|
chanc3r
|
 |
March 18, 2014, 01:11:02 PM |
|
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.
BLABLA....only issued once. How about just adding a 16-bit CRC to the end of the asset name which is based on the <creating account number>or <asset name>+<account number> - its only 4 hex digits and should ensure uniqueness.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:15:38 PM |
|
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.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:16:12 PM |
|
btw, it seems like there will be non-unique asset names. jean luc and others likes that idea.
You know more than us? |
|
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:18:54 PM |
|
Non-unique asset listings could create confusion, or worse they could be a scam haven, with multiple BLABLA issuers.
Let's clear that up for you. In the current Nxt "distopian" future you will have these Assets: Microsoft (scam) M1crosoft (scam) M1cr0soft (scam) Microsoft_2014 (scam) Microsoft_2015 (real - assuming they haven't destroyed Nxt out of anger about the 1st listing) Can you see why unique names are a problem now? May as well just make it this: Microsoft 38234124 Microsoft 98289128 Microsoft 12349123 Microsoft 58345345 Microsoft 13912342 only 1 is legit anyway (so *buyer* needs to *do more research* rather than just getting ripped off). Non-unique Asset names combined with Asset ID (which already exists) as the displayed name. The more I read about it the more I like it. Nxt code change would just be to allow same asset names. The rest is client side dev. edit: Use the Asset ID and change it to HEX for slightly more convenience, maybe. |
|
|
|
|
Uniqueorn
Full Member
 Offline
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
NXT.org
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:19:45 PM |
|
btw, it seems like there will be non-unique asset names. jean luc and others likes that idea.
You know more than us? Yes. A lot of things going on behind the scenes. Announcements will be made soon |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fatih87SK
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:23:37 PM |
|
BUY NOW!
 |
|
|
|
|
chanc3r
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:28:23 PM |
|
someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"
would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?
To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts... In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be. |
|
|
|
farl4web
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1205
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:30:48 PM |
|
[Solution for Asset Naming Issue]
I agree with this. Could there be some kind of filter with which the user can choose what kind of rating they want to see? For example only the Preferred Issuers, of assets with 4-stars, 3-stars, etc.. something like that? |
|
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:32:11 PM |
|
someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"
would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?
Incorrect. The value of NXT will be a function of the value of all the assets. The more the assets are worth the more NXT will be worth, however we do not know what the mapping function will be. It will most likely be some sort of monotonically increasing function. James |
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:33:35 PM
Last edit: March 18, 2014, 01:49:31 PM by bitcoinpaul |
|
Simple: Free market will not allow big arbitrage possibilities, thus making Nxt market cap >= cumulated assets values. tl;td moon. edit: Believe me. I studied.   |
|
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:35:44 PM |
|
someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"
would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?
To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts... In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be. value of NXT = (1st gen value) + MI(value of all assets) + (value of all other NXT addons) MI is a monotonically increasing function, maybe sqrt, cbrt, log with a constant multiplier would curve fit it. Over time the valuation relationship will change in details James |
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:46:22 PM |
|
someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"
would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?
