free market can value each asset for a coin differently because its different trust in these gateways. We saw an example of this in the last weeks/days as people wanted to trade their goxBTC with other BTC.
Conclusion: We need a nice paper on how these gateway servers work and make it public with a big bang.
Not sure how one guy would be in charge of three INDEPENDENT gateways. This is what I have been saying. We need to find three different, independent, separate, not the same guy, gateway operators. All of these gateways issue the SAME asset. This is possible due to the shared multisig acct. All three independent gateways share a single multisig acct, but it takes two to make a withdrawal. No single gateway owns or controls the customer deposits. I have written and described how this works many times. Maybe it would help if one of our graphics guys made a nice easy to understand chart? James I have an idea about this. It seems that the people who have prioritized getting NXT on various exchanges are having problems doing so. It also clearly seems that using the gateways in the way that has been discussed will add a layer of centralization to the AE and to NXT overall. What if the gateway were used as a marketing tool to the exchanges? This would put them in charge of managing the gateways, and put any risk involved on them, allow them a way of participating in the AE instead of competing with it, and give them incentive to trade NXT. It would also decentralize the use of the gateway by making it a private enterprise. |
|
|
|
I agree with you on needing to keep the cost low and using volume to drive the value of NXT. I can't help but wonder about the server costs and the risk of holding the other currencies. This may sound kinda sharkish but would it be possible to use the holding account to provide for the cost of the server? If there were enough banked in the holding account to cover withdraws and to make loans and charge interest? For example, if there are 1000 people with money in the holding account it would be very unlikely that they would all want to withdraw at the same time. Knowing this you could safely lend a portion of the holding account out at interest to cover the cost of the server expense, and maybe bank some of the interest for insurance on the holding account. I don't mean to make a profit, as I understand your reasoning in wanting to provide the service for the worlds benefit, but economics is economics. There is going to be a cost for providing this service. And it may be possible to generate the funds to pay for the service like this. Or if you made sure to include some proof of stake coins in the gateway inclusions and had enough of them banked to get fees for them (if that is possible). Maybe that is crazy. I think the AE is awesome and what you are doing with it is awesome. Game changing. If I understand correctly, this idea is very bad. Not nesaccarally. I think it would be a trade off. |
|
|
|
This may sound kinda sharkish but would it be possible to use the holding account to provide for the cost of the server? If there were enough banked in the holding account to cover withdraws and to make loans and charge interest?
You are suggesting fractional reserve. To that, I just say no James I agree. It is a form of diluted fractional reserve. But implementing this gateway kind of creates a decentralization paradox....lets call it the "gateway paradox". It raises a few issues to me that I wonder about. I understand your desire to use it for the good of every one, and I can clearly see the benefits of its implementation (after your explanations and descriptions), and I know from reading your posts and conversing with you that you have put a lot of work into it and you have the best intentions possible. But this gateway, if implemented in the way you are describing does create a paradox nonetheless. First of all, it is a form of centralizing. despite the fact that you are implementing it as non-profit, there is a cost involved with providing this service. This cost will force the network to depend on a source of funding, and this dependence gives whoever is funding it leverage, even though they are not going to make a direct NXT profit. Secondly, there is a risk involved in having other peoples funds in the holding account. A risk that every NXTer bares whether they want to or not. I know you have done everything possible to make this gateway secure, and god forbid it should happen, but what if for some reason the funds in this holding account disappeared? It would create a situation that sort of mirrors the Mt. Gox debacle, but would send a shock wave out that would be insinuated into the Space-time fabric of the NXT universe and not be limited to an independent galaxy. To compensate for these risks, a fractional reserve lending policy for funding the gateway is an acceptable application of the free market. To me, there is nothing wrong with responsible capitalism. I am against vampire capitalism and using fractional reserve policies to cripple an economy and to concentrate wealth to lenders. But reasonable and responsible fractional lending is not in and of itself bad. What is worse: controlled fractional reserve lending, or pan-network repercussions to an involuntary risk? I would like it better if the gateway could fund itself and provide for the cost of its operation. So this is the paradox. I love this idea and it is surely worth pursuing, and I really do appreciate your selflessness and your work; and everyone elses work who had any support for this project; and this is not an attack on you in any way, as the gateway is your baby, and NXT is a free market, and you are free to do as you will with the fruits of your labor. But to me it does create this paradox. The question has also occurred to me: Is the application of this gateway to the NXT AE going to be monopolized? Or could anyone who wanted to implement something similar do so? If this is possible This gateway may have other uses than the ones you have intended. |
