NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[landomata]

I guess decentralized development is great, until it's not.  I have really been confused by this notion that because the idea is for a decentralized exchange that development should also be decentralized. Didn't BcNext hisself decide to code alone (centralization) in the beginning because of crap like we see here every day?

There's good stuff happening, but this decentralized everything idea is a bad one. Cancer is decentralized. The cure could never be.

Then please ACT.....become a profitable cog in this chaos....and CENTRALIZE an improvement project under YOUR control.

[1713574654]

1713574654

[1713574654]

1713574654

[1713574654]

1713574654

[1713574654]

1713574654

[1713574654]

1713574654

[igmaca]

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.
James

+ 1440
Like probably most people here, I work in a gigantic centralized corporation and every time i catch up with the developments in this decentralized next ecosystem, the obvious benefit of a decentralized working culture hits me. In a centralized environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the approval/whims/fancies of a few people. In a decentralized work environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the proving grounds.. if it is proven to work / benefit the decentralized ecosystem, it will get implemented!! Decentralized systems mimic nature in some way.. think fractals, think organisms.. okay maybe that is too far out.
Fantastic work and my sincere RESPECT to all the doers in this awesome community!!

Economics and Entropy. Nxt Ecosystem

Gilder creates a very interesting analogy between capitalism and information theory . The same that powers internet , telephony and computers. Science initiated by Alan Turing in world war to decrypt German "Enigma" code and further developed by C. Shannon compression for bandwidth in mobile telephony .

To transmit data , we need a channel ( cable , optical fiber , open space ) and interference-free sound , predictable , ordered , no surprises, that is, with low entropy.

Instead , the information flows must reach for it as a clear signal. For information to provide us with knowledge , we should be surprised . If the signal that comes to us is completely predictable , we will not add knowledge. Information is the raw material of knowledge, this surprises us increase our knowledge forward . The signal should have high entropy -disorder ( high entropy of Shannon) - and an orderly discourse on canal , noise - low entropy . Creativity is the foundation of capitalism. Creativity is surprise. Otherwise, planning and socialism have triumphed.

The more freedom of choice is the issuer, information - surprises - can transmit. Companies , entrepreneurs - emitting - create ideas, unpredictable , surprising, disordered high entropy . To flourish in need of a tidy vehicle. This channel is contractuality and laws , the better the simpler , low and unchanging . If the channel is unpredictable , changing constantly , you can not separate the signal from the noise. We have to distinguish between signal and noise between the word and the cable. Property rights , stability of money, the maintenance of law , order and contractuality and a very modest and anticipatable role of government (Nxt Platform) to entrepreneurs to launch their ideas through this channel .

For Karl Popper, a proposition is scientific if it is falsifiable , that is, likely to raise test or tests to test it . The result of the experiment, a new company , for example - must be refutable. If the result is predictable and not contribute knowledge. So when the state guarantees results with bank bailouts , guaranteeing mortgages , businesses, etc. . , Knowledge is destroyed because the falsifiability of the experiment is lost, information is lost.

So the famous stimulus packages our politicians do not reduce unemployment and create wealth . Breaking the principle of innovation and creativity and provide no surprise , therefore, not knowledge. The expansion of the government (centralization) introduces noise into the system.

Interest rates are critical . When governments manipulate an important signal for the economic analysis is destroyed. Interest rates become more noise than signal and sent false information to the actors . Knowledge is destroyed.

The regulator / central planner does not have all the information to structure the economy. There is no deterministic scheme which can accommodate entire entrepreneurial entropy , so any planned economy can succeed ( no bureaucrat can know every aspect of the economy ) . Here link with our dear Von Mises theorem and the impossibility of socialism .

Find a balance - entropy - down of markets has led to the current Great Recession. Human nature seems to want to replace by surprise . From Newton , science want to give us accurate predictions , science appears as the elimination of surprise. But creativity, even laissez - faire art - are surprise.

Source : http://www.juandemariana.org/comentario/6489/capitalismo/teoria/informacion/

[opticalcarrier]

I realize that we still have some discussing to do on non/unique "names" for assets.  I just laid out some very good reasons why I think we should change it to be non-unique:  the squatting issue, and by doing so it allows us to reduce fees for assets which in the event price of NXT shoots up, this low price for issuing assets will be SORELY needed on the AE.

That being said, if we do choose to go non-unique route, then we MUST move from using the term "name" of the asset to "description" of the asset to really send home that it is not a unique value.  And then, all client devs should, on the asset purchase page of their client, put big warnings up for users to be sure that the asset they are purchasing is the one they want.  Maybe even show them that there are lots of assets with the same description so that they realize that they need to do some due diligence.  And for them to click "yes im sure" once more just before actually doing the purchase.

[BrianNowhere]

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.  

So can the price of Nxt skyrocket one day, or not? For those who think that is possible based on the above, is it of no concern that the fees for transacting and assets will be based on a fixed number rather than a percentage that can self adjust based on current value?

