NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Sebastien256]

Allowing a first come first served method for asset name registration will result in squatting & non-meaningful/potentially misleading names. I suggest we use a system generated incrementing number starting from 101 as the unique asset ID. Asset Issuer can append any tag to the numerical ID.
eg:
115:BTC [ Asset description]
116:BTC [ Asset description]
117:ABC [ Asset description]

Asset ID 1-100 could be reserved for special assets.

Im sure i don't get everything right, but this following idea is worth thinking about, I think.

What if asset ID would be a kind of structure with one member being the asset name and the other member being the block height at which the asset was created. If two identical asset name are register on the same block, only the one with higher fee would be accepted for the current block. Next block would register the asset with the lower fee.

In the client, the block number at which the asset was created could be given in the asset description.

That would solve the problem of identification of multiple asset with the same name and the first come first serve problematic. First come first serve is nonsence in my opinion.

In fact why limiting Nxt with unique asset name when block height could be used to differentiate between them and showed which one was create first?

"Asset name" don't have to be unique as it is the case with "alias". Of course, alias have to be unique, but not "Asse namet". It would be limiting for Nxt to impose unique asset name. Think about it please.

"Asset name is already used" should not happen!

[MadCow]

Good point!! Are there any people working on NXT who don't have a big enough stake to stay motivated? If there are we need to help them get a big stake. Maybe give them an option to buy in at a fixed price down the track.

I would give the option to James.

I second this motion.

Agreed, James is a critical guy for NXT and needs to have enough incentive to stay super motivated, like he has been so far.

What about you ricky, how well-hung are you when it comes to NXT? You're a key figure in this community too.

Thanks for your vote of confidence in me.  I will never turn down a "stock option" in NXT, but I think there are a LOT of people that should receive a such a giveaway before I do.  

I think discussing / debating / arguing over who does get on a list of who gets cheap NXT if we succeed and who does not get on that list would pretty much start a war we do not need.  This would be another attempt to "reward" and "motivate" people to participate in NXT.  Implying we need this is implying our original distribution was unfair and our current reward structure is inadequate.  I think a better way would be for whales to step forward and fund private ongoing contracting of key personnel.  This is why CfB is here and what is happening for James and Salsacz now (I think).  I believe we should continue this by lining up both new whale support and new Java programmers.  

NXT is currently the only 100% pure proof of stake cryptocurrency.  If you believe in it, buy stake in it.  That's how NXT works (at least for now).  As Worf says, today is a good day to buy.

Ricky, when I first read your post I agreed with you - having people fight over who is eligible for a massive buy-in option would cause too many problems, and might derail things now. But then after a while I changed my mind. There will only be a small number of crypto currencies that survive long term, and I want NXT to be one of them. I want the guys with the Lance Armstrong sized will to be the best working on NXT. If there's a MASSIVE reward on offer to those people who push NXT to a market cap of 1 billion USD, then I would contribute to a stock option system. The arguing over who got what wouldn't start until after NXT was unambiguously successful, and by then most of us would be satisfied.

But the guys with the Lance Armstrong will to compete and succeed are the ones I want working on NXT right now. I'm not talking about 'cheating' or doing anything illegal or immoral etc. I'm talking about offering MASSIVE rewards to people who are single minded about making NXT a global phenomenon. Some of the best people might not have a large stake in NXT, and maybe they can't afford to buy in big now either. If there is a chance of MASSIVE rewards to those people through a fixed price buy-in down the track, then some of them will be motivated to stay working on NXT. Those people will have the hunger to succeed that NXT needs to compete with etherium & emunie & counterparty etc etc

[msin]

Regarding Asset Exchange:

1. Is there a way to give out dividends?
2. I am envisioning that there would be tons of people creating whatsoever assets, I believe a way to manage it is necessary.  Like categories? favorites?
3. I also think there should be a moderator who could flag assets that are fraudulent.

I agree with #2, would be great to sort assets by trading volume, price, etc..  We are decentralized, no one can moderate the exchange, however, we could have a reputation system and forum threads so people could do a little research before buying.

