NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[mikesbmw]

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.

Is it?

On many places where stuff is exchanged there are multiple items with the same name, but issued by different users.
As long as it is distinguishable that both items are issued by different users, there is no problem.

Non-unique names should not be a problem as long as it clear they are from different users.

[1713879748]

1713879748

[1713879748]

1713879748

[brooklynbtc]

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

two probs.
a. voting by account or by shares? (pandoras ballot box)
b still can game this, either way, votes or shares

[btc2nxt]

I don't have such powers although I did make quite a bit of money from a few well chosen stocks (such as Sun Microsystems back in the early 90's).

I am "no hippie" but I do *get* what Nxt actually *is*. It is *not* another "pump and dump copy coin" but instead a *platform*.

Right from the start Nxt was presented without the word "coin" and this among other things was *deliberate*.

+1

[Eadeqa]

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.

Yes, I agree. The names should not be unique. It only leads to confusion once all the good names are taken by trolls and squatters.

As for  scams, the buyers will have to do some reasearch. The asset issuer will have to advertise his ID on his website and the buyer will add that account to their contact list. Or his "trust line" (like ripple).  Once that is done, the buyer will be able to buy only the assets that he added to his contacts list, that will protect him from clicking the wrong asset.

[btc2nxt]

i think NXT AE should have unique names, just like domains on the internet
if someone buys up Microsoft, microsoft itself should pay a good sum to that first owner if they really want the name for example. this is what happens with domains now and works fine

about Asset name:
1. name must contain only digits and latin letters, so Chinese characters are invalid.
2. aaa = AAA
3. cannot use '-' in name , so A-A is invalid.
4. 3-10 characters, so AA is not valid.

btw quantity <=1,000,000,000

[Eadeqa]

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".

We have discussed this for months. We even had poll about this, and it was agreed that tx fee will be 0.1 for now. It can be changed in future, and there is nothing wrong with it, nor would it be a problem.

[BrianNowhere]

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.

Is it?

On many places where stuff is exchanged there are multiple items with the same name, but issued by different users.
As long as it is distinguishable that both items are issued by different users, there is no problem.

Non-unique names should not be a problem as long as it clear they are from different users.

To use ripple as an example once again they have Bitstamp BTC, Peercover BTC etc. Don't see why that's an issue. It provides arbitrage opportunities and allows buyers to shop around for the best price on the exchange.

However, Ripple only charges an infinitesimal transaction fee (for spam prevention only, not rewarding "forgers", which allows these centralized exchanges to set their own fees. In Nxt, if any similar exchanges wanted to use Nxt in this way, traders would either have to pay both Nxt's fee and the Exchanges fee. Therefore Nxt has pretty much eliminated the motivation for centralized exchanges to use Nxt at all. Unlike XRP, NXt comes preloaded with lots of friction.

We're basically left with individuals selling "shares" in their companies. I'm starting to envision a future where the Nxt platform looks like bitcointalks' alternative currency section. Lots of noise, confusion and scam artists hawking digital penny stocks.

[Eadeqa]

However, XRP has an infinitesimal transaction fee, which allows these centralized exchanges to set their own fees. In Nxt, if any similar exchanges wanted to use Nxt in this way, traders would either have to pay both Nxt's fee and the Exchanges fee. Therefore Nxt has pretty much eliminated the motivation for centralized exchanges to use Nxt at all. Unlike XRP, NXt comes preloaded with lots of friction.

You are going way too long again and again on tx fees. This is not an issue. TX fee will be changed to 0.1  and they can be lowered even more if nxt prices go up.

This is not an issue.

TX fees exists to prevent spam and flooding.

[Daedelus]

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.

Is it?

On many places where stuff is exchanged there are multiple items with the same name, but issued by different users.
As long as it is distinguishable that both items are issued by different users, there is no problem.

Non-unique names should not be a problem as long as it clear they are from different users.