If Nxt ever matched the value of current BTC (which can't happen according to CIYAM OPEN and others here) and the transaction fee is the proposed .01 Nxt  then the cost to make a transaction in Nxt would be $6.20 USD It would cost $6.20 to PLACE a buy or sell order on the AE exchange. It would cost $620,000 to issue an asset at the proposed 1000 Nxt fee for issuance.

Even if Nxt only reached LTC heights we're looking at $0.23 or so for transaction fees, which basically makes the idea microtransactions a non-starter.

Supposedly the 1000 Nxt rate is temporary, which is the same thing they said about tollbooths in my state about 40 years ago.

Who has ever said the fees can't change to match the situation?

Because that is what this is predicated on.

My concern is that any subsequent fee change based on future price increases will be necessarily decided on by this decentralized development team, or be arbitrarily decided upon by one person (Jean-Luc) I don't know which is worse.

Then if/when the price goes back down it will have to be changed again. Nxt will be unable to scale to rapid market fluctuations and volatility. It is not enough for me for CIYAM OPEN to say a sudden and rapid price spike is impossible. The "what if" in me says that if that would occur the market would suddenly grind to a halt because the fees would be "too damn high".

[opticalcarrier]

Fee should depend on data size coz it solves a technical problem (spam prevention)

OK a few more people chiming in... good lets get some traction.  Do we know what the smallest possible size transaction is?  Assuming that it is 128bytes like a NXT transfer is, IMO we need something even smaller than .1 NXT, I would prefer at least .01 NXT as smallest possible amount, then scaling up from there.  But that is a different conversation on the base transfer size/fee ratio is.

+1

I say for now, as soon as fractional NXT is possible, that we go to .01, but the community voted for .1 some time ago, so that is prob where we will start.  But I can see it changing in the future.

[opticalcarrier]

My concern is that any subsequent fee change based on future price increases will be necessarily decided on by this decentralized development team, or be arbitrarily decided upon by one person (Jean-Luc) I don't know which is worse.

Then if/when the price goes back down it will have to be changed again. Nxt will be unable to scale to rapid market fluctuations and volatility. It is not enough for me for CIYAM OPEN to say a sudden and rapid price spike is impossible. The "what if" in me says that if that would occur the market would suddenly grind to a halt because the fees would be "too damn high".

this is what completely untie'ing all fees from any fiat representation, and setting it to a fee/transactionByteSize ratio will do for us

[ChuckOne]

I still say trying to tie the fee to some FIAT is the wrong direction.  Ill say it again - a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain.  So lets say a NXT transfer is 128bytes, and its fee is .1NXT, so then an AM or alias transaction of size 256bytes should then cost .2NXT, and other transaction types follow the same method of fee determination.  We would determine a "base" transaction that is the smallest possible transaction, and set the .1 NXT fee to it.  (or .01 or .05 or whatever the community decides) and then scale every other transaction's fee to be based on its size compared to the base one.
But no one likes my idea. 

This proposal will require a bit more code; but for the moment I think a straight .1 NXT for all works, as it will encourage more use for now.

+1

First time I have seen this - must have missed it in the hopsepipe first time round - I think this has some merit...
After all NXT is PoS so the growth/demand and resources is all in the chain....

It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.

[wesleyh]

Allowing the issuance of assets with the same name will most probably hinder us to sell our assets on the Nxt AE as we don´t want to have anyone creating assets with the same name as ours. We will work hard to get our shit together and to convince the community that our shares are worth buying, but if anyone can come and issue assets with the same name, we will most probably not use Nxt as scamming would harm our reputation, too.


EDIT: I am talking about a real life project we would like to fund using Nxt.

if we have a verification system there should be no issue, right? (with non unique names)

Well, I thin kthat the average user will go after the name...
I see some discussions between friends:
"I bought ABC shares on Nxt"
"Really? Cool! I will also buy one when I get home."
"But take care as there are hundreds of shares with the same name..."

This IS confusing..isn´t it?
Anyway, looking forward to the decision of the wise counsel.

Link to asset 12345:

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/#asset:9229925548955252583

[igmaca]

It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.

EXACT

"Keep incentivized network"

[opticalcarrier]

It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.

EXACT

"Keep incentivized network"

interesting... what do you mean by computational effort?  It seems I am missing an aspect of something here.

[bitcoinpaul]

The more I learn about NXT the more I believe we won't go to the moon, we'll directly buy the moon!

Best quote of the day.

[Tobo]

Allowing a first come first served method for asset name registration will result in squatting & non-meaningful/potentially misleading names. I suggest we use a system generated incrementing number starting from 101 as the unique asset ID. Asset Issuer can append any tag to the numerical ID.
eg:
115:BTC [ Asset description]
116:BTC [ Asset description]
117:ABC [ Asset description]

Asset ID 1-100 could be reserved for special assets.

+1. Great idea!

[bitcoinpaul]

I guess decentralized development is great, until it's not.  I have really been confused by this notion that because the idea is for a decentralized exchange that development should also be decentralized. Didn't BcNext hisself decide to code alone (centralization) in the beginning because of crap like we see here every day?

There's good stuff happening, but this decentralized everything idea is a bad one. Cancer is decentralized. The cure could never be.

