NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[CIYAM]

this really is a much better solution than "unique-names" (a bad description since we have unique names with both proposals)

Yes - with this approach you will end up seeing the name Microsoft rather than Microsoft2014 or whatever.

[CIYAM]

no, non-unique names is a trolling thing, that make as go in yet another circle - as perfectly shown by wesleyh.  Bravo, wesleyh!

I only have 1 forum member on ignore - I think that might be about to increase to 2.

[Anon136]

this really is a much better solution than "unique-names" (a bad description since we have unique names with both proposals)

Yes - with this approach you will end up seeing the name Microsoft rather than Microsoft2014 or whatever.

Yep. and with something SUPER well established (like anything like microsoft shares would quickly become) than the client can literally just filter everything else out so that you dont even see it unless you go into your options menu and uncheck some option.

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

[CIYAM]

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).

[BrianNowhere]

Then Microsoft (or whoever) could market themselves in Nxt by having one line blurb on their website that says "Add Microsoft to Nxt by trusting 723549872359875"

Exactly - also as I stated their website can make it very easy for you to put the "scary number" onto your clipboard.

The could probably also make this a clickable link that opens the "add trusted issuer" page in Nxt with the fields already filled out if it's programed to receive GET variables.

[Sebastien256]

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).

To find specific assset, people will search in AE for unique asset id that was given on a genuine website. No need for unique prefix or suffix name imo in AE. That is a simple solution.

[Anon136]

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).

Its funny this argument along the lines of "what is joe sixpack going to do when he wants to buy microsoft stock, how is it going to be so easy for him that he doesnt even have to reference a simple website". Like there is some sort of built in assumption that people are supposed to be able to buy an asset with out doing ANY research on it first.

[CIYAM]

Its funny this argument along the lines of "what is joe sixpack going to do when he wants to buy microsoft stock". Like there is some sort of built in assumption that people are supposed to be able to buy an asset with out doing ANY research on it first.

Exactly - I have been doing stocks since before you could do that electronically (so literally calling up brokers and filling out forms and keeping "certificates").

Now it is too much to ask someone to go to an official website and put something on the clipboard (reminds me of a film where everyone in the future had an IQ <80 or so)?

[Sebastien256]

Its funny this argument along the lines of "what is joe sixpack going to do when he wants to buy microsoft stock, how is it going to be so easy for him that he doesnt even have to reference a simple website". Like there is some sort of built in assumption that people are supposed to be able to buy an asset with out doing ANY research on it first.

haha, nicely said, yeah, If I would buy something of value like stock, I would do my research.

[brooklynbtc]

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).

To find specific assset, people will search in AE for unique asset id that was given on a genuine website. No need for unique prefix or suffix name imo in AE. That is a simple solution.

agree, Outside, off chain data will exist, and will be very important. how else will you know reports, prospectus, and all the things that will help you make a decision towards buying.

people don't just walk into the NASDAQ and say "here's $5000, gimme some LBC, oops was it BCL?"

the AE is for INVESTMENTS that we decide to invest in. Interesting word. Invest. Investigate.

And once we have done DD and know what we want to buy, we go to the AE and see MSFT and buy it. I imagine the AT for MSFT will be set up by the issuer? and will handle ALL the MSFT trades EVER? with 0%?
If I want to resell the MSFT i purchased, I will send it back to Microsoft and get whatever I asked, from ANOTHER user, not from the issuer.

Right?

[CIYAM]

I imagine the AT for MSFT will be set up by the issuer? and will handle ALL the MSFT trades EVER? with 0%?

Now that is a far more interesting question - and yes I have been giving it some thought. If we are wanting to be able to really create a DAC then we are going to have to consider about exactly how we should treat its Assets.

The issue gets more complicated if you consider that there might be "rules" (such as for buy-backs) that means that an AT may have to "restrict" trade quantities. There could even be a requirement for "votes" by other shareholders.

[brooklynbtc]

I imagine the AT for MSFT will be set up by the issuer? and will handle ALL the MSFT trades EVER? with 0%?

Now that is a far more interesting question - and yes I have been giving it some thought. If we are wanting to be able to really create a DAC then we are going to have to consider about exactly how we should treat its Assets.

The issue gets more complicated if you consider that there might be "rules" (such as for buy-backs) that means that an AT may have to "restrict" trade quantities. There could even be a requirement for "votes" by other shareholders.

