NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Come-from-Beyond]

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?"

I'm adding it right now.

[CIYAM]

think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it.

I read it - but I think that we need to progress "step by step" rather than "jumping into the deep end".

We may well end up with 1000's of "Junk Assets" eventually but does it look good to "start with that"?

[Anon136]

think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it.

I read it - but I think that we need to progress "step by step" rather than "jumping into the deep end".

We may well end up with 1000's of "Junk Assets" eventually but does it look good to "start with that"?

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

[Come-from-Beyond]

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.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

[CIYAM]

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

I think the cost is the "image" of the project - if we are wanting to court more business types then fees such as 1000 NXT are not going to frighten them at all.

But kids having fun are going to create Assets left, right and center if we make it the same price as creating an AM.

[Anon136]

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.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.

[Sebastien256]

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.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

imo, I don't really care the price of issuing asset. It could be lower. Just need to define what is low. 1000nxt seem low to me, but if poeple think it is high, maybe there is a reason. It true that since name is not unique, price could be cheap.

[CIYAM]

imo, I don't really care the price of issuing asset. It could be lower. Just need to define what is low. 1000nxt seem low to me, but if poeple think it is high, maybe there is a reason. It true that since name is not unique, price could be cheap.

With the name not being unique anyway - it is easy enough to lower fees as we go.

I am not against "low fees" but would rather that *at first* we have a less *spam* basically.

(just to paint a nicer picture before we let every kid in the world scribble on it)

[wesleyh]

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.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.

Doesn't make sense to me. Incorporate a lemon stand? Lol. OK the second idea is better, but for buying a shovel you don't need to issue an asset.. what would the return on investment be of that?.. I guess someone could create a Nxt microloan service instead.

[Conurtrol]

Is a two tiered system possible? I want to sell 100 lollipops for 50 cents each. Nxt fee = 1. I want to sell 100 ssd's for $250 each. Nxt fee =1000

[Anon136]

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

I think the cost is the "image" of the project - if we are wanting to court more business types then fees such as 1000 NXT are not going to frighten them at all.

But kids having fun are going to create Assets left, right and center if we make it the same price as creating an AM.

the image is scammie sure, but it will also have positive assets. We will also have the image of openness and accessibility to everyone. the opportunity for someone to build him self up from almost nothing. someone with almost NO assets to his name can bootstrap his way to success. its easy to think of ourselves in isolation in the west (or i guess the east in your case) but there are a lot of people out there with a lot of potential to whom 1000 nxt may as well be a million. again if the advantage was great enough than i would say "yea ok cut those people out" but it just isnt. its a tiny advantage we are talking about here. fewer assets listed in the exchange, but so what you can filter and you will have to consult outside sources anyway before you make a purchase whether there are 2 microsofts or 10,000 microsofts.

[Sebastien256]

imo, I don't really care the price of issuing asset. It could be lower. Just need to define what is low. 1000nxt seem low to me, but if poeple think it is high, maybe there is a reason. It true that since name is not unique, price could be cheap.

With the name not being unique anyway - it is easy enough to lower fees as we go.

I am not against "low fees" but would rather that *at first* we have a less *spam* basically.

(just to paint a nicer picture before we let every kid in the world scribble on it)

I agree that this is not an urgent matter. This can be postpone imo.

[Come-from-Beyond]

think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.

I wasn't able to read the end of ur post coz of tears in my eyes.

I'm working on market-set fees code.

[Sebastien256]

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

I think the cost is the "image" of the project - if we are wanting to court more business types then fees such as 1000 NXT are not going to frighten them at all.

But kids having fun are going to create Assets left, right and center if we make it the same price as creating an AM.

the image is scammie sure, but it will also have positive assets. We will also have the image of openness and accessibility to everyone. the opportunity for someone to build him self up from almost nothing. someone with almost NO assets to his name can bootstrap his way to success. its easy to think of ourselves in isolation in the west (or i guess the east in your case) but there are a lot of people out there with a lot of potential to whom 1000 nxt may as well be a million. again if the advantage was great enough than i would say "yea ok cut those people out" but it just isnt. its a tiny advantage we are talking about here. fewer assets listed in the exchange, but so what you can filter and you will have to consult outside sources anyway before you make a purchase whether there are 2 microsofts or 10,000 microsofts.

Anon, can you give example where issue cheap asset is need (less than an 100$)?

EDIT: Ok I miss read, I agree, that for some poeple in less rich country 100$ may be a lot. Fee should be lower. However, im not sure if this is urgent matter.

[CIYAM]

We will also have the image of openness and accessibility to everyone. the opportunity for someone to build him self up from almost nothing. someone with almost NO assets to his name can bootstrap his way to success.

I get that - but do we *need* to *start with that* as most people haven't even *heard* of Nxt.

Anyway - I'll not try and stop the fees being lowered but just think me might want to do that "in steps" (as it gets wider adoption).

[Anon136]

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.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.

Doesn't make sense to me. Incorporate a lemon stand? Lol. OK the second idea is better, but for buying a shovel you don't need to issue an asset.. what would the return on investment be of that?.. I guess someone could create a Nxt microloan service instead.

why on earth shouldn't a little girl be able to incorporate a lemonade stand for all of the exact same reasons that incorporating anything else benefits everyone else? maybe she has entrepreneurial aspirations and ideas but no assets. maybe she has the assets and the idea but wishes to defer to the wisdom of the market to determine whether its a good idea or not.

[Anon136]

think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.

I wasn't able to read the end of ur post coz of tears in my eyes.

I'm working on market-set fees code.

 

either our arguments non unique asset names are right in which they apply equally well to 0.1 fee asset issuance. or they arnt in which case we have other problems to worry about.

again i want to reiterate that im not arguing that there wont be a legitimate cost to this. it will have a cost. just not one that outweighs the benefits.

[CIYAM]

again i want to reiterate that im not arguing that there wont be a legitimate cost to this. it will have a cost. just not one that outweighs the benefits.

I think the "lemon stand" is maybe going a little far isn't it (had to dry my tears also)?

I agree that "market forces" though should determine fees in the end - so even if we start with high fees we should be looking to lower them to the level that works most efficiently.

[Anon136]

again i want to reiterate that im not arguing that there wont be a legitimate cost to this. it will have a cost. just not one that outweighs the benefits.

I think the "lemon stand" is maybe going a little far isn't it (had to dry my tears also)?

I agree that "market forces" though should determine fees in the end - so even if we start with high fees we should be looking to lower them to the level that works most efficiently.

i think its a little generic but the general point is that there world is filled with people who have unrealized potential because they have no access to capital. children with entrepreneurial aspirations are but one example.

[CIYAM]

i think its a little generic but the general point is that there world is filled with people who have unrealized potential because they have no access to capital. children with entrepreneurial aspirations are but one example.

True - but I see even people in very poor areas *using mobile phones* (hard to find any Chinese person that doesn't have a *smart phone* these days).

So creating a "company" for the price of "sending an SMS" seems a little "too cheap to me".