To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts... In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be. well maybe im wrong but from what i know you wont be able to buy shares in one company with shares in another.. or silver or what ever other asset! the reason i think that it will be the case that the value of nxt will rise with the value of companies is akin to the petrodollar! you need dollars to purchase oil hence propping up the value of the dollar!(allot)... if a company is growing fast and people want to buy into that company they must first nxt and therefore propping up the value of nxt the same as the petrodollar only for companies instead of oil... correct me if im wrong but thats just the way i see it going! i also think it would be a bad idea to make it possible to buy shares/assets with any other assets! i think nxt should stay as the base currency... look what would happen to the dollar if it became the petroeuro! Certainly there is an effect, but not directly linear. However since all assets are priced in NXT, if somebody wanted to use AE to sell things that are worth more than all of NXT, they couldnt. Therefore they wont. This is why we need to be able to trade things denominated in other assets. Do the math please. Do you want to ensure that there will never be any more assets in AE than the market cap of NXT? Currently, what would happen if somebody deposited 100 million worth of BTC and had that much in BTC assets? People wouldnt pay a premium for it, but there isnt enough NXT to be able to represent all of that BTC. Certainly the price of NXT will "stretch" as best as it could, but not linearly. Some proportion. Now imagine somebody issued 100 billion USD worth of Petro assets in NXT. of course they wouldnt, unless there was 100 billion USD worth of other assets. This wont make NXT worth 100 billion, but if it gets even 1% due to the "stretching"... Do the math, properly and you will see that we need to allow trading assets against other assets, otherwise NXT AE will be limiting the amount of assets being issued in the first place. James |
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:48:45 PM |
|
Simple: Free market will not allow big arbitrage possibilities, thus making Nxt market cap >= cumulated assets values. tl;td moon. edit: Believe me. I studied. You studied at wrong place  This equation is true only if we restrict to trading using NXT,but that has a counterproductive limiting aspect as I have explained. I am not an economist, but I do have common sense Better to have 1% the value of uncapped asset values, than 100% of asset values limited to NXT market cap. James |
|
|
|
El3k0n
Member
Offline
Activity: 109
Merit: 10
USA TRUMP USA TRUMP USA TRUMP
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:49:30 PM |
|
someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"
would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?
Incorrect. The value of NXT will be a function of the value of all the assets. The more the assets are worth the more NXT will be worth, however we do not know what the mapping function will be. It will most likely be some sort of monotonically increasing function. James the bold line is essentially what i meant! edit: the more i learn about NXT the more i believe in it regardless of the current value or negative opinions of others! The more I learn about NXT the more I believe we won't go to the moon, we'll directly buy the moon! |
|
|
|
|
|
igmaca
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:50:02 PM |
|
someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"
would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?
To me it feels like you are saying the market cap of DHL should be equal to the value of the parcels it shifts... In this case Nxt is the medium in which the assets are traded, but NXT may not be used to buy/sell those assets, if it is - great but I assume what we are saying is you can buy one asset e.g. Silver with another asset e.g. BTC Will they be completely decoupled, I am guessing not but I don't have a good enough knowledge of economics to guess what the relationship will be. well maybe im wrong but from what i know you wont be able to buy shares in one company with shares in another.. or silver or what ever other asset! the reason i think that it will be the case that the value of nxt will rise with the value of companies is akin to the petrodollar! you need dollars to purchase oil hence propping up the value of the dollar!(allot)... if a company is growing fast and people want to buy into that company they must first nxt and therefore propping up the value of nxt the same as the petrodollar only for companies instead of oil... correct me if im wrong but thats just the way i see it going! i also think it would be a bad idea to make it possible to buy shares/assets with any other assets! i think nxt should stay as the base currency... look what would happen to the dollar if it became the petroeuro! I think the key is that the fees to ensure NXT network only Nxt coins must be used. |
|
|
|
|
martismartis
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1005
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:50:34 PM |
|
Good afternoon people. Could somebody explain to me the following: Somebody (j777) issues asset "BTC" in AE. Gateways is working, technically it is possible to sell and buy BTC in AE. But I also have real BTC and want to sell them for NXT in AE. As it is already "BTC" issued in AE not by me and I'm not an owner of this asset, how my real BTC will appear in AE and I can trade them? Will I need to issue "BTC1"? This question is also for some other "universal" assets. Did I miss something or do I need to go for beauty sleep for a while? You can deposit your real BTC with any NXT gateway using whatever method they have. For multigateway, once you get a deposit address, you just send your real BTC to that bitcoin address and it will appear in AE with the corresponding amount of multigateway BTC. Alternatively, you could create a BTC asset and list it and convince people that you really do have the BTC and you really will redeem it when they want and then sell it on the AE. The 1000 NXT fee will discourage the second approach as issuing and maintaining any real asset is a lot of work and should not be undertaken lightly. If it only cost a few NXT, then some people will try to issue their own assets and it will become quite a mess. Look at the work Anon136 is putting in for his silver asset. There are entire companies that are being created to become an asset! James Ok, Thank you for explanation. But what about other "universal" assets, which is not related with cryptos and gateways? For example, I want to trade "salt" in AE. I issue asset "salt" with quantity of 1000. Sometime all 1000 of "salt" is sold, and I want to add "more" salt to AE. It will be "Salt1"? What if my competitor also has the same "salt" and wants to trade it in AE?While debate about asset naming started, could somebody answer and/or explain my thoughts? |
|
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:51:17 PM |
|
someone mentioned before "what happens if the assets sold on the AE become worth more then the market cap of NXT?"
