NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[rickyjames]

Doing my own thing... we'll have a section in yBitcoin. Check out their demographic:

http://ybitcoin.net/about/

This is what I did for Peercoin for quite awhile, I'm about reaching out and making the phone calls.

This magazine is published in the town where I currently live, and I drive by their office every day.   What arrangements have you made with them for ongoing content?  Maybe I could provide some input...

[1715420785]

1715420785

[jztxeno]

you know why it is good if the price drops?

big NXT owners are going to sell their coins and this will result in to a better distribution of the coins!

[rickyjames]

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum
 who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I'm just going to let this reverberate here for a while. I don't even know what to say to this...yet

Good - let it "sink in" and hopefully a few others will too.

I totally understand what you are saying here and have said what I think is the exact same concept myself here:  

Asset exchange is a great idea.  Trading anything attached to a colored coin is a wonderful new capability.   My concern about asset exchange is that altho NXT HAS to be used as the transaction fee AND the colored coin, it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE ASSET ITSELF that is being traded.  So it is entirely possible that a SMALL AMOUNT of NXT will be used in trading literally MILLIONS of Bitcoins and DOGE back and forth, and these will be attached to 0.1 NXT colored coins shuffled around by 0.1 NXT transaction fees.  I am afraid a guy can go to Cryptsy to buy ONLY 100 or 1000 NXT and trade for YEARS shuffling around MILLIONS of Bitcoin and Doge.

In one sentence:  The introduction and use of NXT AE does not necessarily mean the creation of significant buying pressure and upward prices on NXT currency itself.

This is why we MUST continue to focus on the 1.0 cryptocoin fundamentals AS WELL AS plunge into the no-guarantees-of-success-or-profit world of 2.0 cryptoexchanges.

[jl777]

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]


First off, any changes in how Asset Names are handled in the core will delay release of AE. It also impacts all the code written against the current spec. So, any solution that doesnt require NXT core changes wins any ties.

If you have not used Ripple, you have not personally experienced buying USD for $1.01 USD and then finding out that you cant do much with it because it is the "wrong" USD and nobody is trading it actively. So, you spend a lot of time to get the "right" USD without paying a 20% premium. Finally, happy with this achievement, only to see it rippled away automatically back to the "wrong" USD.

Since we are not talking about automatic rippling along trustlines that we dont even have, the last part is not an issue. However, NXT not having trustlines is a key issue and allowing assets with the same name and not having trustlines is a recipe for disaster. Random numbers added to them might or might not get average Joe to investigate. Exactly how is average Joe supposed to investigate anyway? Is he going to write blockchain analysis code to analyze historical transactions of the issuer? Maybe there is a blockchain explorer that makes it "easy". Yes, thats it average Joe can click click click on all the dozens of BTC assets, all which look alike, investigating for hours to find the best asset to make his 0.1 BTC purchase.

Huh?

We might as well put up a don't use NXT Asset Exchange sign if we are requiring all this effort from EVERY user of AE.

BCNext has said that voting system was there for AE. I didnt realize how right he was (again) until recently. We can automatically create an +/- poll on asset creation, cost is not an issue and display this right along side the asset name. The assets that are popular will get a lot of votes and unless it is a scam or has big problems, it should be above 50% +

I expect my assets will get quite a few negatives as my "coin that shall be named" will destroy NXT, so 100% positive is not realistic. The market will show us what the voting results for the real issuers will be and when we have a baseline, we can display that as a reference. Now that I think about it Anon136 could get a 100% positive vote, he will mess up the average for the rest of us.

This method does not require changes to the NXT core and it utilizes the voting system for AE, just like BCNext said. If you really want to add a new random number field to confuse the average Joe into "doing research" that he is not capable of, I cant stop that. It just doesnt actually solve the real problem, which is this "doing research" part. Lets just display the research in realtime alongside each asset.

Additionally, I think we need a Preferred Issuers checkbox in the GUI's that will only display assets from Preferred Issuers. This totally gets rid of scammers as we make the fee to be a Preferred Issuer 10000 NXT, paid to the client devs for updating their software with the details about the Preferred Issuers. users can always uncheck the Preferred Issuers checkbox to see the thousands of assets from every scammer.

Ripple allows anybody to issue any asset. Totally buyer beware. I predict that this lack of supervision will explode in their face one day, especially in a litigious country such as USA where they are based. It would be really ironic if the most centralized asset exchange doesnt do any issuer due diligence, while the most decentralized AE does!!

Ok, so how do we decide who the Preferred Issuers are? The three committees have been elected by the community, so in some sense they represent the community's will. We just create an application process, along with 10000 NXT sent to any of the three committees. They will do whatever due diligence they feel is required and if they approve it, they submit it to the other two committees for approval.

