Bitcoin Forum
July 15, 2019, 07:17:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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 2336 2337 2338 ... 2567 »
  Print  
Author Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information  (Read 2753842 times)
El3k0n
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 109
Merit: 10


USA TRUMP USA TRUMP USA TRUMP


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:40:19 PM
 #45741

msin, I agree with you on every point you made except the part where you said you wouldn't mind if the Nxt market cap went to $1 mil.

Nxt whales have already taken $18 million of market cap out of Nxt from 50 million to 32 million today. Nxt needs new investors and needs the market cap to grow NOW. Nxt needs that market cap (price of NXT) to grow in order to attract new investors.

NXT Whales. Stop Dumping and give Nxt time to release AE. Thanks. You've taken your profit. Now invest in the future of Nxt.

Only idiots care about market cap. It's a meaningless number.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563218266
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563218266

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563218266
Reply with quote  #2

1563218266
Report to moderator
fmiboy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 189
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:42:13 PM
 #45742

community input needed:

Unique names for assets? For example : BLABLA (only issued once)

Or non unique names for assets?

For example: BLABLA 12423434 and BLABLA 343434334  (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)

(Perhaps, I'm not sure, the number can be shortened..)

If you have another idea, please specify.

I like what James proposed, no need to change Nxt core. When account creates first asset, client can create poll for the account and attach poolId end of every asset description that is created by that account. And client can get feedbacks from pollId to measure trust for that accountID and present it to user on AE window.
farl4web
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1202
Merit: 1000


aka farl4bit aka farl


View Profile WWW
March 18, 2014, 04:43:06 PM
 #45743

It's funny the other day I was on my dedicated Nxt node forging computer (I often forget it's even on), it's a Gigabyte Brix that sits in the corner of my desk.  I decided to sync my Bitcoin wallet on the same machine.  When I opened bitcoin-qt I thought my Brix was going to explode.  CPU 100%, Fan running full blast, everything completely slow.  I quickly shutdown bitcoin-qt and let the machine relax running Nxt.  I then sent out some Nxt donations which went out instantly and sat back and drank a beer, wondering why BTC is so popular.
Aaahh.. bedtime-stories  Cheesy

Follow the latest blockchain news: https://twitter.com/blockchainguide
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:43:15 PM
 #45744

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

It is just effort to be done by a node. That effort is related to how efficient the implementation is. Each machine instruction of that node requires electricity. So, storing the blockchain, broadcasting the blockchain, creating new blocks etc. etc. everything of it requires electricity. Nothing is for free.

That is the node provider needs to be reimbursed adequately by the amount of effort he has put in to build up and maintaining his node.

One could consider the fees and the expenditures of a node provider as an implicit market. That is: expensive nodes require higher fees. People want lower fees, so only the nodes that can afford these low fees will process the incoming transactions. As node providers want to people to send their transactions to their nodes, they will workaround until they can provide such cheap nodes. On the other hand, if no node provides such low fees, people's transactions will not be distributed or included in a block, so people are willing to raise the fees.

Supply and demand will drive the fee negotiation in the long term.

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

Agreed.
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:43:42 PM
 #45745

msin, I agree with you on every point you made except the part where you said you wouldn't mind if the Nxt market cap went to $1 mil.

Nxt whales have already taken $18 million of market cap out of Nxt from 50 million to 32 million today. Nxt needs new investors and needs the market cap to grow NOW. Nxt needs that market cap (price of NXT) to grow in order to attract new investors.

NXT Whales. Stop Dumping and give Nxt time to release AE. Thanks. You've taken your profit. Now invest in the future of Nxt.

Yes, my point was that I'm holding onto my Nxt until I can spend it on something I want (a house, a boat, an island).  I have never sold 1 Nxt, only bought.  I never will sell Nxt, I will only buy things with Nxt.  If you want the price to increase, focus on developing DAC, NxtCash, AT, Parallel Blockchains, CCT.  We can't market what we don't have.  Build new features and they will come.   I can email Marc Andreessen and tell him to buy Nxt but he won't buy Nxt because he thinks the market price will go up, he will buy Nxt because he thinks 10Mil people will be using it.  
NxtMinnow
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:43:55 PM
 #45746

Thanks for the personal insult El3k0n.

