Bitcoin Forum
July 20, 2019, 06:41:25 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 [2285] 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 ... 2567 »
  Print  
Author Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information  (Read 2755393 times)
igmaca
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:27:45 PM
 #45681

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".


*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...

I view the fee as a blockchain spam deterrent, any possible ROI is secondary IMHO.  We don't have any major activity on the blockchain at the moment.  All is relatively quiet, but that will change as services are added and merchants begin to use NXT for payment.  After only a few short months of very little activity the full blockchain is already over 50 megs on disk.

I think the fee should only be changed if the price of NXT goes up significantly.  My 0.25 NXT minimum fee vote was based on the thought of 1 NXT going to the stable range of $0.15 to ~$0.30 cents US in the next six months.

I still say trying to tie the fee to some FIAT is the wrong direction.  Ill say it again - a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain.  So lets say a NXT transfer is 128bytes, and its fee is .1NXT, so then an AM or alias transaction of size 256bytes should then cost .2NXT, and other transaction types follow the same method of fee determination.  We would determine a "base" transaction that is the smallest possible transaction, and set the .1 NXT fee to it.  (or .01 or .05 or whatever the community decides) and then scale every other transaction's fee to be based on its size compared to the base one.
But no one likes my idea.  Embarrassed

This proposal will require a bit more code; but for the moment I think a straight .1 NXT for all works, as it will encourage more use for now.

the value of the fee should obey two criteria

to deter spam.
to maintain and secure decentralized network with the lowest cost of energy.
1563604885
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563604885

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563604885
Reply with quote  #2

1563604885
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563604885
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563604885

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563604885
Reply with quote  #2

1563604885
Report to moderator
1563604885
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563604885

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563604885
Reply with quote  #2

1563604885
Report to moderator
Komputor
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 26
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:29:11 PM
 #45682


With NXT everyone can make progress in their own desired direction.
That is the power of decentralization. Nobody to dictate what can and cant be done
I know if I had to get approval for many of my ideas, they would pretty much all get shot down.
James

+ 1440
Like probably most people here, I work in a gigantic centralized corporation and every time i catch up with the developments in this decentralized next ecosystem, the obvious benefit of a decentralized working culture hits me. In a centralized environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the approval/whims/fancies of a few people. In a decentralized work environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the proving grounds.. if it is proven to work / benefit the decentralized ecosystem, it will get implemented!! Decentralized systems mimic nature in some way.. think fractals, think organisms.. okay maybe that is too far out.
Fantastic work and my sincere RESPECT to all the doers in this awesome community!!
mcjavar
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:30:19 PM
 #45683



Allowing the issuance of assets with the same name will most probably hinder us to sell our assets on the Nxt AE as we don´t want to have anyone creating assets with the same name as ours. We will work hard to get our shit together and to convince the community that our shares are worth buying, but if anyone can come and issue assets with the same name, we will most probably not use Nxt as scamming would harm our reputation, too.


EDIT: I am talking about a real life project we would like to fund using Nxt.


if we have a verification system there should be no issue, right? (with non unique names)

Well, I thin kthat the average user will go after the name...
I see some discussions between friends:
"I bought ABC shares on Nxt"
"Really? Cool! I will also buy one when I get home."
"But take care as there are hundreds of shares with the same name..."

This IS confusing..isn´t it?
Anyway, looking forward to the decision of the wise counsel.
farl4web
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1202
Merit: 1000


aka farl4bit aka farl


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 02:31:22 PM
 #45684


So can the price of Nxt skyrocket one day, or not? For those who think that is possible based on the above, is it of no concern that the fees for transacting and assets will be based on a fixed number rather than a percentage that can self adjust based on current value?

If Nxt ever matched the value of current BTC (which can't happen according to CIYAM OPEN and others here) and the transaction fee is the proposed .01 Nxt  then the cost to make a transaction in Nxt would be $6.20 USD It would cost $6.20 to PLACE a buy or sell order on the AE exchange. It would cost $620,000 to issue an asset at the proposed 1000 Nxt fee for issuance.

Even if Nxt only reached LTC heights we're looking at $0.23 or so for transaction fees, which basically makes the idea microtransactions a non-starter.

Supposedly the 1000 Nxt rate is temporary, which is the same thing they said about tollbooths in my state about 40 years ago.



The fee can always be adjusted to the situation, just as we are planning to change it to 0.1 NXT. No worries.

