|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
 |
March 22, 2014, 06:21:48 PM |
|
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://107.170.117.237Nice 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
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:25:00 PM |
|
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://107.170.117.237Nice 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
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:29:13 PM |
|
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 ($40) is 8 times higher than my asset value. |
|
|
|
|
Mario123
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:30:22 PM |
|
Using AE for a 5$ product? Am I missing something here?
Mario
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:31:21 PM |
|
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 |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:33:51 PM |
|
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
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:34:41 PM |
|
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
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:35:26 PM |
|
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#msg5842937Hey 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
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:35:53 PM |
|
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://107.170.117.237Nice 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
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:37:00 PM |
|
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
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:37:25 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:40:05 PM |
|
It uses AM, not AE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:40:10 PM |
|
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. What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10? |
|
|
|
|
wesleyh
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:40:50 PM |
|
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. What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10? Neither is fit for your needs. (Due to trust issues etc) |
|
|
|
|
BitcoinForumator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:41:45 PM |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:42:36 PM |
|
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. you are confusing the asset exchange and the marketplace. they are different concepts entirely. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
alxx77
Member
Offline
Activity: 95
Merit: 10
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:43:30 PM |
|
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". +1000 |
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:45:32 PM |
|
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. What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10? Neither is fit for your needs. (Due to trust issues etc) we just need to figure that bit out. we need our marketplace to fill the niche left open by bitmit imo. |
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited? |
|
|
|
Eadeqa
|
|
March 22, 2014, 06:46:50 PM |
|
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. What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10? Neither is fit for your needs. (Due to trust issues etc) What do you mean? Lets say I want buy pot. ( i take the risk of getting scammed). Give me a solution to use either asset or digital goods infrastructure to do so. |
|
|
|
|