Nxt Funds have NXT. If NXT is worth 1/32 of what it is worth today, then Nxt Funds have 1/32 of the actual dollars or Euros or gold or whatever to pay real devs, server costs, etc.



msin, I agree with you on every point you made except the part where you said you wouldn't mind if the Nxt market cap went to $1 mil.

Nxt whales have already taken $18 million of market cap out of Nxt from 50 million to 32 million today. Nxt needs new investors and needs the market cap to grow NOW. Nxt needs that market cap (price of NXT) to grow in order to attract new investors.

NXT Whales. Stop Dumping and give Nxt time to release AE. Thanks. You've taken your profit. Now invest in the future of Nxt.

Only idiots care about market cap. It's a meaningless number.
Eadeqa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:46:03 PM
 #45747

msin, I agree with you on every point you made except the part where you said you wouldn't mind if the Nxt market cap went to $1 mil.

Nxt whales have already taken $18 million of market cap out of Nxt from 50 million to 32 million today. Nxt needs new investors and needs the market cap to grow NOW. Nxt needs that market cap (price of NXT) to grow in order to attract new investors.

NXT Whales. Stop Dumping and give Nxt time to release AE. Thanks. You've taken your profit. Now invest in the future of Nxt.

Only idiots care about market cap. It's a meaningless number.

It attracts new speculators/buyers who buy things that they think is growing.

NXT-GZYP-FMRT-FQ9K-3YQGS
https://nxtforum.org
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:46:44 PM
 #45748

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

BTC is POW coin and will still require computation/electricity once the mining phase is over.  It costs me absolutely nothing to run Nxt software on my computer, as my system is already running regardless if I run nxt node or not, and my bandwidth is unlimited.
 

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

So are you saying that as subsidy declines, we should expect BTC's fee per transaction to rise?  Its obvious that right now, NXT fees are fairly high when compared to BTC's fees.  .1 fee right now equates to around $0.003/transaction, a good start.  But if we want to beat BTC, we'll have to do better.
El3k0n
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 109
Merit: 10


USA TRUMP USA TRUMP USA TRUMP


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:50:11 PM
 #45749

Thanks for the personal insult El3k0n.

Nxt Funds have NXT. If NXT is worth 1/32 of what it is worth today, then Nxt Funds have 1/32 of the actual dollars or Euros or gold or whatever to pay real devs, server costs, etc.



msin, I agree with you on every point you made except the part where you said you wouldn't mind if the Nxt market cap went to $1 mil.

Nxt whales have already taken $18 million of market cap out of Nxt from 50 million to 32 million today. Nxt needs new investors and needs the market cap to grow NOW. Nxt needs that market cap (price of NXT) to grow in order to attract new investors.

NXT Whales. Stop Dumping and give Nxt time to release AE. Thanks. You've taken your profit. Now invest in the future of Nxt.

Only idiots care about market cap. It's a meaningless number.

Sorry, I didn't want to say you're an idiot. I meant that only idiots care about market cap when making an investment. No serious trader/investor would base his decision on the market cap, because it doesn't mean anything.
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:50:14 PM
 #45750

It attracts new speculators/buyers who buy things that they think is growing.

I think it will also improve NXT's attractiveness and publicity. That is basically a good thing.
Eadeqa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:51:12 PM
 #45751

community input needed:

Unique names for assets? For example : BLABLA (only issued once)

Or non unique names for assets?

For example: BLABLA 12423434 and BLABLA 343434334  (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)

(Perhaps, I'm not sure, the number can be shortened..)

If you have another idea, please specify.

I like what James proposed, no need to change Nxt core. When account creates first asset, client can create poll for the account and attach poolId end of every asset description that is created by that account. And client can get feedbacks from pollId to measure trust for that accountID and present it to user on AE window.