|
|
|
James, I tried get a screen shot of the Bitgem client that I was talking to you about earlier and had no luck. Here is a link to download the client setup for it if you have time to check it out to see my meaning. http://cryptosource.org/bitgem-mandatory-update-released/It allows for holding several types of coins with several types of values, (you will see). my thought was that this type of wallet (if possible to do) would let NXT users keep the coins that came through your gateway in the NXT network to be sent and received, and increase the number of transactions and fees to our network instead of sending them back to their original network (In a sense hijacking them). It could also let them send and receive regular AE assets (which would be handy for using the AE assets as sub-currencies NXT currency). It may also make the AE less cumbersome to use as once people purchased an asset they could spend it through their wallet and not the AE. If it is possible it would really compliment the gateway you are working on. If you have some time to kill maybe check it out and see what you think. Also I was wondering about fees for your gateway. Will there be fees for the holding account? Will they be the same as regular NXT transactions? It sounds like this bitgem is just a GUI that creates a unified wallet. I dont see any reason why this cant be done, except I personally dont do GUI, so we need to find a GUI dev to do this. All the AE is doing is NXT API calls to transfer assets, so the GUI just does the same and if it goes back to the gateway, it gets passed on through to the actual wallet. There will be the bitcoin TXFEE to sweep the deposit into the multisig (also the TXFEE to initially send the deposit) There is one or two NXT transaction fees to transfer the asset in. I am currently not charging that, but probably will have to pass on the costs. That is why I am advocating .01 NXT transaction fee. On withdrawal, there is a single TXFEE for the multisig, but this is automatically deducted from the withdrawal amount. You will also incur a NXT transaction fee to send back to gateway. Here is a cost summary: wallet -> gateway TXFEE gateway -> multisig TXFEE, 1 or 2 NXT transaction fees (charged at what rate?) AE -> gateway, 1 NXT transaction fee multisig -> wallet TXFEE So if you start with 1.0000 sent to gateway from wallet, you will get charged 1.0001 .9999 goes into multisig .9998 would come back to wallet Thats .03%, but of course higher percentage for smaller deposits, plus the 2 or 3 NXT transaction fees. At current exchange rates, another .024% for NXT fees, ignorable when we go to .01 NXT The gateways transaction costs would be roughly .05% on 1.0000 roundtrip deposit withdraw, these will have to be passed through. There will also need to be some fees to cover the cost for running the gateway, but this will get smaller as the usage goes up. We might even get some big donor to subsidize the server costs for the gateways (hint, hint) as the lower the cost for using the gateway, the more assets flow into NXT AE, the more NXT will be worth My job is to make the fees as small as possible to maximize volumes. I dont think the gateway is the right place to monetize. After all, if you see a big toll booth for both ways, are you more or less likely to go in? Once we get NXT transaction fee to .01 NXT, then the trading commission for 1000 NXT valued items would be .001%, which is a bit lower than on most centralized exchanges. Assuming we have easy to use trading GUIs, I dont see why a significant percentage of crypto trading wont happen inside NXT AE. I predict we will see bots making trades every block, which adds up to 10 NXT in commissions for an entire day of trading. More volumes means tighter spreads which means better prices for everyone. In order to create a NXT economy, we need to get money into AE. Once there is a billion dollars worth of trading per day within the AE, it really wont be hard to monetize. We are in very early days now. Building market share is most important. James I agree with you on needing to keep the cost low and using volume to drive the value of NXT. I can't help but wonder about the server costs and the risk of holding the other currencies. This may sound kinda sharkish but would it be possible to use the holding account to provide for the cost of the server? If there were enough banked in the holding account to cover withdraws and to make loans and charge interest? For example, if there are 1000 people with money in the holding account it would be very unlikely that they would all want to withdraw at the same time. Knowing this you could safely lend a portion of the holding account out at interest to cover the cost of the server expense, and maybe bank some of the interest for insurance on the holding account. I don't mean to make a profit, as I understand your reasoning in wanting to provide the service for the worlds benefit, but economics is economics. There is going to be a cost for providing this service. And it may be possible to generate the funds to pay for the service like this. Or if you made sure to include some proof of stake coins in the gateway inclusions and had enough of them banked to get fees for them (if that is possible). Maybe that is crazy. I think the AE is awesome and what you are doing with it is awesome. Game changing. |
|
|
|
...