[BrianNowhere]

Well, im glad its 1000 nxt  to issue an asset,it solves a part of this problem.But still, i think we need to focus to have all the main coins gateways ready with their assets,and let people know how to get to them fast and easy when we launch the AE!

One (perhaps not) small quibble here regarding fees. By making the fees static ie:1000 Nxt for assets .01 Nxt for transactions, etc, aren't we setting ourselves up for a scaling problem where investors and users of Nxt and the AE will find themselves simultaneously rewarded and punished as the price fluctuates in value?

What if the value of Nxt went to $500 USD? That would be awesome right? Except then no one would be actually using Nxt because who is going to pay $500,000 USD to issue an asset? Who's going to be willing to buy a Soda worth $1.00 USD using Nxt when the transaction fee is five USD dollars?
This is a paradoxical situation.

I understand this can be changed later via coding, but then is Nxt really a decentralized platform? Will there be a Bitcoin Foundation like entity to make these decisions? Will making these sorts of decisions resemble the decision making process we see here in the Mega-Thread every day? What if the price skyrocketed one day based on news of some sort? Would the next news item follwoing any rise be about how Nxt crashed again because the suddenly rising value made it the market for Nxt grind to a halt?

Wouldn't it be better to head all these problems off at the pass and and base transaction fees on percentages rather than hard numbers?
For transactions that would be easy, simply make it a percentage, say 1%, of whatever the amount is. I can't imagine that being a difficult coding challenge at all.

For assets perhaps charge a higher percentage based on the number of assets being issued.

For instance Transaction Fee: 1% of amount being transferred. Asset fee: 5%  of number of assets being issued.

This way the person wanting creating a new asset and the person wanting to download cheap pornopics (As C-F-B so eloquently put it) won't be discouraged by the rising price of Nxt.

Anyone else see the scaling problem that I see with using hard numbers rather than percentages?
 

[CIYAM]

Wouldn't it be better to head all these problems off at the pass and and base transaction fees on percentages rather than hard numbers?
For transactions that would be easy, simply make it a percentage, say 1%, of whatever the amount is. I can't imagine that being a difficult coding challenge at all.

It's called VISA (or Mastercard) and it makes *zero* sense to charge a % when it *costs* the exact same to send 1NXT or 1M NXT.

The fee is there to do two things:

1. Prevent spam
2. Reward forging

Thus the fee needs to have a "fixed minimum amount" in order to achieve point 1 and "be as high as the market will bear" to achieve point 2.

If we are going to consider taking the fees as a % of anything it should be of the entire supply of NXT rather than anything to do with a tx amount.

[BrianNowhere]

Wouldn't it be better to head all these problems off at the pass and and base transaction fees on percentages rather than hard numbers?
For transactions that would be easy, simply make it a percentage, say 1%, of whatever the amount is. I can't imagine that being a difficult coding challenge at all.

It's called VISA (or Mastercard) and it makes *zero* sense to charge a % when it *costs* the exact same to send 1NXT or 1M NXT.

The fee is there to do two things:

1. Prevent spam
2. Reward forging

Thus the fee needs to have a "fixed minimum amount" in order to achieve point 1 and "be as high as the market will bear" to achieve point 2.

If we are going to consider taking the fees as a % of anything it should be of the entire supply of NXT rather than anything to do with a tx amount.

I don't really care what it's a percentage of, just as long as it isn't a hard number that is guaranteed to be disruptive in a fluctuating market and almost will guarantee the systems demise.  The fact that I have to even point out the obvious paradox here is really concerning to me. Either no one thinks Nxt could ever be worth more than a few cents or someone has a lot of confidence in the ability for this community to adapt on the fly very quickly to market forces. Also everyone will have to update software everytime this takes place.

[CIYAM]

Either no one thinks Nxt could ever be worth more than a few cents or someone has a lot of confidence in the ability for this community to adapt on the fly very quickly to market forces. Also everyone will have to update software everytime this takes place.

Updating software is something I think everyone has already adapted to (in fact most likely the majority of the software you are using "updates itself").

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I think it would be a fair prediction that the price of NXT could be determined mathematically by the available supply along with the number of users and transactions.

