NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Come-from-Beyond]

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

Emule, did u forget ur main account password?

[achimsmile]

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

Yeah the rise from 0.000042 to 0.000079 was really disappointing.

My Nxt gained almost 100% price value. This makes me as a trader sad  

[zorke]

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

What you missed is that this is not a pump and dump coin. For a quick buck (or quick loss) you need to go and trade AUR, MAX, SPA and others, like you have been doing so far, I am sure.

NXT is a real and honest try to change the money world. We don't need pump and dump people like you around us.

Good luck with you further trading of anything other than NXT.

[btc2nxt]

Nxt is a platform

non-unique asset names  are for decentralised platform.

but  there are half situation needing centralised platform.

Can we make a compromise.

points(asset) on nxt platform

Many bbs websites have their points system. Almost of these points are worthless, members only use them to download resources or ask for help. If we build a uique worldwide member points system on nxt(assetname= points), these worthless points would have a price. Because the points have value, many members would like to earn more, like answering question, uploading things.

Not only in the internet, we can use points in daily life, e.g.  after settling a hotel bill or restaraunt bill, you get 10 points. Maybe you use these points to pay the bill too.

But with no-unique asset name, every company can issue a asset of points, so we could not set up a worldwide points system. Members will have different asset of different company or website. Although these points have value just like altcoin, i think these value would be very very small.

--------
about :www.points.com

Starting in 2000, Points.com has worked towards the goal of making it easier to be a member of multiple rewards programs.   Since then, we've grown into a community with millions of members and have introduced unique ways to manage and move miles and points that have changed the way people use, manage, and value the loyalty programs in their wallet.   We make it easier to earn, move, give or redeem your points, miles and rewards from many of the world's leading programs.

about mypoints.com

Since when does shopping pay you back? MyPoints members earn Points every time they shop from our network of top retailers. Join MyPoints to receive personalized deals every day, and reward yourself with gift cards, cash back or travel miles
--------

[CIYAM]

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".

Once again - this is just not going to work - in the distopian world that this would be creating every single "well known name" is a *scam* and "every unknown name" is something you will have to then look up in order to work out if it is not a scam.

Understand that by *simply not having unique names* the motivation *to scam* has been greatly reduced.

If I see someone creating an Asset called CIYAM - then I create an Asset called CIYAM. Basically if the users get "scared off" all that has happened is that *both* issuers have thrown away 1K NXT (but at least confused Joe didn't bother buying shares in either).

There is simply no "good way to get unique names" (and in fact I think the "aliases" should have been non-unique also as now they are basically "useless tokens" a bit like all those "first bits" addresses that were obtained for 1 satoshi each years ago).

In many countries they have IP *rights* to names so the more Nxt tries to favour this "squatting" and "scamming" the more likely it is going to be *targeted* by authorities.

Other ways of trying to work out trust will be implemented down the track - but if you *allow unique* now then you won't be able to "take it away from the squatters later" (they'll fight you tooth and nail about it).

[wesleyh]

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".

Once again - this is just not going to work - in the distopian world that this would be creating every single "well known name" is a *scam* and "every unknown name" is something you will have to then look up in order to work out if it is not a scam.

Understand that by *simply not having unique names* the motivation *to scam* has been greatly reduced.

If I see someone creating an Asset called CIYAM - then I create an Asset called CIYAM. Basically if the users get "scared off" all that has happened is that *both* issuers have thrown away 1K NXT (but at least confused Joe didn't bother buying shares in either).

There is simply no "good way to get unique names" (and in fact I think the "aliases" should have been non-unique also as now they are basically "useless tokens").

In many countries they have IP *rights* to names so the more Nxt tries to favour this "squatting" and "scamming" the more likely it is going to be *targeted* by authorities.

Other ways of trying to work out trust will be implemented down the track - but if you *allow unique* now then you won't be able to "take it away from the squatters later" (they'll fight you tooth and nail about it).

Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he uses this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

[CIYAM]

Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he sues this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

This isn't in existence (such service providers) and "blacklists" are *never a good way to go*.

Please stop trying to push for this "unique name" and let other methods be developed as we progress.

Note that if every 2nd generation platform does the same thing (allow unique names) then you'll never be able to trust "the same name" on any 2 platforms (so all such *brands* have become *useless*).

[CIYAM]

Do you mean I should forget about selling these for 1M NXT some day?!?!?    