Also, you can restrict users from buying assets that are in not the users trust list.  That will force the users to do research and verify that they are adding a legitimate issuer to the trust list. This will cut down most of the fake/scam issuers.


NXT-GZYP-FMRT-FQ9K-3YQGS
https://nxtforum.org
msin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:53:45 PM
 #45752

Thanks for the personal insult El3k0n.

Nxt Funds have NXT. If NXT is worth 1/32 of what it is worth today, then Nxt Funds have 1/32 of the actual dollars or Euros or gold or whatever to pay real devs, server costs, etc.



msin, I agree with you on every point you made except the part where you said you wouldn't mind if the Nxt market cap went to $1 mil.

Nxt whales have already taken $18 million of market cap out of Nxt from 50 million to 32 million today. Nxt needs new investors and needs the market cap to grow NOW. Nxt needs that market cap (price of NXT) to grow in order to attract new investors.

NXT Whales. Stop Dumping and give Nxt time to release AE. Thanks. You've taken your profit. Now invest in the future of Nxt.

Only idiots care about market cap. It's a meaningless number.

Yes, of course, I agree with spending power.  But we need to focus less on the MarketCap of Nxt at this time and more focus on advanced features, including CFB's MMORPG!
Ola
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 311
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:56:30 PM
 #45753

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]


First off, any changes in how Asset Names are handled in the core will delay release of AE. It also impacts all the code written against the current spec. So, any solution that doesnt require NXT core changes wins any ties.

...

James

Good post, I think we need something like "verified accounts" in Twitter. The asset issuer would need to give up his anonimity. This way we know who he is and he is less likely to scam. Verified account status can be taken away too.

Very good well reasoned post james...We need to take this proposal or something similar very seriously

@wesleyh I think a verified "linkedin" Account will provide more credibility and accountability than twitter. Anybody can create a twitter account and post a bunch of tweets whereas on linkedin, your network actually kind of proves who you are and people who have worked with you in the past, because the process of connecting with other profiles requires the context of your familiarity with them and email contact. Also maybe it should be that that, verified asset issuers public information is encrypted and stored, not visible to the public unless the issuer is involved in some kind of foul play.

As for Unique names or non unique names for assets? again James is right on the money: there is no need to change Nxt core. Unique names similar to the dns model would be sufficient. What could be more valuable is the ability to destroy or sell these asset names to other accounts. What happens when company 'B' whats to sell its establishment to company 'A'? this should not be impossible to do.



Nxter,Bitcoiner,Ether highlevel developer working to improve the world.
igmaca
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:57:12 PM
Last edit: March 18, 2014, 05:08:04 PM by igmaca
 #45754


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.

must be distributed the cost of maintaining stimulated the "green, secure and decentralized network"

for example

Nxt% Fee per current transactions
Alias ​​Fee services (For example per bytes)
Nxt% Fee per AE transactions

and so on ....

How The network is worth to maintain?

How many minimum nodes are needed?
How much electricity does it cost?
How many minimum transactions contemplated

Well explained. Smiley

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

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

Yes of course some services like AM it can indexed per bytes but other
can be indexed per amount transacted

all AE like  Cryptsy, BTC, Bitstamp use % amount transacted
We're going to reinvent the wheel?
why not?

what this clear that will be a lot more economical to maintain than BTC network or clones
opticalcarrier
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:57:30 PM
 #45755

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

It is just effort to be done by a node. That effort is related to how efficient the implementation is. Each machine instruction of that node requires electricity. So, storing the blockchain, broadcasting the blockchain, creating new blocks etc. etc. everything of it requires electricity. Nothing is for free.

That is the node provider needs to be reimbursed adequately by the amount of effort he has put in to build up and maintaining his node.

One could consider the fees and the expenditures of a node provider as an implicit market. That is: expensive nodes require higher fees. People want lower fees, so only the nodes that can afford these low fees will process the incoming transactions. As node providers want to people to send their transactions to their nodes, they will workaround until they can provide such cheap nodes. On the other hand, if no node provides such low fees, people's transactions will not be distributed or included in a block, so people are willing to raise the fees.