Speculators should be looking to purchase Assets in order to "make big profits" and again the "fees" will be determined by the two main points I mentioned (if you make them too low then then network dies due to spamming and no incentive to forge and if you make them too high it dies due to competition with other such networks).

So - how low are the fees going to be?

It is a *competition* between Mastercoin, Bitshares, Ethereum and Nxt (you could call it a *race to the bottom*).

[windjc]

@Justabit:

No worries, mate, go have some fun in the sun. Thanks again for what u guys achieved, btw.
I may not have agreed with some aspects of your work (SoL....hmmmm   ) but on the whole Cointropolis did some good work.
Hows the Trek convention coming on?

I'll just 'volunteer' the next guy who opens his mouth about NXT mainstream acceptance to run the game payments idea.

I understand the cointroplois crew very well.
Dirty tactics was used by people who in the marketing committee to be elected (and the community didn't mind it, called it politics) and now NXT pay the consequences. We have a elected marketing committee but the price is the lowest it has been in 2 months. Last time me contacting BTER lead to them adding us which saved us, what will save us this time?
AE? It'll be after Mastercoin, Invictus, Counterparty.. so I doubt it'll be enough.


I think I was the first guy to propose to use NXT as ingame currency, feel free to approach any of the big game devs. Got nothing to lose

Here's a couple of novel ideas . One, how about instead of pouting over who won fair elections, we cheer on and support those who won, since we all want Nxt to become successful. Second, how did adding us to Bter "save" Nxt? Answer: it didn't. You don't save a coin buy temporarily influxing new money into it. Coins go up and down a lot when they are new. Its called volatility. Its impossible to avoid, unless you have Emunie's system and even then it probably will not be avoided early on.

Now, adding Nxt to gaming is a good idea. I support it. The more uses Nxt has, the better.

But worrying over which coin has the first AE is a waste of time. First to AE is not important. EASE OF USE of AE is much more important. Integration into AE is much more important. Adoption of AE is much more important. How do they rank - MC, Invictus, Counterparty, Emunie, Nxt? Answer: no one knows.

So the goal should be ease of use. Win that game and you are the defacto "first to market mover with advantage."

[windjc]

Either no one thinks Nxt could ever be worth more than a few cents or someone has a lot of confidence in the ability for this community to adapt on the fly very quickly to market forces. Also everyone will have to update software everytime this takes place.

Updating software is something I think everyone has already adapted to (in fact most likely the majority of the software you are using "updates itself").

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I think it would be a fair prediction that the price of NXT could be determined mathematically by the available supply along with the number of users and transactions.

Speculators should be looking to purchase Assets in order to "make big profits" and again the "fees" will be determined by the two main points I mentioned (if you make them too low then then network dies due to spamming and no incentive to forge and if you make them too high it dies due to competition with other such networks).

So - how low are the fees going to be?

It is a *competition* between Mastercoin, Bitshares, Ethereum and Nxt (you could call it a *race to the bottom*).

So Nxt can't be a currency and a platform?  Explain why it cannot?  Better yet, explain how it WILL not, since its decentralized and its users can promote it and evolve it anyway they choose. And since its in their best interest for the price to be high, how will they not promote it as a currency.

If POS isn't profitable and owning Nxt is not profitable and only owning assets are profitable, no one will be around to develop the asset owning system into the future.

[CIYAM]

If POS isn't profitable and owning Nxt is not profitable and only owning assets are profitable, no one will be around to develop the asset owning system into the future.

The future is not something we can easily predict - but if you have a choice of two platforms:

1. Fee of 1%
2. Fee of 0.01 USD

which are users going to "flock to"?

In the end it is only the "users" that matter - not peoples wishes and desires to "get rich".

[windjc]

If POS isn't profitable and owning Nxt is not profitable and only owning assets are profitable, no one will be around to develop the asset owning system into the future.

The future is not something we can easily predict - but if you have a choice of two platforms:

1. Fee of 1%
2. Fee of 0.01 USD

which are users going to "flock to"?

In the end it is only the "users" that matter - not peoples wishes and desires to "get rich".

