NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[CIYAM]

I can see this becoming another big circle - and while we are at it with circles again I will point out that Wesley's "suffix" for an Asset name *will support scammers*.

There was a very good reason why JL *removed* unique Asset names - to use these "suffixes" which are tied to "aliases" would *undo* the very point of the change.

Right at the moment there are *two* CIYAM Assets in testnet.

According to this "suffix" idea one could use the alias say CIYAM to show you the "real one".

*except*

I don't own the alias CIYAM in testnet - so actually it would be showing you the "fake one".

[1715338766]

1715338766

[chanc3r]

Yes, we still haven't hit a SHA256 round.
As soon as we do, I am going to replacing the SHA256 port with a P2P port to ensure more consistant SHA payouts.

I'm hashing SHA-256 on nxtp00l.org.. but interest seems to be dropping so I may move my miner..
Are you guys running both this and hashrate? I'm confused about that.
Also what do you have in this space on hashrate?  - site only shows the scrypt stats which is why I haven't used it.

[xyzzyx]

I can see this becoming another big circle - and while we are at it with circles again I will point out that Wesley's "suffix" for an Asset name *will support scammers*.

There was a very good reason why JL *removed* unique Asset names - to use these "suffixes" which are tied to "aliases" would *undo* the very point of the change.

Right at the moment there are *two* CIYAM Assets in testnet.

According to this "suffix" idea one could use the alias say CIYAM to show you the "real one".

*except*

I don't own the alias CIYAM in testnet - so actually it would be showing you the "fake one".

I like the hierarchical names that were proposed for XCP a few days back.  If that's not going to happen for Nxt, I think asset names should be generated by the client using a hash.  The description would then contain a "name" as well as a description.  If someone is looking for your asset, the hash would be a unique tag that you could provide to verify the correct one.  This is similar to how offical NRS releases have a SHA hash associated with them.

<shrugs>

[CIYAM]

I have no problem with hierarchical names *provided that no part is unique*.

As stated the reason for preventing unique Asset names is to "help stop people from being easily scammed".

We do already have a "unique id" for each Asset - it's just that Wesley "doesn't like to show numbers".

So the issue is a "safety/security design measure" being overridden by a UI "display preference" (a bit like removing the seat belts from the car because "they look ugly").

[Anon136]

Any theories on the recent price movements in Nxt? Both the downswing and the upswing of recent days show a striking independence from the price of Bitcoin, and it seems like Nxt and AUR are the only top-10 alts whose price movements have become a bit detached from BTC. (Litecoin's brief spike was clearly due to talk of a big Chinese exchange being about to add LTC). Are Nxt's recent movements due entirely to the whales unloading a big pile, then the pile eventually getting all bought up? Or is something else/more going on? Other factors seem to be the imminent release of the AE and the new development of Nxt mining. Thoughts?

i do not know what to attribute the price swing to but i just wanted to point out that i also have noticed the striking independence from bitcoins price. not just in this swing but in general always nxt has been like that. to me its EXTREMELY long term bullish, no other altcoin behaves this way that i am aware of. for better or worse nxt is its own animal entirely.

[chanc3r]

Any theories on the recent price movements in Nxt? Both the downswing and the upswing of recent days show a striking independence from the price of Bitcoin, and it seems like Nxt and AUR are the only top-10 alts whose price movements have become a bit detached from BTC. (Litecoin's brief spike was clearly due to talk of a big Chinese exchange being about to add LTC). Are Nxt's recent movements due entirely to the whales unloading a big pile, then the pile eventually getting all bought up? Or is something else/more going on? Other factors seem to be the imminent release of the AE and the new development of Nxt mining. Thoughts?

I've posted this before....

I think BTC will soon register as a cause of global warming the way its is soaking up the worlds energy supply for something that is a mathematical fiction and simply not needed.