To use ripple as an example once again they have Bitstamp BTC, Peercover BTC etc. Don't see why that's an issue. It provides arbitrage opportunities and allows buyers to shop around for the best price on the exchange.

However, XRP has an infinitesimal transaction fee, which allows these centralized exchanges to set their own fees. In Nxt, if any similar exchanges wanted to use Nxt in this way, traders would either have to pay both Nxt's fee and the Exchanges fee. Therefore Nxt has pretty much eliminated the motivation for centralized exchanges to use Nxt at all. Unlike XRP, NXt comes preloaded with lots of friction.

We're basically left with individuals selling "shares" in their companies. I'm starting to envision a future where the Nxt platform looks like bitcointalks' alternative currency section. Lots of noise, confusion and scam artists hawking digital penny stocks.

So are you refusing to acknowledge that the fee can be changed as the situation dictates?

Or that you want us to match ripples fee right now?


Sometimes I don't see the benefit of some posts in moving things forward.

[BrianNowhere]

However, XRP has an infinitesimal transaction fee, which allows these centralized exchanges to set their own fees. In Nxt, if any similar exchanges wanted to use Nxt in this way, traders would either have to pay both Nxt's fee and the Exchanges fee. Therefore Nxt has pretty much eliminated the motivation for centralized exchanges to use Nxt at all. Unlike XRP, NXt comes preloaded with lots of friction.

You are going way too long again and again on tx fees. This is not an issue. TX fee will be changed to 0.1  and they can be lowered even more if nxt prices go up.

This is not an issue.

TX fees exists to prevent spam and flooding.

In my opinion .1 fee is way too much for spam protection. basing it on transaction size makes way more sense. The competition is going to eat Nxt's lunch.

I'm starting to think this whole idea is just not going to work and has too many problems, but I'll shut up and take a wait and see approach.

[BrianNowhere]

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.

Is it?

On many places where stuff is exchanged there are multiple items with the same name, but issued by different users.
As long as it is distinguishable that both items are issued by different users, there is no problem.

Non-unique names should not be a problem as long as it clear they are from different users.

To use ripple as an example once again they have Bitstamp BTC, Peercover BTC etc. Don't see why that's an issue. It provides arbitrage opportunities and allows buyers to shop around for the best price on the exchange.

However, XRP has an infinitesimal transaction fee, which allows these centralized exchanges to set their own fees. In Nxt, if any similar exchanges wanted to use Nxt in this way, traders would either have to pay both Nxt's fee and the Exchanges fee. Therefore Nxt has pretty much eliminated the motivation for centralized exchanges to use Nxt at all. Unlike XRP, NXt comes preloaded with lots of friction.

We're basically left with individuals selling "shares" in their companies. I'm starting to envision a future where the Nxt platform looks like bitcointalks' alternative currency section. Lots of noise, confusion and scam artists hawking digital penny stocks.

So are you refusing to acknowledge that the fee can be changed as the situation dictates?

Or that you want us to match ripples fee right now?


Sometimes I don't see the benefit of some posts in moving things forward.

I don't want to base a decision to use a platform on some arbitrary decision that may or may not happen in the future. I have no faith in the decentralized developers to make this decision correctly in the future. I want to know now what would happen in the future before I decide to waste any more time believing in this product's potential.

[Eadeqa]

However, XRP has an infinitesimal transaction fee, which allows these centralized exchanges to set their own fees. In Nxt, if any similar exchanges wanted to use Nxt in this way, traders would either have to pay both Nxt's fee and the Exchanges fee. Therefore Nxt has pretty much eliminated the motivation for centralized exchanges to use Nxt at all. Unlike XRP, NXt comes preloaded with lots of friction.

You are going way too long again and again on tx fees. This is not an issue. TX fee will be changed to 0.1  and they can be lowered even more if nxt prices go up.

This is not an issue.

TX fees exists to prevent spam and flooding.

In my opinion .1 fee is way too much for spam protection. basing it on transaction size makes way more sense. The competition is going to eat Nxt's lunch.