Supply and demand will drive the fee negotiation in the long term.

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

Agreed.

I just dont get it.  Consider 2 people with the same identical hardware cost are block forging nodes, but one has balance of 10million and other has 1 million.  So one forges 10x as many blocks as other.  Are you saying that the smaller one should charge higher fees? This doesnt seem feasable as it will directly conflict with our desire of instant transactions.  And I still dont see how different transactions have different computations - Wont any transaction will require full knowledge of the blockchain?

You have me completely lost. Can you provide an example model, modified with your computational model?  Like if I suggested a model of a transaction of 128bytes to have a fee of .1 NXT, then if an asset creation took 256 bytes, then its fee should be .2 NXT (yes, I know AE issue probably isnt 256bytes, and its fee is currently 1000 NXT, but work with me here for an example)
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 04:58:43 PM
 #45756

community input needed:

Unique names for assets? For example : BLABLA (only issued once)

Or non unique names for assets?

For example: BLABLA 12423434 and BLABLA 343434334  (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)

(Perhaps, I'm not sure, the number can be shortened..)

If you have another idea, please specify.

I still vote for unique names.

Other solutions are not adequate IMHO.
lumierre
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 517
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 05:00:23 PM
 #45757

Do you guys think that 100 BTC buy wall on bter is fake? (Yes/No/Probably)
Eadeqa
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 05:01:09 PM
Last edit: March 18, 2014, 06:18:22 PM by Eadeqa
 #45758

community input needed:

Unique names for assets? For example : BLABLA (only issued once)

Or non unique names for assets?

For example: BLABLA 12423434 and BLABLA 343434334  (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)

(Perhaps, I'm not sure, the number can be shortened..)

If you have another idea, please specify.

I still vote for unique names.

unique names is very very idea. If the scammer is able to issue "google" before the legitimate "google" the legitimate google will have to use "go0gle" while the scammer will be using the right name.

The unique part should be the issuer's account ID, and forcing the user to add the ID to their trust list before they can buy that asset.

That would limit the mistakes as the user will not be able to buy the asset issued by people that they have not added to the trust list.

NXT-GZYP-FMRT-FQ9K-3YQGS
https://nxtforum.org
ShroomsKit_Disgrace
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 952
Merit: 1000

Yeah! I hate ShroomsKit!


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 05:04:02 PM
 #45759

Do you guys think that 100 BTC buy wall on bter is fake? (Yes/No/Probably)

 Shocked
ChuckOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82


View Profile
March 18, 2014, 05:04:07 PM
 #45760

I just dont get it.  Consider 2 people with the same identical hardware cost are block forging nodes, but one has balance of 10million and other has 1 million.  So one forges 10x as many blocks as other.  Are you saying that the smaller one should charge higher fees? This doesnt seem feasable as it will directly conflict with our desire of instant transactions.  And I still dont see how different transactions have different computations - Wont any transaction will require full knowledge of the blockchain?

You have me completely lost. Can you provide an example model, modified with your computational model?  Like if I suggested a model of a transaction of 128bytes to have a fee of .1 NXT, then if an asset creation took 256 bytes, then its fee should be .2 NXT (yes, I know AE issue probably isnt 256bytes, and its fee is currently 1000 NXT, but work with me here for an example)

Alright.

Say there is a transaction A and B. A is 100 MB large and B is 10kB tiny.
Nodes can and will refuse A just because it is toooo big EXCEPT A gives the right incentive to verify, store and re-broadcast A. The fee is this incentive.

Each node can choose with pricing model it uses:
 - fees should depend only on payload
 - fees should depend on the amount of time it might require: bigger transactions like A need more time, encrypted messages might need more time, asset transactions might need more time THAN a simple transaction
 - fees could depend on both

Node providers (that is a guy running a set of nodes) can freely decide which transactions his nodes will process.

Does that make it clearer?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 2336 2337 2338 ... 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!