Most crypto enthusiasts are sitting on mining H/W of some form and therefore tend to be enthusiastic about new coins they can rape mine with the H/W they can't use on other coins anymore.. hence the lack of

Putting aside distribution issues PoS seems to be more about technology, innovation and driving value through use - which is a lot harder but much healthier in the long term for everyone involved.

The dip - some FUD but more importantly NXT stakeholders improving distribution by selling....

The rise - My personal view I think NXT is breaking through in technology and innovation while others are just talking about it.... The first two of these are evident in this thread, the 3rd one, driving use, is harder but I'm sure as some of the innovations which are very close are delivered then we will see this happen.

EDIT: I think its this community that helps drive our independence from the bitcoin world...

[Eadeqa]

Guys in regards to Asset for Asset trading understand 2 important things:

1. Fees in NXT are required.
2. Further fees in NXT are required to create and execute an AT.

Also the idea of adding an alias to an Asset IMO is a *bad* one - you've just let the squatters/scammers back in who now look like they are more legit (because naive people are going to believe that Software.Microsoft really is Microsoft as that's how you've described it to them by calling it "branding").

Just "because you don't like non-unique names" is really not a good reason to *support* scammers (which is how it will be perceived when people work out "they were tricked").

There is already account ID that is unique. Let users do the research and force them to add the legitimate asset issuer to their trust list.  Then display only those assets to the user. What's wrong with this scheme? Can anyone explain? This will reduce (if not outright kill)  scam.

Unique name is really bad idea. If I issue "bitcoin" as an asset, then I am the only owner of that name for ever, even if I don't have any bitcoins.  No one is able to use that  name again. I am forever squatting on it. That sounds really bad.  


 

[Anon136]

Guys in regards to Asset for Asset trading understand 2 important things:

1. Fees in NXT are required.
2. Further fees in NXT are required to create and execute an AT.

Also the idea of adding an alias to an Asset IMO is a *bad* one - you've just let the squatters/scammers back in who now look like they are more legit (because naive people are going to believe that Software.Microsoft really is Microsoft as that's how you've described it to them by calling it "branding").

Just "because you don't like non-unique names" is really not a good reason to *support* scammers (which is how it will be perceived when people work out "they were tricked").

There is already account ID that is unique. Let users do the research and force them to add the legitimate asset issuer to their trust list.  Then display only those assets to the user. What's wrong with this scheme? Can anyone explain? This will reduce (if not outright kill)  scam.

Unique name is really bad idea. If I issue "bitcoin" as an asset, then I am the only owner of that name for ever, even if I don't have any bitcoins.  No one is able to use that  name again. I am forever squatting on it. That sounds really bad.  


 

+1. this in addition to a way to sort by total fees spent on trading a given asset scams will not be a big deal at all.

[CIYAM]

And before the defense that "it is only a unique suffix" comes up please consider the following "name pairs".

Crypto:BTC
Fiat:USD
Software:Microsoft
etc.

These names (or very similar) *will* appear (as scams) if we allow them to be "unique" (regardless of which part of the name is unique).

[allwelder]

All,

it's been a few weeks since there's been any meaningful discussion regarding Nxtopia. I'll drop an unofficial, informal non-announcement teaser (did I cover my ass enough?)

We've unanimously and enthusiastically selected a Community Manager. He has the bona fides.

The most important quality is that he's a listener. I've been on fidonet/the internet for about 22 years now, and he's the nicest, most even-handed and fair-minded individual I've met online. I can't imagine anyone else for the role; we think you'll agree.

This means we have some upcoming announcements, possibly a week out but hopefully sooner. Thanks!

wow +1

[allwelder]

James, I am not going to question or even comment further on any of your ideas.  It seems to me that every time I do, you take it as distracting  neanderthal personal attack and threaten to quit NXT development because both your work and your vision for NXT is so unappreciated.  This is never my intention.  I have only intended to initiate respectful, honest debate on critically important topics.