You are not bringing any new info. As I told you it was already agreed that 1 nxt fee is too  high 1 month ago when reddit tipping bot was developed.. There was consensus to drop it to 0.1 Nxt, but it requires some work in the core. This is already being done. This is an old topic. What else do you want?

[NxtMinnow]

The FUD is deep in here right now.

[Daedelus]

I don't want to base a decision to use a platform on some arbitrary decision that may or may not happen in the future. I have no faith in the decentralized developers to make this decision correctly in the future. I want to know now what would happen in the future before I decide to waste any more time believing in this product's potential.

Then you must also have to believe that the Devs are immune to/don't understand the effects of market forces.

Do you honestly think the fee won't change if it costs $620,000 to issue an asset (to use your example)?

[msin]

First of all, it's nice to see the trolls have gone to bed, please ignore them when they post, it's hard to read this thread as is.  

I don't think it's a good idea to change the issuance of Assets whatsoever.  If someone wants to register BTC and squat on it, then so be it.  We can't police someone registering CIYAM who isn't CIYAM.  I assume we will have a registration process similar to Alias, where the highest bidder will get the Asset name when the block is forged.  This will help prevent spam Assets as well.

I do think it's a good idea (as James suggested) to have a reputation system, voting +/-, and perhaps linking Alias name with Asset to verify within Wesleyh client.  We need freedom to register Assets and I don't like the idea of someone telling me when I can trade my asset or what name I can use.  I don't think it's a big deal to have BTC or 1BTC or zBtc as the standard for Bitcoin in Nxt AE.  I don't imagine anyone will be buying Assets for Crypto other than through James' DAC.  Buyers need to beware and Wesleyh can put in a warning screen for people who click on Asset Tab "Please verify Asset owner before buying ANY Asset in exchange"

We still need a couple Java guys to help CIYAM with AT code port and Parallel Blockchain, this should be a priority!  Please register at http://ciyam.org/open and help him.

[Eadeqa]

I don't want to base a decision to use a platform on some arbitrary decision that may or may not happen in the future. I have no faith in the decentralized developers to make this decision correctly in the future. I want to know now what would happen in the future before I decide to waste any more time believing in this product's potential.

The network is decentralized, but the core software development isn't. The lead developer is Jean Luk.  There is nothing decentralized about the core software development.

[BrianNowhere]

The network is decentralized, but the core software development isn't. The lead developer is Jean Luk.  There is nothing decentralized about the core software development.

And if Jean-luc gets hit by a bus? (Buddha Cosmos forbid)

[NxtMinnow]

Someone would have to learn Java! Cosmos forbid! Or we clone the whole system and move.

BrianNowhere, please put together a proposal to help Nxt find Java coders and submit it to the appropriate committee.

The network is decentralized, but the core software development isn't. The lead developer is Jean Luk.  There is nothing decentralized about the core software development.

And if Jean-luc gets hit by a bus? (Buddha Cosmos forbid)

[Tobo]

Unfortunately @Wesley left out the context.

Please check out testnet now and look for the Asset called CIYAM.

It was not created by me - but I have 50% of the shares (as the imposter *sent* them to me).

This is our problem (not the UI).

I dont understand why you dont just send the imposter asset to genesis acct if it bothers you so much

Can you send asset to genesis? Interesting. How do you do it?

[zorke]

The network is decentralized, but the core software development isn't. The lead developer is Jean Luk.  There is nothing decentralized about the core software development.

And if Jean-luc gets hit by a bus? (Buddha Cosmos forbid)

What if asteroid hits Earth in a week?? Relax man, everything will be good. Fees will be lowered as needed, as many have said before me. Nothing prevents us to lower fees to even 0.00001 and lower in the future.

Sudden growth about which you are speaking - well let's all hope will happen. It would be nice to get into that situation that current fees prevent our growth in the future, but for now on leave the fees alone.