Once approved, funds are dispersed to the client devs to add support for the new Preferred Issuer. Maybe the committees could keep some of it if the due diligence process is time consuming. I am not advocating anything like blood samples or passport IDs, but if a newbie that just registered yesterday wants to issue BTC assets and become a Preferred Issuer, that clearly would require some escrow deposits to reduce the risk. I dont think it makes sense to have any hard and fast rules as this is such new territory. We shouldnt make it impossible for new people to issue assets, after all we want to get new people into the community. Scam prevention should be the highest priority. We have to do the research and present that research to the average Joe.

Legally, I would recommend that we do not guarantee any investment result, etc. Just that the Preferred Issuers went through a process and passed it. The average Joe can review the actual due diligence report and the ultimate responsibility should be Joes, at least legally. Our job is to make the job of scammers to be as difficult as possible. Scammers will scam. That is their nature. We probably cant eliminate all scams and we need to keep track of how many Preferred Issuers ended up scamming people. As long as 95%+ of Preferred Issuers are solid, that would sure be a much safer place to trade than the wild AE.

I proposed to ripple that any issuer would need to describe things using math whenever possible. Especially about the reserve percentage and for investments, what gives the asset values. Assets were being issued where the promoters were claiming that 1 BTC will be worth 2 BTC because he will gradually increase the selling price! He didnt say he would increase the bids, just the asks. Naive users could easily fall for a gradually increasing price, especially if there are bots trading between themselves at ever increasing prices. If the asset backing was fully disclosed as being 1 BTC, then this would go a long ways. However, I think the committees should reject any sort of asset that is using fractional reserves, or at least have a special category for it.

It fell on deaf ears. I hope NXT community will take this proposal seriously. NOBODY else is solving the real problem of allowing anybody to issue assets.

James

[jl777]

community input needed:

Unique names for assets? For example : BLABLA (only issued once)

Or non unique names for assets?

For example: BLABLA 12423434 and BLABLA 343434334  (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)

(Perhaps, I'm not sure, the number can be shortened..)

If you have another idea, please specify.

Name should not be unique, since it's purpose is NOT to uniquely identify asset, there is asset id for that.

If asset names are unique, what would happen if 200 sellers want's to sell tablet pc's over AE - only one could call it's asset Tablet PC, and 199 of them would have to give
some stupid names to their assets...??

I think asset should be just what it is - token which can securely link issuer and buyer of the asset
- buyer knows who issued an asset, and an asset should contain a pointer-URl to detailed description of asset itself...

There is this thing called Branding
iPad, android these are not stupid names
in fact generic names are not so good at branding because it is generic
Do you want a Tablet PC? or an iPad or Galaxy or whatever specific brand?

[wesleyh]

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]


First off, any changes in how Asset Names are handled in the core will delay release of AE. It also impacts all the code written against the current spec. So, any solution that doesnt require NXT core changes wins any ties.

...

James

Good post, I think we need something like "verified accounts" in Twitter. The asset issuer would need to give up his anonimity. This way we know who he is and he is less likely to scam. Verified account status can be taken away too.

[achimsmile]

We can automatically create an +/- poll on asset creation, cost is not an issue and display this right along side the asset name. The assets that are popular will get a lot of votes and unless it is a scam or has big problems, it should be above 50% +

+1

[jl777]

The value of NXT *can never be very high* as it is basically just *fuel* to run the engine. There seem to be a lot of people in this forum
 who just "don't get this" (perhaps because "greed" is blinding them to reality).

I'm just going to let this reverberate here for a while. I don't even know what to say to this...yet

Good - let it "sink in" and hopefully a few others will too.

I totally understand what you are saying here and have said what I think is the exact same concept myself here:  

Asset exchange is a great idea.  Trading anything attached to a colored coin is a wonderful new capability.   My concern about asset exchange is that altho NXT HAS to be used as the transaction fee AND the colored coin, it DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THE ASSET ITSELF that is being traded.  So it is entirely possible that a SMALL AMOUNT of NXT will be used in trading literally MILLIONS of Bitcoins and DOGE back and forth, and these will be attached to 0.1 NXT colored coins shuffled around by 0.1 NXT transaction fees.  I am afraid a guy can go to Cryptsy to buy ONLY 100 or 1000 NXT and trade for YEARS shuffling around MILLIONS of Bitcoin and Doge.

In one sentence:  The introduction and use of NXT AE does not necessarily mean the creation of significant buying pressure and upward prices on NXT currency itself.

This is why we MUST continue to focus on the 1.0 cryptocoin fundamentals AS WELL AS plunge into the no-guarantees-of-success-or-profit world of 2.0 cryptoexchanges.

With NXT everyone can make progress in their own desired direction.
That is the power of decentralization. Nobody to dictate what can and cant be done
I know if I had to get approval for many of my ideas, they would pretty much all get shot down.

The valuation of NXT will correlate to the SUM of the value of NXT in all of its uses. We certainly cant ignore the 1.0 valuation, or the AE valuation, or the TBD based valuation.