"Selfish miners (those who only mine to earn fees) should be "removed" from the system. They are not interested in the success of Nxt and only want to cash out."
...
Basically, this discussion has been had over the last week. It's immediately linked to forging payouts. "Selfish" (although some, including me, prefer the term "passive") forgers will, if they are not rewarded more than "break even" for running a node, in all probability not run a node if they have other motives than earning "free Nxt". "Active" forgers, ie. forgers that run a service, would do so, because it allows them to run their service, and cut out operating costs. So, passive forgers would not be "cut out" in any active sense. It would just not be attractive in their terms to do so. However, this discussion is still ongoing. James (jl777) for instance, has proposed methods for these people to earn coins by aggregating CPU power. That helps. Right now I'm a passive forger, mainly because I am not technical enough to contribute by creating some new product or service. As NXT matures and metalayrers are enhanced and simplified, that will change, I think. It helps me to think in terms of analogies. So I think of NXT as the transportation infrastructure: roads, signs, lights, etc. that support the more interesting things - movement of commodities, communication, currencies, etc. As a forger, I operate a toll booth on one of those roads. According to my NXT "contract" (forging), I maintain my little part of the highway in return for getting a little bit of the tolls. Right now, the tolls are extremely low. Like you, I don't earn enough to keep the lights on on my part of the highway. But increasing the tolls may not be the answer. My "philosophical" question goes back to BCNext's quote. We can think of the toll booth operator as a parasite who is only benefiting the infrastructure because doing so serves his selfish interests. Or we can think of the tooth booth operator as someone who deserves a bit of a payout for providing a valuable service to the infrastructure. I think BCNext was concerned about the parasites, and rightly so. But what makes a parasite? Freedom isn't free. Forging makes it pretty cheap. |
|
|
|
I think the format of what Damelon is doing is exactly what I was talking about. I read his blogs sometimes when they are posted on facebook, didn't realize there was an ongoing library on this site. There should be a link to his blog on the NXT website.
I like how there is an indication at the top of the blog indicating it's topic relevance and in a sense its technical and difficulty level. I would suggest putting info on there that is more basic and descriptive of NX;.
Stuff aimed at audiences who are new to NXT or new to cryptos entirely, and more advanced technical stuff aimed at audiences who are in need of that type of info, as an improvement on what he has done. His work is NXT grad student. It would be nice to have Nxt undergrad and NXT college prep and NXT doctoral work in the same location and in the same format as what he is doing, and to have that site be the go to site for info. That would be a perfect example of my meaning.
I have read Damelon's stuff as I stated previously and it has helped me, but some of it above my level of knowledge as I am not so indoctrinated, and in his own work he admits his own lack of indoctrination in the highly technical. No offense to Damelon, as his work is really done well. He is a propaganda master.
But he is doing relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no Sting theory. There is no Newton. Not a knock to Damelon or a knock to anyone else who has been doing this kind of stuff. It is just that the topic of NXT is so vast. As much as I am in love with the thought of decentralizing the NXT economy as much as possible, I like the idea of centralized NXT information.
I guess that is what my point is. If more basic info and more tech info were added to what he is doing, coupled with the format he is using that allows for updating and audience targeting, when someone asked for a place to look to learn about NXT they could be directed there and would have to look no further.
They could go there and easily index information at a level that they could grasp with out having to search all over the place, sift through info that they are not capable of understanding or info that is elementary and redundant to them. Information that would highlight NXT to our communities advantage and indoctrinate in the ways of NXT.
You're not bashing me at all: you're giving me helpful pointers I líke the idea of topics ordered according to "school levels". I won't be able to make the university parts, but I can do the simpler stuff, like explaining why cryptos exist in the first place. That even gives me the opportunity to go into the philosophy behind it, which is fun! I have been thinking about doing stuff like that anyway, but needed a format, and you just provided it, so thanks! This is exactly why I like this thread, by the way. This wouldn't have come up if it wásn't such a chaotic place Right on. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
