NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Come-from-Beyond]

So now that the "fatal flaw" has been discovered I think it is time that we realised that we really need to "pull together" or risk losing to a "clone".

I fear we're going to start seeing the "C" word a lot now. And not in a good competitive way. More like a "have a look at the craptacular list on coinmarketcap" kind of way.

If I am not mistaken...  injected fatal flaw != Nxt clone trap...  right C-f-B?    

No, that was one of the traps for lazy cloners.

[Anon136]

I've been thinking about it more and im starting to understand your position better ciyam.

Its not that the reputation of nxt would be hurt per say but rather that it would create a situation where the reputation of any one who wanted to bootstrap a project would be hurt by the fact that they decided to issue it on nxt. There would be so many scams on nxt that people would see a new offering on bitcointalk and as soon as soon as they saw "nxt" they would think "oh its another scam, moving on". And so then legit people would chose to put their offerings on counterparty or mastercoin instead just for the sake of protecting THEIR reputation. Thus creating a feedback loop where our assets had an even higher scam to legit ratio.

[CIYAM]

I've been thinking about it more and im starting better understand your position ciyam.

Yes - now you are seeing it - we have *real* competition who are courting "big business".

If we want to "thumb our noses" then we will "pay the penalty" of doing that.

It's up to the community how it "wants to be perceived".

[Jerical13]

Yes, but you only have to pay to incorporate one time. This 1000 NXT fee would be charged for every asset. Maybe Alias registration fees should be higher. Alias registration is more in line with incorporation.

This makes no sense - each Asset *is* a new listing so it is nothing to do with "one time".

That is what I mean. You compared registering an asset with incorporation..... some thing about the fee for registering an asset being cheaper to incorporate in most countries..... My response points out the fact that asset registration will require multiple fees and that incorporation is a one time fee.... so your analogy to the registration fee being similar to an incorporation fee is not a fair comparison.

It would be more analogous to relate alias registration fees with incorporation fees, as they are both one time fees.

[Anon136]

I've been thinking about it more and im starting better understand your position ciyam.

Yes - now you are seeing it - we have *real* competition who are courting "big business".

If we want to "thumb our noses" then we will "pay the penalty" of doing that.

It's up to the community how it "wants to be perceived".

im starting to like the idea of gradually lowering the price down to market rates. in light of the fact that my arguments were good and right (atleast im pretty sure they were) i think market rates should be the ultimate goal. just maybe not immediately.

[Eadeqa]

So frustrating that some of these other guys cant see what an elegant solution this is to an age old problem.

Indeed - also practically speaking the "list of Assets" will end up being huge (so you are not likely to be searching for an Asset by scrolling through a list).

Yes, this is a good point. If the list of assets goes into hundreds of thousands, who will care about "names" anyway?. It will be impossible to display that many names in the client. If the user is shown only the assets whose issuer they added to the trust list, that will make the list clean and manageable.  

[bitcoinpaul]

im starting to like the idea of gradually lowering the price down to market rates. in light of the fact that my arguments were good and right (atleast im pretty sure they were) i think market rates should be the ultimate goal. just maybe not immediately.

+1

[Eadeqa]

Nxt is in dared need of a 100% trust forum. Im wondering how long it will take until we get one. I believe community fund should fund a forum to get thing structure a bit. It good to be decentralized, but not desorganized.

I'm setting one up now and if opticalcarrier agrees it can be the new forums.nxtcrypto.org:

http://107.170.117.237

Great job.

Is nxt.org owner still asking for a million nxt?

That should be the default URL  (but definitely not for a million nxt).

[Mario123]

forums.mynxt.org

[Eadeqa]

Nxt is in dared need of a 100% trust forum. Im wondering how long it will take until we get one. I believe community fund should fund a forum to get thing structure a bit. It good to be decentralized, but not desorganized.

I'm setting one up now and if opticalcarrier agrees it can be the new forums.nxtcrypto.org:

http://107.170.117.237

Nice it look like bitcointalk!

EDIT: @wesley, make sure there is two admins, to avoid the case that Nxt have with nxtcrypto at the moment.
[/quote]

Why just two? We can can have perhaps 6 admins (or moderators) that are  well known

[Sebastien256]

Nxt is in dared need of a 100% trust forum. Im wondering how long it will take until we get one. I believe community fund should fund a forum to get thing structure a bit. It good to be decentralized, but not desorganized.

I'm setting one up now and if opticalcarrier agrees it can be the new forums.nxtcrypto.org:

http://107.170.117.237

Nice it look like bitcointalk!

EDIT: @wesley, make sure there is two admins, to avoid the case that Nxt have with nxtcrypto at the moment.

Why just two? We can can have perhaps 6 admins (or moderators) that are  well known
[/quote]

Forgot to add, "at least"

[Eadeqa]

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?

Yes, the logic behind 1000 nxt was to discourage scamers from squatting on names. If the names are not unique, the fees should be dropped.

Besides, if I have something that is worth $5. 1000 nxt fees ($40) is 8 times higher than my asset value.

[Mario123]

Using AE for a 5$ product? Am I missing something here?

Mario

[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?

Yes, the logic behind 1000 nxt was to discourage scamers from squatting on names. If the names are not unique, the fees should be dropped.

Besides, if I have something that is worth $5. 1000 nxt fees ($40) is 8 times higher than my asset value.

tell me what you think of this argument

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5842937#msg5842937

[Eadeqa]

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.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital goods" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40 to issue as an asset, the seller needs to sell  8 copies to just make it even

This is not going to work.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much.

[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.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell  8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.  

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

[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?

Yes, the logic behind 1000 nxt was to discourage scamers from squatting on names. If the names are not unique, the fees should be dropped.

Besides, if I have something that is worth $5. 1000 nxt fees ($40) is 8 times higher than my asset value.

tell me what you think of this argument

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.msg5842937#msg5842937

Hey guy, go try the new forum and discuss the Asset exchange fee issue there:
http://107.170.117.237/index.php/topic,16.0.html

[wesleyh]

Nxt is in dared need of a 100% trust forum. Im wondering how long it will take until we get one. I believe community fund should fund a forum to get thing structure a bit. It good to be decentralized, but not desorganized.

I'm setting one up now and if opticalcarrier agrees it can be the new forums.nxtcrypto.org:

http://107.170.117.237

Nice it look like bitcointalk!

EDIT: @wesley, make sure there is two admins, to avoid the case that Nxt have with nxtcrypto at the moment.

Why just two? We can can have perhaps 6 admins (or moderators) that are  well known

Forgot to add, "at least"
[/quote]

Let's make everyone an admin   but no there will be at least 3 or more admins (maybe even 6), and of course moderators as well.

[Eadeqa]

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.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell  8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.  

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So that part is totally new code that will become part of NRS?

[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.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell  8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.  

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So it's totally new code that will become part of NRS?

Yes.