+1

[BrianNowhere]

My concern is that any subsequent fee change based on future price increases will be necessarily decided on by this decentralized development team, or be arbitrarily decided upon by one person (Jean-Luc) I don't know which is worse.

Then if/when the price goes back down it will have to be changed again. Nxt will be unable to scale to rapid market fluctuations and volatility. It is not enough for me for CIYAM OPEN to say a sudden and rapid price spike is impossible. The "what if" in me says that if that would occur the market would suddenly grind to a halt because the fees would be "too damn high".

this is what completely untie'ing all fees from any fiat representation, and setting it to a fee/transactionByteSize ratio will do for us

That is what Ripple does I believe, combined with setting the fee low enough (0.00001) that a sudden market increase would have to be ginormous to have a negative effect on trading. If XRP suddenly went to BTC's $620 USD the transaction fee would still be less than a penny (USD).

Is it likely to happen? No. But not likely is not good enough for programming.

Our sad paradox is that transaction fees are used to reward needed forgers yet could necessarily have to be set too high, potentially making the system unusable with a built in crash mechanism for any sudden value increase. it's a giant experiment in finding out where this threshold lies and waiting for the inevitable crash (or complete stagnation) that would occur.

Ripple 1
POW 1
POS O

[igmaca]

It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.

EXACT

"Keep incentivized network"

interesting... what do you mean by computational effort?  It seems I am missing an aspect of something here.

must be distributed the cost of maintaining stimulated the "green, secure and decentralized network"

for example

Nxt% Fee per current transactions
Alias ​​Fee services (For example per bytes)
Nxt% Fee per AE transactions

and so on ....

How The network is worth to maintain?

How many minimum nodes are needed?
How much electricity does it cost?
How many minimum transactions contemplated

[brooklynbtc]

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.

All Asset registered Device and Company names will be non unique (you only choose BLABLA, the rest is the asset id - automatically generated)

The AE will contain ALL registered ASSETS by non unique name

The top 10 performing AE by demand, price, and action will be promoted to the NXT10 with the privilege of using their UNIQUE name, i.e. BLABLA

NXT10 (20, 50, 100, as growth demands) will an automated top list, of volume, performance, and dividends paid out. (?)
The NXT10 will be updated on a 90 day basis with underperforming assets dropping back to the AE and going to back to BLABLA 123421

Code:

OK> Brainstorm Below> No Clear thoughts.. discuss..


What about UNIQUE is place held, but confirmations needed. maybe IPO provided, and minimum transactions filed within X days for unique name to be "granted", sort of like a NASDAQ 100.

as we brainstorm this.. maybe make a top 10 now, and they can show as UNIQUE names,  the rest show as codes only.

NewCo comes along, has to create their IPO and show actual interest from investors in a forum, website, or real life OUTSIDE of the AE, and once they reach a minimum volume, they will be listed as their UNIQUE name. 

[s]If NewCo fails to reach velocity within 30 days, their AE assets will remain under their account number, but they will forfeit their name and with it their 1000NXT.[/s]

If NewCo drops out of the top 10, 100, etc, (since they are only squatting) the Asset Name will no longer show in the AE, just the number. If NewCo goes dormant, the assets will remain of course, but they will revert to the account number.

[/quote]

[swartzfeger]

I think I was the first guy to propose to use NXT as ingame currency, feel free to approach any of the big game devs. Got nothing to lose

[da whole game discussion]

Besides the ingame-purchase-thing:

https://www.humblebundle.com/#contribute is a very famous game-bundle.
You can choose the amount of money you are willing to pay on your own.
They already allow bitcoin, why not NXT?
 
Can please somebody with proper english-skills contact them?

Ahh, yes... totally forgot about those! Humble Bundles (and similar) would be a solid marketing target.

[Eadeqa]

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).

Yes the buyer will have to do some research.  The legitimate asset issuer will have to advertise their account number on their website, with PGP signed message. Once the buyer adds that to their contact list, they won't be able to buy scam version. The client can protect them.

[brooklynbtc]

[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 like the idea that if you want to issue an IPO you need to at be public. But who will verify?

Also, would Registered Companies be valid as a Verified entity?

[EvilDave]

I think I was the first guy to propose to use NXT as ingame currency, feel free to approach any of the big game devs. Got nothing to lose

[da whole game discussion]

Besides the ingame-purchase-thing:

https://www.humblebundle.com/#contribute is a very famous game-bundle.
You can choose the amount of money you are willing to pay on your own.
They already allow bitcoin, why not NXT?
 
Can please somebody with proper english-skills contact them?

Ahh, yes... totally forgot about those! Humble Bundles (and similar) would be a solid marketing target.

just saw this, on a quick recce round BTT:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=229278.80
http://www.coingas.com/

Maybe another sales opportunity for NXT.

I really would like someone to step up to the plate and make some real work out of promoting NXT as a payment system (not in-game, but subscription/purchase costs) for the gaming community.  Theres plenty of people with big mouths, and no projects......
...or kids, which i have to pick up from school. Little sods. BRB in a few hours.