Follow the latest blockchain news: https://twitter.com/blockchainguide
Daedelus
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:32:22 PM
 #45685


I think the key is that the fees to ensure NXT network only Nxt coins must be used.



If you mean:

The key is that the fees to use the Nxt network can only be paid using NXT coins (tokens).

Then THIS! As they say.


Then we have a finger in every pie, taking a tiny slice but (years from now) there will be hundreds of thousands of pies and millions (billions) of transactions.

Someone comes in a buys Doge for BTC (+0.1 nxt fee), someone sells NEM for NEX (+0.1nxt fee), Someone buys BTC for DOGE (+0.1nxt fee) etc etc. We are effectively be backing all cryptos and we don't care which of them fail and which succeed because we are the platform it is all done on. We will still be here when they have all gone.

How many transactions happen everyday to move the prices of ALL the coins on CoinMarketCap? What if we captured 10% of this. 50%? 100?!! (Now I really am dreaming). Well why wouldn't we? We have the lowest fees around. And this is only considering Nxt when confined just to the Crypto world and no other asset class.

There is a point where Nxt becomes unattractive if the price rises. We have room to maneuvere to lower our fees so the market is still getting x transactions per Nxt it wants.

There may be a point, a few years down the line, where Nxt is unattractive AND we can't control spam by any lowering the fees anymore BUT

i) Nxt will be worth much more than 5cents in my humble opionion (so everyone here will be happy);
More importantly:
ii) We have devs and intelligent people now who are already considering these problems now (something with the word hash in the name, not pool related).


In December, I *confess* (sorry guys) I bought my first Nxt, hoping for a quick pop just becasue Nxt was different to the rest. Then I learned about TF, AE, 1000 TPS, Parallel chains where my brain melted and my heartrate quickened at the POTENTIAL of Nxt. That was my conversion.

Things have only got better since then. The real risk is can these things be delivered? Nothing is a given, there still are huge risks but we all knew that when we got into cryptos right?  Wink

I am very pleased with the devs we have and all those who have poured time into Nxt. KEEP IT UP.
lucky88888
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 404
Merit: 250


https://nxtforum.org/


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:33:01 PM
 #45686

i bought a lottery ticket, if i win big i will invest in nxt!
 Grin

Fuck Mt.Gox! Fuck Mintpal! Fuck Bter! FUCK kyc! Protect yourself use MGW! SUPERNET!
Recommended ASSET ->InstantDex : Lead Dev Jl777 (decentralized multi currency instant exchange)
Recommended ASSET -> Jinn : Lead Dev Come-from-Beyond (ternary processors!)
https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/(ann)-jinn/
renat0
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:33:58 PM
 #45687

i think NXT AE should have unique names, just like domains on the internet
if someone buys up Microsoft, microsoft itself should pay a good sum to that first owner if they really want the name for example. this is what happens with domains now and works fine

Selling Qora for 5 satoshi each.
BrianNowhere
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 02:34:36 PM
 #45688


It seems that decisions are being made behind closed doors against my advice on the Asset Naming and we are about to get identical names implemented, even though we can never go back from that. We could always do the reverse, but it seems that I am too busy coding now that I am out of the loop on the key decisions.

So, your Salt will appear as Salt 72857 and competitors salt will be Salt 94893 and that will magically instill an urge into every salt purchaser to conduct a due diligence research into which Salt is better and why the price is difference, etc. No chance of it confusing the user at all, we all know how much people like to investigate things thoroughly before they purchase $2 worth of salt

James

I guess decentralized development is great, until it's not.  I have really been confused by this notion that because the idea is for a decentralized exchange that development should also be decentralized. Didn't BcNext hisself decide to code alone (centralization) in the beginning because of crap like we see here every day?

There's good stuff happening, but this decentralized everything idea is a bad one. Cancer is decentralized. The cure could never be.

NXT: 4957831430947123625
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:37:51 PM
 #45689

Fee should depend on data size coz it solves a technical problem (spam prevention)

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.
landomata
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 02:38:25 PM
 #45690


I guess decentralized development is great, until it's not.  I have really been confused by this notion that because the idea is for a decentralized exchange that development should also be decentralized. Didn't BcNext hisself decide to code alone (centralization) in the beginning because of crap like we see here every day?

There's good stuff happening, but this decentralized everything idea is a bad one. Cancer is decentralized. The cure could never be.