Do them all, at the same time.

James

[jl777]

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]


First off, any changes in how Asset Names are handled in the core will delay release of AE. It also impacts all the code written against the current spec. So, any solution that doesnt require NXT core changes wins any ties.

...

James

Good post, I think we need something like "verified accounts" in Twitter. The asset issuer would need to give up his anonimity. This way we know who he is and he is less likely to scam. Verified account status can be taken away too.

I am glad you like it!

Please say you will just implement this Preferred Issuer filter checkbox and display of +/- voting and we can save thirty pages of debating it in a circle.

You have the power to let me code today instead of getting sucked into forum debating

James

[MadCow]

... kick arse jl777 post ...

Thanks for everything you're doing jl777. I want to buy shares in you (and all the other people doing great things in this community), no wait, I already did, I bought shit loads of NXT for under 5 cents!

Keep up the good work man

[mcjavar]

community input needed:

Unique names for assets?

- of course.

I agree. Otherwise it could lead to confusion.
It would be pretty bad advertisement for Nxt if there would be a nice project, which attracts a lot of users and then idiots start creating assets with the same name consufing the users. They would most probably drop Nxt as a lot of users did previously because of the unfriendly client. (which will be history in a few days, I hope, thanks to wesleyh )

[NxtMinnow]

+ yes please

quote jl777, "Please say you will just implement this Preferred Issuer filter checkbox and display of +/- voting and we can save thirty pages of debating it in a circle."

wesleyh this is a great idea for implementation that helps Nxt solve the issue of Issuer Trust.

[igmaca]

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]

James

all these brilliant ideas should be channeled to the committees of experts for discussion, approval or rejection.

measure the quality of the assets by using the vote I feel great,
maybe I should even to be a troll box about the assets to give a reasoned opinion

[wesleyh]

+ yes please

quote jl777, "Please say you will just implement this Preferred Issuer filter checkbox and display of +/- voting and we can save thirty pages of debating it in a circle."

wesleyh this is a great idea for implementation that helps Nxt solve the issue of Issuer Trust.

I can only implement this if jean luc agrees to it, after all, if my client is to be put in the official package, it must get his approval.

[wesleyh]

btw, it seems like there will be non-unique asset names. jean luc and others likes that idea.

[Mistafreeze]

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]


First off, any changes in how Asset Names are handled in the core will delay release of AE. It also impacts all the code written against the current spec. So, any solution that doesnt require NXT core changes wins any ties.

...

James

Good post, I think we need something like "verified accounts" in Twitter. The asset issuer would need to give up his anonimity. This way we know who he is and he is less likely to scam. Verified account status can be taken away too.

I am glad you like it!

Please say you will just implement this Preferred Issuer filter checkbox and display of +/- voting and we can save thirty pages of debating it in a circle.

You have the power to let me code today instead of getting sucked into forum debating

James

Quick and easy solution. I like it

[landomata]

[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]

BCNext has said that voting system was there for AE. I didnt realize how right he was (again) until recently. We can automatically create an +/- poll on asset creation, cost is not an issue and display this right along side the asset name. The assets that are popular will get a lot of votes and unless it is a scam or has big problems, it should be above 50% +


Additionally, I think we need a Preferred Issuers checkbox in the GUI's that will only display assets from Preferred Issuers. This totally gets rid of scammers as we make the fee to be a Preferred Issuer 10000 NXT, paid to the client devs for updating their software with the details about the Preferred Issuers. users can always uncheck the Preferred Issuers checkbox to see the thousands of assets from every scammer.

James

+1 to the above 2 ideas....especially PREFERRED ISSUERS CHECKBOX.

Edit: Only accounts created before the asset was issued can vote....as someone can still create a bunch of sockpuppets and vote for his asset.

[lucky88888]

We can automatically create an +/- poll on asset creation, cost is not an issue and display this right along side the asset name. The assets that are popular will get a lot of votes and unless it is a scam or has big problems, it should be above 50% +

+1

i like this! i approve! 

[vytasz7]

could somebody send me testnxt ID: 1516955141010594979 thanks

[bitcoinpaul]

Additionally, I think we need a Preferred Issuers checkbox in the GUI's that will only display assets from Preferred Issuers. This totally gets rid of scammers as we make the fee to be a Preferred Issuer 10000 NXT, paid to the client devs for updating their software with the details about the Preferred Issuers. users can always uncheck the Preferred Issuers checkbox to see the thousands of assets from every scammer.

Interesting concept. I think this could be service providers. Not baked into the core of Nxt or only doable by the committees. This screams credit rating agencies and all the implications with it, but I like it. In the client, the user has options to select lists from the different trusted service providers who rates assets.

I see these rating agencies getting very rich Of course, there could be rating service providers who don't accept any paying and are very trusted by the community, and thus frequently used by issuers.

The soft version of this would be the rating through the NXT holders via voting.