Your logic makes no sense. And you did not answer my questions.

Users are going to flock to where its most profitable, not where its there are the cheapest fees. Which means, the platform that is easiest to use and has the most customers. Fees are just one fraction of the equation (have you owned a business before?)

And Nxt will be a currency. Or it won't survive. You have to have an incentive for people to own Nxt and to run nodes as POS. If not, there is not system. And if you think "creating assets" is the same thing, you are wrong.

[BrianNowhere]

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I'm just going to let this reverberate here for a while. I don't even know what to say to this...yet

[CIYAM]

Users are going to flock to where its most profitable, not where its there are the cheapest fees.

Now it is you who are not making any sense - do you "profit" when you use your VISA card?

I think you don't understand who the "users" actually are - they are Mr. and Mrs. Average *buying* stuff (they don't generally think of their "fiat" as being an *investment* either).

You *use money* to pay for things - you don't decide to choose RMB *over* USD because that would be "more profitable" (at least for most people - currency speculators are another group but very much a small group).

[CIYAM]

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I'm just going to let this reverberate here for a while. I don't even know what to say to this...yet

Good - let it "sink in" and hopefully a few others will too.

[windjc]

Users are going to flock to where its most profitable, not where its there are the cheapest fees.

Now it is you who are not making any sense - do you "profit" when you use your VISA card?

I think you don't understand who the "users" actually are - they are Mr. and Mrs. Average *buying* stuff (they don't generally think of their "fiat" as being an *investment* either).

You *use money* to pay for things - you don't decide to choose RMB *over* USD because that would be "more profitable" (at least for most people - currency speculators are another group but very much a small group).

Oh. You actually believe everyday normal mom and pop types are going to be "shopping" on the Nxt platform someday soon? And on top of that, the buyer is going to pay the "fee"?  Wha?

First of all, the AE will most likely be traders in the beginning. Second, isn't it common sense that the seller will pay the fees? Like that VISA card you mention?

[windjc]

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I'm just going to let this reverberate here for a while. I don't even know what to say to this...yet

Good - let it "sink in" and hopefully a few others will too.

This will never sink it. Because its not true. If Nxt is worth pennies there will be no AE. You live with a non-capitalistic mindset.

[CIYAM]

Oh. You actually believe everyday normal mom and pop types are going to be "shopping" on the Nxt platform someday soon? And on top of that, the buyer is going to pay the "fee"?  Wha?

The buyer already effectively pays a fee when they use VISA because the goods they buy are that much more expensive (you can *always* get cheaper deals for cash).

It's just *hidden* from plain site (so fools *most* of the people).

First of all, the AE will most likely be traders in the beginning. Second, isn't it common since that the seller will pay the fees? Like that VISA card you mention?

If Nxt is only going to be for "traders" then I think it is doomed from the start.

[windjc]

Oh. You actually believe everyday normal mom and pop types are going to be "shopping" on the Nxt platform someday soon? And on top of that, the buyer is going to pay the "fee"?  Wha?

The buyer already effectively pays a fee when they use VISA because the goods they buy are that much more expensive (you can *always* get cheaper deals for cash).

It's just *hidden* from plain site (so fools *most* of the people).

First of all, the AE will most likely be traders in the beginning. Second, isn't it common since that the seller will pay the fees? Like that VISA card you mention?

If Nxt is only going to be for "traders" then I think it is doomed from the start.

Ha! Your logic astounds me.

And Nxt will be used by traders in the beginning. Let that sink it.

[CIYAM]

This will never sink it. Because its not true. If Nxt is worth pennies there will be no AE. You live with a non-capitalistic mindset.

I am not concerned with ideology - the *reality* is that if people are going to move to using a digital currency they are not going to choose a "Rolls Royce" but something that is efficient and cheap (if has to be *better* than using VISA or there is no point to change).

[windjc]

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I'm just going to let this reverberate here for a while. I don't even know what to say to this...yet

Your confusion stems from a comment from someone who thinks too much like a programmer and not at all like a real world business person. I would mainly ignore it, although, I realize I haven't taken my own advice.