Then please ACT.....become a profitable cog in this chaos....and CENTRALIZE an improvement project under YOUR control.


igmaca
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:39:03 PM
Last edit: March 18, 2014, 02:53:54 PM by igmaca
 #45691


With NXT everyone can make progress in their own desired direction.
That is the power of decentralization. Nobody to dictate what can and cant be done
I know if I had to get approval for many of my ideas, they would pretty much all get shot down.
James

+ 1440
Like probably most people here, I work in a gigantic centralized corporation and every time i catch up with the developments in this decentralized next ecosystem, the obvious benefit of a decentralized working culture hits me. In a centralized environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the approval/whims/fancies of a few people. In a decentralized work environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the proving grounds.. if it is proven to work / benefit the decentralized ecosystem, it will get implemented!! Decentralized systems mimic nature in some way.. think fractals, think organisms.. okay maybe that is too far out.
Fantastic work and my sincere RESPECT to all the doers in this awesome community!!

Economics and Entropy. Nxt Ecosystem

Gilder creates a very interesting analogy between capitalism and information theory . The same that powers internet , telephony and computers. Science initiated by Alan Turing in world war to decrypt German "Enigma" code and further developed by C. Shannon compression for bandwidth in mobile telephony .

To transmit data , we need a channel ( cable , optical fiber , open space ) and interference-free sound , predictable , ordered , no surprises, that is, with low entropy.

Instead , the information flows must reach for it as a clear signal. For information to provide us with knowledge , we should be surprised . If the signal that comes to us is completely predictable , we will not add knowledge. Information is the raw material of knowledge, this surprises us increase our knowledge forward . The signal should have high entropy -disorder ( high entropy of Shannon) - and an orderly discourse on canal , noise - low entropy . Creativity is the foundation of capitalism. Creativity is surprise. Otherwise, planning and socialism have triumphed.

The more freedom of choice is the issuer, information - surprises - can transmit. Companies , entrepreneurs - emitting - create ideas, unpredictable , surprising, disordered high entropy . To flourish in need of a tidy vehicle. This channel is contractuality and laws , the better the simpler , low and unchanging . If the channel is unpredictable , changing constantly , you can not separate the signal from the noise. We have to distinguish between signal and noise between the word and the cable. Property rights , stability of money, the maintenance of law , order and contractuality and a very modest and anticipatable role of government (Nxt Platform) to entrepreneurs to launch their ideas through this channel .

For Karl Popper, a proposition is scientific if it is falsifiable , that is, likely to raise test or tests to test it . The result of the experiment, a new company , for example - must be refutable. If the result is predictable and not contribute knowledge. So when the state guarantees results with bank bailouts , guaranteeing mortgages , businesses, etc. . , Knowledge is destroyed because the falsifiability of the experiment is lost, information is lost.

So the famous stimulus packages our politicians do not reduce unemployment and create wealth . Breaking the principle of innovation and creativity and provide no surprise , therefore, not knowledge. The expansion of the government (centralization) introduces noise into the system.

Interest rates are critical . When governments manipulate an important signal for the economic analysis is destroyed. Interest rates become more noise than signal and sent false information to the actors . Knowledge is destroyed.

The regulator / central planner does not have all the information to structure the economy. There is no deterministic scheme which can accommodate entire entrepreneurial entropy , so any planned economy can succeed ( no bureaucrat can know every aspect of the economy ) . Here link with our dear Von Mises theorem and the impossibility of socialism .

Find a balance - entropy - down of markets has led to the current Great Recession. Human nature seems to want to replace by surprise . From Newton , science want to give us accurate predictions , science appears as the elimination of surprise. But creativity, even laissez - faire art - are surprise.

Source : http://www.juandemariana.org/comentario/6489/capitalismo/teoria/informacion/
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:45:45 PM
 #45692

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.
renat0
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:46:08 PM
 #45693

Fee should depend on data size coz it solves a technical problem (spam prevention)

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.
+1

Selling Qora for 5 satoshi each.
BrianNowhere
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 02:46:22 PM
 #45694

Simple:

Free market will not allow big arbitrage possibilities, thus making Nxt market cap >= cumulated assets values.

tl;td moon.

edit: Believe me. I studied.  Kiss Grin

So can the price of Nxt skyrocket one day, or not? For those who think that is possible based on the above, is it of no concern that the fees for transacting and assets will be based on a fixed number rather than a percentage that can self adjust based on current value?

