NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[mthcl]

There is no reward - the wrongdoer is simply forbidden to forge for quite some time (this I mean by "penalty"), and the procedure is repeated (immediately or after a few blocks).

Reward == to be able to forge a lot of blocks in a row.

If the math model works (=enough randomization), this won't happen anyway, for probabilistic reasons. Then, if the bad guy decides to cheat this randomization procedure, for each attempt to do so he would have to sacrifice one of his top accounts, while gaining absolutely nothing for it (because the procedure will be repeated soon, and one of his top accounts is unable to forge).

[brooklynbtc]

meanwhile price nxt: 

youre right. that is impressive

[bombur55]

Hi,
can I have some testnxt?

12363381624583325837

Thanks

[CIYAM]

12363381624583325837

Sent you 10K.

[bitcoinpaul]

Wait, I was an hour away and we have a new board and this thread is finished soon? This is sad. And great. And sad.

[Sebastien256]

Wait, I was an hour away and we have a new board and this thread is finished soon? This is sad. And great. And sad.

This thread is not finish soon, just move issue that always comming back. Like asset name issue. You can still brainstorm here, but when discussion is mix in 2500 pages, eventually, it is lost. And people is keeped in a infinite loop  .

[Come-from-Beyond]

meanwhile price nxt: 

Next time u should be more clear. I googled ur pic trying to get what u meant and found this:

[Anon136]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

[Come-from-Beyond]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

[Sebastien256]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

Good idea, especially at start.

[bitcoinpaul]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

+1

[Voluntold]

Anyone notice the bottom of Faircoin's about page?...  

http://fair-coin.info/#about

Edit: Faircoin: Your slander is bad, and you should feel bad.

[IveBeenBit]

Is there a reason we can't just have transaction fees market-driven? Let the forgers decide what fee is acceptable. Why impose "price controls?"

[Anon136]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

[CIYAM]

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

Agreed - to incorporate in most countries is nowhere near as cheap as 1000 NXT.

[CIYAM]

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

It is easy enough to "lower the fees" once we have got things started and have seen how that has "panned out".

If it wasn't for OTC then pirateat40 would never have got so far (if it had cost say 1000 BTC back then he wouldn't have been able to even start his ponzi - when he started it BTC was around 2 USD from memory).

[wesleyh]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

What's the benefit of allowing people to issue assets for pennies? Nothing I can think of, except allowing more and more junk assets that are not backed by anything and are only meant to confuse / scam users.

[Sebastien256]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

I don't think 1000nxt is very limiting right now to create asset. Maybe in the near future.

[Anon136]

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

Agreed - to incorporate in most countries is nowhere near as cheap as 1000 NXT.

think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it. you are telling little girls that they can not incorporate their dreams of opening a lemonade stand. which is worth it if necessary to stop scams but it isn't anymore. with these recent changes the advantages to barrier to entry no longer outweigh the costs.

[brooklynbtc]

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

I don't think 1000nxt is very limiting right now to create asset. Maybe in the near future.

its limiting in the fact that few people are going to buy very many with no use.

If dot coms were $.01 we'd just buy them all day long as jokes. Even at $4 USD people will limit AEs to real things.

HEck, I feel like im wasting money to create a TESTNxt AE just as a joke..