If the AT was *set it and forget it*, then the issuer could not affect the transactions in any way (ie put weight on their own)

[brooklynbtc]

issuer should be able BUY their own shares of course, but at free market through AT


the more i think the more serious it could be to let the ISSUER control the transactions with any influence

[Anon136]

I imagine the AT for MSFT will be set up by the issuer? and will handle ALL the MSFT trades EVER? with 0%?

Now that is a far more interesting question - and yes I have been giving it some thought. If we are wanting to be able to really create a DAC then we are going to have to consider about exactly how we should treat its Assets.

The issue gets more complicated if you consider that there might be "rules" (such as for buy-backs) that means that an AT may have to "restrict" trade quantities. There could even be a requirement for "votes" by other shareholders.

if we are going to do real dac's than my contention would be that we probably need to get parallel chains sorted out first. these things would be real block hogs. no room for any significant number of them on any 1 chain.

[CIYAM]

Agreed that the creation of a DAC is not going to be anything as simple as creating a "lottery" or a "savings account" or "an escrow".

It will probably take several months of design and construction (no wonder Ethereum aren't *rushing things*).

[BrianNowhere]

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).

Its funny this argument along the lines of "what is joe sixpack going to do when he wants to buy microsoft stock, how is it going to be so easy for him that he doesnt even have to reference a simple website". Like there is some sort of built in assumption that people are supposed to be able to buy an asset with out doing ANY research on it first.

I think that is true when it comes to Stocks, if corporations buy into the idea that is. With cryptos, which I assume will also be traded via Nxt, you do get somewhat of a joe sixpack constituency who can regularly be found crying in forums about how they lost money because they kept their private keys in their hotmail account or whatever.

However, you will never be able to completely protect these people. Even if you have "trusted issuers" and companies promoting Nxt addresses and Asset ID's via their websites, they will still be susceptible to phishing scams.

There's always going to be an element of social darwinism taking place when it comes to this technology. As always, programmers should always be aiming to keep the IQ minimum to as close to a two digit number as possible.

[Jerical13]

James,

I think you aren't taking into account that whoever has the NXT doesn't want USD's. If I had a large vestment in NXT (which unfortunately I don't), why would I want to trade it for an inferior currency like USD's? To get me to come of off my NXT you are going to pay MY price. If any other currency other than the NXT currency is given influence like this in the NXT ecosystem, it would automatically denominate the NXT currency to a point of weakness in terms of value for negotiation and purchasing power. NXT currency should be the dominant currency in the NXT ecosystem (imo).

USD is currently the world currency. Everyone know it. That's why people want to use it, even if it's "inferior".

NXT will be the dominant currency in the NXT ecosystem no matter what, because that's just logic. But we need to let people make their choice and don't enforce our currency.

If there is a currency that surpasses the capacity of the NXT currency that is allowed to trade in this manor, it would be the dominant currency of the network for the same reason there is being thoughts entertained about allowing such trades; and the growth of the capacity for the NXT currency would suffer. It would be a bad thing to handicap the NXT currency, and to let it suffer this loss of  growth capacity in order to undercut the competition to NXT.

People would have a choice. They could trade on another network, our not trade. The point of establishing NXT is to provide a decentralized platform for commerce. If you let Fiat currencies have more purchasing power on the NXT network than the actual NXT currency, then you concede the network to that currency. The point of NXT is to get away from Centralization. If people feel that trading in USD's is better than NXT currency, they already have outlets to do so.

If the NXT network is strong, and the currency develops confidence, then people will use the network. We can't just give up the network to outside currencies just to get activity on the network. Short term would be good, but in the long term it would be better to stand by the NXT currency. If people want to exchange USD's let them do it somewhere else; they have that choice already. It may take time to grow the capacity of NXT, but that is the only way that I see to keep the NXT network as the NXT network, other than increasing fees, which would also be bad. (IMO)

[brooklynbtc]

how do we take an existing AT, with shares sold and convert it to a DAC?

I guess a DAC has more voting control and so on, and the decentralized part could be a centralized decision, ie stakeholders in the company have a centralized vote to become DAC

[barbierir]

Then Microsoft (or whoever) could market themselves in Nxt by having one line blurb on their website that says "Add Microsoft to Nxt by trusting 723549872359875"

Exactly - also as I stated their website can make it very easy for you to put the "scary number" onto your clipboard.

+1

[CIYAM]

There's always going to be an element of social darwinism taking place when it comes to this technology. As always, programmers should always be aiming to keep the IQ minimum to as close to a two digit number as possible.

True - but what we are proposing is no more of an issue than people doing "the same check" for a Bitcoin address before sending off funds.