If Nxt ever matched the value of current BTC (which can't happen according to CIYAM OPEN and others here) and the transaction fee is the proposed .01 Nxt  then the cost to make a transaction in Nxt would be $6.20 USD It would cost $6.20 to PLACE a buy or sell order on the AE exchange. It would cost $620,000 to issue an asset at the proposed 1000 Nxt fee for issuance.

Even if Nxt only reached LTC heights we're looking at $0.23 or so for transaction fees, which basically makes the idea microtransactions a non-starter.

Supposedly the 1000 Nxt rate is temporary, which is the same thing they said about tollbooths in my state about 40 years ago.

Who has ever said the fees can't change to match the situation?

Because that is what this is predicated on.

My concern is that any subsequent fee change based on future price increases will be necessarily decided on by this decentralized development team, or be arbitrarily decided upon by one person (Jean-Luc) I don't know which is worse.

Then if/when the price goes back down it will have to be changed again. Nxt will be unable to scale to rapid market fluctuations and volatility. It is not enough for me for CIYAM OPEN to say a sudden and rapid price spike is impossible. The "what if" in me says that if that would occur the market would suddenly grind to a halt because the fees would be "too damn high".

NXT: 4957831430947123625
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:47:29 PM
 #45695

Fee should depend on data size coz it solves a technical problem (spam prevention)

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.
+1

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.
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:49:18 PM
 #45696


My concern is that any subsequent fee change based on future price increases will be necessarily decided on by this decentralized development team, or be arbitrarily decided upon by one person (Jean-Luc) I don't know which is worse.

Then if/when the price goes back down it will have to be changed again. Nxt will be unable to scale to rapid market fluctuations and volatility. It is not enough for me for CIYAM OPEN to say a sudden and rapid price spike is impossible. The "what if" in me says that if that would occur the market would suddenly grind to a halt because the fees would be "too damn high".

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

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:52:34 PM
 #45697



I still say trying to tie the fee to some FIAT is the wrong direction.  Ill say it again - a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain.  So lets say a NXT transfer is 128bytes, and its fee is .1NXT, so then an AM or alias transaction of size 256bytes should then cost .2NXT, and other transaction types follow the same method of fee determination.  We would determine a "base" transaction that is the smallest possible transaction, and set the .1 NXT fee to it.  (or .01 or .05 or whatever the community decides) and then scale every other transaction's fee to be based on its size compared to the base one.
But no one likes my idea.  Embarrassed

This proposal will require a bit more code; but for the moment I think a straight .1 NXT for all works, as it will encourage more use for now.

+1

First time I have seen this - must have missed it in the hopsepipe first time round - I think this has some merit...
After all NXT is PoS so the growth/demand and resources is all in the chain....

It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.
wesleyh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:52:46 PM
 #45698



Allowing the issuance of assets with the same name will most probably hinder us to sell our assets on the Nxt AE as we don´t want to have anyone creating assets with the same name as ours. We will work hard to get our shit together and to convince the community that our shares are worth buying, but if anyone can come and issue assets with the same name, we will most probably not use Nxt as scamming would harm our reputation, too.


EDIT: I am talking about a real life project we would like to fund using Nxt.


if we have a verification system there should be no issue, right? (with non unique names)

Well, I thin kthat the average user will go after the name...
I see some discussions between friends:
"I bought ABC shares on Nxt"
"Really? Cool! I will also buy one when I get home."
"But take care as there are hundreds of shares with the same name..."

This IS confusing..isn´t it?
Anyway, looking forward to the decision of the wise counsel.

Link to asset 12345:

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/#asset:9229925548955252583
igmaca
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 02:57:43 PM
 #45699


It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.

EXACT

"Keep incentivized network"
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 03:00:09 PM
 #45700


It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.

EXACT

"Keep incentivized network"

interesting... what do you mean by computational effort?  It seems I am missing an aspect of something here.
Pages: « 1 ... 2235 2236 2237 2238 2239 2240 2241 2242 2243 2244 2245 2246 2247 2248 2249 2250 2251 2252 2253 2254 2255 2256 2257 2258 2259 2260 2261 2262 2263 2264 2265 2266 2267 2268 2269 2270 2271 2272 2273 2274 2275 2276 2277 2278 2279 2280 2281 2282 2283 2284 [2285] 2286 2287 2288 2289 2290 2291 2292 2293 2294 2295 2296 2297 2298 2299 2300 2301 2302 2303 2304 2305 2306 2307 2308 2309 2310 2311 2312 2313 2314 2315 2316 2317 2318 2319 2320 2321 2322 2323 2324 2325 2326 2327 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 ... 2567 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!