I do not believe it is appropriate that you have someone you apparently consider to be an ongoing adversary to serve as a treasurer for the funds you control.  Please identify whom you trust to serve in this role and upon their concurrence I will deliver to them passcodes to NXTcommunityfunds, NXTcashoperatingfund and NXTcashcompletionfund.

Best wishes to you and to NXT.

calm,please.
we are just talking the Nxt development.

[IveBeenBit]

Since James is on break from the forums, can I ask someone to give me a summary of the coin that shall not be named? I was away from the forums when the controversy surfaced. What sparked it, and what were the major arguments from both sides?

[CIYAM]

Since James is on break from the forums, can I ask someone to give me a summary of the coin that shall not be named? I was away from the forums when the controversy surfaced. What sparked it, and what were the major arguments from both sides?

There are summaries posted regularly on a separate website (just go back a few pages and you should be able to find where that is).

I think we are best not to "keep bringing back up each issue" every week or we just go round and round in circles (getting nowhere except "frustrated").

[landomata]

Let the market work.

Let people do business however THEY see fit.

Do not try to force people to use YOUR favored currency. That is behavior suited for governments.

NXT will succeed, IF we empower people to do business in THEIR preferred way.

+ Very well said (the whole post).  Trades can be denominated in any currency. BUT, if there is any attempt to force traders to use a particular currency/token, then it must be NXT and nothing else. In other words, free for all, or only NXT. I hope it will be implemented this way, provided there are no serious technical issues.

A decentralized, flexible trading platform with low fees, multisig gateways, plus special high end features using AT will make Nxt AE a class of its own!

This would be enormous....we must get the first mover advantage.

[evanxxx]

have we finished discussing the "Nxt only" thing on Nxt AE? (Sorry, I cannot follow every post right now)

I think it has been made very clear by some of the previous posts that we should not do the "Nxt only" thing
1. It would limit the max order subject to the market capitalization of Nxt
2. It would lead to a clone of Nxt without the "Nxt only" limitation. Think you are a trader, which one would you choose? I think a lot of people would go to the platform without any limitation.

We should make Nxt as free as possible, the freedom will gain Nxt a much more value in a long run. the limitation will harm Nxt. We should NEVER force our user to do something.

[IveBeenBit]

Since James is on break from the forums, can I ask someone to give me a summary of the coin that shall not be named? I was away from the forums when the controversy surfaced. What sparked it, and what were the major arguments from both sides?

There are summaries posted regularly on a separate website (just go back a few pages and you should be able to find where that is).

I think we are best not to "keep bringing back up each issue" every week or we just go round and round in circles (getting nowhere except "frustrated").

Fair enough, but I've read the last 15 pages or more. Can you at least clue me in to some search terms that I can use to narrow it down? 

[CryptKeeper]

Since James is on break from the forums, can I ask someone to give me a summary of the coin that shall not be named? I was away from the forums when the controversy surfaced. What sparked it, and what were the major arguments from both sides?

There are summaries posted regularly on a separate website (just go back a few pages and you should be able to find where that is).

I think we are best not to "keep bringing back up each issue" every week or we just go round and round in circles (getting nowhere except "frustrated").

Fair enough, but I've read the last 15 pages or more. Can you at least clue me in to some search terms that I can use to narrow it down? 

http://nxter.org/category/nxt-2/news/

[pandaisftw]

Guys in regards to Asset for Asset trading understand 2 important things:

1. Fees in NXT are required.
2. Further fees in NXT are required to create and execute an AT.

Also the idea of adding an alias to an Asset IMO is a *bad* one - you've just let the squatters/scammers back in who now look like they are more legit (because naive people are going to believe that Software.Microsoft really is Microsoft as that's how you've described it to them by calling it "branding").

Just "because you don't like non-unique names" is really not a good reason to *support* scammers (which is how it will be perceived when people work out "they were tricked").