Yup - it isn't going to be "possible" to fight that battle - is it (which is why we shouldn't do it again with Assets or tie Assets to those).

[wesleyh]

Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he sues this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

This isn't in existence (such service providers) and "blacklists" are *never a good way to go*.

Please stop trying to push for this "unique name" and let other methods be developed as we progress.

Note that if every 2nd generation platform does the same thing (allow unique names) then you'll never be able to trust "the same name" on any 2 platforms (so all such *brands* have become *useless*).

I'm not pushing, I'm showing a proposal. Btw, you can't stop clients from doing this (though if the people do not want this feature, I will remove it). I want more discussion on this topic since we didn't have a lot when non-unique names were decided. People need to be able to brand their assets.

Also, users can decide whether or not to use a service provider. Yes, service providers don't exist today, since asset exchange isn't yet launched..

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

[alxx77]

Please some test NXT on acct 6200446314635151074  

***

Concerning asset naming, it is clear that most important thing will be rating of the issuer... exactly same as it is on Ebay... everybody can name its asset TabletPC but you MUST check seller's rating before buying anything, or you could end up in a problem...

And there is no way around that...

[wesleyh]

Please some test NXT on acct 6200446314635151074  

***

Concerning asset naming, it is clear that most important thing will be rating of the issuer... exactly same as it is on Ebay... everybody can name its asset TabletPC but you MUST check seller's rating before buying anything, or you could end up in a problem...

And there is no way around that...

Rating can be gamed.

[ChuckOne]

There is simply no "good way to get unique names" (and in fact I think the "aliases" should have been non-unique also as now they are basically "useless tokens" a bit like all those "first bits" addresses that were obtained for 1 satoshi each years ago).

Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.

For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.

Regarding squatting, we should also rise the price for aliases. Another thing, I would like to see is trading aliases. So, the price will handle that "useless tokens" and eventually make them useful again.

[wesleyh]

There is simply no "good way to get unique names" (and in fact I think the "aliases" should have been non-unique also as now they are basically "useless tokens" a bit like all those "first bits" addresses that were obtained for 1 satoshi each years ago).

Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.

For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.

Regarding squatting, we should also rise the price for aliases. Another thing, I would like to see is trading aliases. So, the price will handle that "useless tokens" and eventually make them useful again.

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

[CIYAM]

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

Because blacklists (and whitelists) will inevitably be politicized.

Trust is one of the most "difficult problems to solve" (as Mike Hearn if you don't believe me) and instead we seem to just "throw up ideas" and think we have a "good solution".

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

[wesleyh]

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

Because blacklists (and whitelists) will inevitably be politicized.

Trust is one of the most "difficult problems to solve" (as Mike Hearn if you don't believe me) and instead we seem to just "throw up ideas" and think we have a "good solution".

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

There will be more than 1 service provider, feel free to choose whichever you want. Blacklist reason should be clearly stated so that it cannot be "politicized". Service provider should have no incentive to do this anyway.

[Eadeqa]

\Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he uses this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

That's relying on centralized third party? What if govt charges that third-party service provider because they didn't black list pot sellers, for example?

Why not let users do his own research and force them to add trusted account to his list?  No third party involved.

[CIYAM]

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

Exactly - I know you are wanting.

And this is what JL has already said *no* to by changing Asset names to be non-unique.

[wesleyh]

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

Exactly - I know you are wanting.

And this is what JL has already said *no* to by changing Asset names to be non-unique.

Actually no, I've asked him about this change, he is considering it but doesn't have a lot of time at the moment.

Again, asset names (prefixes) are non-unique.

[Eadeqa]

There is simply no "good way to get unique names" (and in fact I think the "aliases" should have been non-unique also as now they are basically "useless tokens" a bit like all those "first bits" addresses that were obtained for 1 satoshi each years ago).

Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.

For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.

Regarding squatting, we should also rise the price for aliases. Another thing, I would like to see is trading aliases. So, the price will handle that "useless tokens" and eventually make them useful again.

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

There is already another field. It's called account ID

[wesleyh]

There is simply no "good way to get unique names" (and in fact I think the "aliases" should have been non-unique also as now they are basically "useless tokens" a bit like all those "first bits" addresses that were obtained for 1 satoshi each years ago).

Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.

For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.

Regarding squatting, we should also rise the price for aliases. Another thing, I would like to see is trading aliases. So, the price will handle that "useless tokens" and eventually make them useful again.

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

There is already another field. It's called account ID

Unique, AND brandable, account id is not.