would i be right in saying that the marketcap of nxt will always be higher then the marketcap of the assets sold on AE? seeing as you need nxt to buy shares on the AE? thus meaning if there is ever a company that sells shares on the AE that grows to the size of google.. the nxt marketcap will also rise to above the market cap of that company+the rest? so say NMAC rises in value and all the shares are worth 40billion.... the nxt marketcap would be atleast 40billion? am i right in saying that?
Incorrect. The value of NXT will be a function of the value of all the assets. The more the assets are worth the more NXT will be worth, however we do not know what the mapping function will be. It will most likely be some sort of monotonically increasing function. James the bold line is essentially what i meant! edit: the more i learn about NXT the more i believe in it regardless of the current value or negative opinions of others! The more I learn about NXT the more I believe we won't go to the moon, we'll directly buy the moon! Around 1000 NXT per acre! http://www.lunarregistry.com/land/index.shtmlJames |
|
|
|
|
bitcoinpaul
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:52:25 PM |
|
Simple: Free market will not allow big arbitrage possibilities, thus making Nxt market cap >= cumulated assets values. tl;td moon. edit: Believe me. I studied. You studied at wrong place This equation is true only if we restrict to trading using NXT,but that has a counterproductive limiting aspect as I have explained. I am not an economist, but I do have common sense Better to have 1% the value of uncapped asset values, than 100% of asset values limited to NXT market cap. James No way, I studied truthology at Christian Tech. |
|
|
|
|
jl777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 18, 2014, 01:58:53 PM |
|
Good afternoon people. Could somebody explain to me the following: Somebody (j777) issues asset "BTC" in AE. Gateways is working, technically it is possible to sell and buy BTC in AE. But I also have real BTC and want to sell them for NXT in AE. As it is already "BTC" issued in AE not by me and I'm not an owner of this asset, how my real BTC will appear in AE and I can trade them? Will I need to issue "BTC1"? This question is also for some other "universal" assets. Did I miss something or do I need to go for beauty sleep for a while? You can deposit your real BTC with any NXT gateway using whatever method they have. For multigateway, once you get a deposit address, you just send your real BTC to that bitcoin address and it will appear in AE with the corresponding amount of multigateway BTC. Alternatively, you could create a BTC asset and list it and convince people that you really do have the BTC and you really will redeem it when they want and then sell it on the AE. The 1000 NXT fee will discourage the second approach as issuing and maintaining any real asset is a lot of work and should not be undertaken lightly. If it only cost a few NXT, then some people will try to issue their own assets and it will become quite a mess. Look at the work Anon136 is putting in for his silver asset. There are entire companies that are being created to become an asset! James Ok, Thank you for explanation. But what about other "universal" assets, which is not related with cryptos and gateways? For example, I want to trade "salt" in AE. I issue asset "salt" with quantity of 1000. Sometime all 1000 of "salt" is sold, and I want to add "more" salt to AE. It will be "Salt1"? What if my competitor also has the same "salt" and wants to trade it in AE?While debate about asset naming started, could somebody answer and/or explain my thoughts? You should have issued enough assets to cover all the salt you thought you would ever use and put the issued but uncollateralized assets in holding. Maybe I need to create an asset holding service to allow people to do incremental issuing of assets. That would make it much easier to do this without being accused of fractional reserving It seems that decisions are being made behind closed doors against my advice on the Asset Naming and we are about to get identical names implemented, even though we can never go back from that. We could always do the reverse, but it seems that I am too busy coding now that I am out of the loop on the key decisions. So, your Salt will appear as Salt 72857 and competitors salt will be Salt 94893 and that will magically instill an urge into every salt purchaser to conduct a due diligence research into which Salt is better and why the price is difference, etc. No chance of it confusing the user at all, we all know how much people like to investigate things thoroughly before they purchase $2 worth of salt James |
|
|
|
|