The idea behind a unique "suffix" is to make it easier for the user to identify the *same* issuer, not for the user to blindly trust "Microsoft". I imagine if one day Microsoft ends up using NXT AE, they will find their alias squatted, so they'll simply make a new alias "MicrosoftAE" ie. something else. Then on their main website they will announce that is their NXT AE "brand". This is also why I proposed the <AliasToken> - the client would send a auth token request to the URL provided by the issuer, in this case: www.microsoft.com. Then it will display to the user: "This token is verified by the issuer for the site: www.microsoft.com. If the URL is incorrect, the user can see the wrong URL. The chance of being scammed then becomes the same as a user buying from a phony website.

On-top of all this, like Wesleyh mentioned, there could be a rating service provider, which clients could interface with and receive a "trust index" to increase users trust in assets. If this happens, yes, I agree that the unique "branding" in the AE can be removed and let these service providers provide the client the correct names for issuer accounts. There is a trade-off however, this list becomes more centralized (better if we had multiple service providers confirming this information) but that's the price you pay for trust. (There is no trust in decentralization) However, these service providers will have very little incentive to scam their customers, since they would then lose their entire client-base on both sides, so it is not so bad.

Another option is to let users have a list of trusted issuers. However, they would still have to confirm manually, this may potentially turn off some newer users.

My ideal scenarios, in order:

1) If service providers are available (and a valid option), use this method. Otherwise
2) If there are no service providers providing "trust lists", then use "branding". However, if this is an issue, then
3) Make users manually name each asset issuer, that way the user is *forced* to research each issuer. Trade off is that this list is stored locally unless the user sets up a cloud account and keeps it synced.

(If you noticed, this is basically in the order of easiest to hardest for users)

IMO, chance of users getting scammed by fake "Microsoft" would be the same chance as me saying I'm Barrack Obama and you believing it. You would only believe me after I provided the correct information and you confirmed it personally.

Hey, new version at http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/
...

Great!

Hey, new version at http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/

[...]

Great work.

One word about more code in common: run for it. I think JL is open for that.

About the non-uniqueness of assets. Well, nice idea of having a branding via an alias, but I still do not like it. It is just a feeling.

Maybe, somebody could give me a good feeling of non-unique asset names.

As others have mentioned, the "original" asset name may not be the "real" asset, so the original name has no real meaning. Also, it solves the issue of different issuers selling the same product. Because their alias is unique, no one can fake their brand.

Pandaisftw

The problem with the alias thing is that it's a hack, I show this as a proof of concept and hope that we can get another field added to the asset exchange table format. (unique suffix). That's the only purpose that the alias serves, and could just as well be integrated in the asset table itself.

Same for tagging, which should follow a similar approach to the DGS.

I tried to provide a way without modifying the core. If the core is changed, then yes, we won't need aliases or tags in the description.

Pandaistw

[Fatih87SK]

Since James is on break from the forums, can I ask someone to give me a summary of the coin that shall not be named? I was away from the forums when the controversy surfaced. What sparked it, and what were the major arguments from both sides?

There are summaries posted regularly on a separate website (just go back a few pages and you should be able to find where that is).

I think we are best not to "keep bringing back up each issue" every week or we just go round and round in circles (getting nowhere except "frustrated").

Fair enough, but I've read the last 15 pages or more. Can you at least clue me in to some search terms that I can use to narrow it down? 

I've sended you a PM.

[2gen]

Speaking pure as trader here: I don’t have tried the software and don’t even bother as a trader.
I have observed and tried to trade NXT, but I was soon dumped out by whales.
There is no way NXT is going to succeed as coin in the trader community and if you like it or not that is where the value will be measured and eventually its success.
I cannot understand how people can be so stupid and Saw off the Branch they are sitting on. Without the dumping and little buy support nxt would be on the radars and would trade around 1$, whales and fools decided other ways.
Whales and dumpers don’t give nxt a single chance to breath and survive. Price will NEVER rice above 0.00008 again.
This was a short but very disappointing experience as a trader.
So goodbye and good luck