NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Damelon]

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

Why do we need another forum exactly?  

http://www.nextcoin.org is very popular and http://forums.nxtcrypto.org is also fine.

And if we get new forum, could we please use a Next Generation design?   Something like this https://ripple.com/forum (sorry for using Ripple as example).

Nxtcrypto is practically defunct because there is no admin, so we can't change it anymore. opticalcarrier is managing as well as he can over there.
nextcoin has a good community, I agree. There is no reason why it should not be there

This forum will, in time be the new nxtcrypto. opticalcarrier will point it at the same subdomain.
Of course, people will first need time to migrate.

It's not meant to replace nextcoin.org, it's meant as a place to replace this thread and make discussion easier.

It would be nice to have a forum where the *whole* community can come together.

Edit: the forum will also have multiple admins, so there is inbuilt redundancy!

[Jerical13]

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.

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.

[CIYAM]

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".

[Damelon]

I fear that whatever forum will be up, there will always people that are not happy. nextcoin is run by a business on the top level (dgex), while nxtcrypto have no admin. So make your idea based on this.

True. This forum is not aimed to be the *only* forum, but a way to solve the problem of 1) having important discussions being buried in this mega-thread and 2) to have a place where hopefully everyone can come together and talk.

There is no need to leave nextcoin.org or any other place people enjoy and it is not meant as such.

[Jerical13]

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.

It would allow for the sale of less expensive assets without creating initial overhead.

[CIYAM]

BTW - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=397183.msg5842463#msg5842463

and congrats to Evil-Knievel.

[igmaca]

some interesting thoughts

"Communication can take place between two people when each of them has expanded their reality to include the other person’s reality without conflict”
      - Stewart Emery

[CIYAM]

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".

[chanc3r]

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.

Yes someone will DDOS the AE by creating loads of assets... we should not make the price too low.

[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.

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.

advantage is that we will not be excluding people who have useful things to contribute to society but relatively little in the way of assets.

you have the disadvantage right. though it still wouldn't be practical to try to trick people into thinking that they are buying something other than what they think they are buying it would make it easier for people to make fraudulent but unique new schemes with their own unique identities.

the poor should not be the whipping boy for scammers and the fools who fall victim to them. caveat emptor.

[Jerical13]

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.

Right on Anon. Who should be able to tell who what an "asset" is? Do Bankers and Wall Street types hold all the "assets"?

Webster's Dictionary-: Asset- (a) valuable thing which belongs to you. (b)anything owned which can be sold to pay debt.

[BitcoinForumator]

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

[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).