NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[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..

[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)