NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[CIYAM]

Lower fees would offer more utility to the AE. More people would be able to use it for more things.

Fees are always going to be a "political" issue - personally I think that the fee should be kept "high" as we don't want to *encourage* scams.

[NxtMinnow]

I see I crashed the AE. It is rolled back to before EvilBob struck, updated to N.R.S. 0.8.11 from 0.8.10, I am sending TestNXT fine from my first NXTtest account to the same (second newly created account as before, Account not rolled back only transactions) and Still get same "Unknown account" message trying to send TestNXT back to first NXTtest account. Maybe wesleyh hasn't updated yet...

Can some one send some more TestNXT to 957183466007778257 again? They took all my TestNXT away!  

[Sebastien256]

NxtBook
Actually not true about nxtbook, you will be able to store that much info eventually using Nxt's decentralized storage, basic idea is you pay people for storage space and then you store your data across multiple harddrives, so that if any one of them goes down, others are holding onto it and if someone goes down, you copy it to another machine from one of the ones still there.  So the idea is that you only need to store it on 3 or 4 machines at a time and you'd paid to keep it online.  The more you are willing to pay per byte, the more machines and therefore security we can offer.

Similiar to multi-sigs you wouldn't have to store the entire data on every machine, just enough so that 2 out of 5 machines could reconstruct it or whatever.

If people hook up 2 or 3 TB drives and allow Nxt to use them for the decentralized storage system and get paid for them, they could make money off of the process and we'd end up with a lot of available storage space.

This could be used to host such images and will eventually be implemented.  It would also allow us to provide an email service and store encrypted emails in a distributed manner, so google can't read your emails for example.  I think that decentralized storage should be a big priority once asset and decentralized exchanges are finished.  Especially because once we have decentralized storage working, then we can create the distributed computing option, and Nxt will become a supercomputer running across multiple forging machines.

p2p storage would be interesting. It would nice if something like Symform could be built on top of Nxt. Symform, is already offereing p2p storage:
http://www.symform.com/

[brooklynbtc]

just got paid out 150NXT for my DAY mining with paradigm flux.. thanks, thats a little over .1NXT per Kh/s

that's 1 day.

[Daedelus]

just got paid out 150NXT for my days mining with paradigm flux.. thanks, thats a little over .1NXT per Kh/s

Is this likely to get better or worse in the future? And any idea what it is net of other costs?





P.S. I have never mined, if you couldn't tell 

[antanst]

I see I crashed the AE. It is rolled back to before EvilBob struck, updated to N.R.S. 0.8.11 from 0.8.10, I am sending TestNXT fine from my first NXTtest account to the same (second newly created account as before, Account not rolled back only transactions) and Still get same "Unknown account" message trying to send TestNXT back to first NXTtest account. Maybe wesleyh hasn't updated yet...

Wesley updated today to 0.8.11. Your issue is probably related to the fork:

Since I did some forging on test net after testing non-unique asset names, my node generated blocks with such assets, that are being rejected by all other nodes running older code, so we have a fork on test net. It would be interesting to see how this gets resolved once the test nodes are one by one updated to 0.8.11.

[CIYAM]

Wesley updated today to 0.8.11. Your issue is probably related to the fork:

Yes - it will take a while for this to "settle" (as any such change will).

[BrianNowhere]

Lower fees would offer more utility to the AE. More people would be able to use it for more things.

Fees are always going to be a "political" issue - personally I think that the fee should be kept "high" as we don't want to *encourage* scams.

Any way to tie the fee to some sort of rating system number? people with higher ratings paying lower fees, newbies paying more?

[igmaca]

a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain

...

There is another possibility.

Dynamic fees. byte size on the blockchain Vs Nxt coins market so that in order to if you want to forge you can provide a nxt per byte minimum price you are willing to offer to forge.
everybody have the possibility to make their numbers to see if it is profitable or not to forge.
if the price reaches a very high value should nevertheless have a minimum VPS nodes to ensure network.
in order to forge more attractive can be charged other services like;
leasing of computer

and so on

[L5Society]

If I have data stored on a p2p storage system, does somebody have access to my data? Is it encrypted on their harddrive? Does the encryption introduce lag for access time?

[Eadeqa]

If I have data stored on a p2p storage system, does somebody have access to my data?

If it's encrypted, no

Does the encryption introduce lag for access time?

What kind of encryption?  I doubt it. Network lag would be 1000s of times slower

[wesleyh]

I see I crashed the AE. It is rolled back to before EvilBob struck, updated to N.R.S. 0.8.11 from 0.8.10, I am sending TestNXT fine from my first NXTtest account to the same (second newly created account as before, Account not rolled back only transactions) and Still get same "Unknown account" message trying to send TestNXT back to first NXTtest account. Maybe wesleyh hasn't updated yet...

Wesley updated today to 0.8.11. Your issue is probably related to the fork:

Since I did some forging on test net after testing non-unique asset names, my node generated blocks with such assets, that are being rejected by all other nodes running older code, so we have a fork on test net. It would be interesting to see how this gets resolved once the test nodes are one by one updated to 0.8.11.

Unknown account message should be fixed now, try.

[bitcoinpaul]

Yay, 2400.

[redsn0w]

Yay, 2400.

Yuppi !! 

[intmain()]

I think I now see what BCNext's grand vision was, and is.

I have temporarily put aside  NXT "Facebook" to make a distributed networking addition to the source code.

[pandaisftw]

Lower fees would offer more utility to the AE. More people would be able to use it for more things.

Fees are always going to be a "political" issue - personally I think that the fee should be kept "high" as we don't want to *encourage* scams.

If we implement either one of the issuer verification methods (alias or change in core) then large-scale scams or phonies should not be an issue. If you buy silver from Anon136, you should only buy silver from that seller - just like in the real world, you can buy silver from any vendor... but you should probably only buy from ones that have a good reputation or that you trust.

AFAIK, issuing fees were going to be reduced anyways because they were there to counter squatting unique asset names in the early days of the AE. But now that we have non-unique names, that's not a problem anymore.

Since assets cannot be pruned, perhaps the fee for issuing an asset should not be min fee, but somewhere like 100 NXT.

Pandaisftw

[Jerical13]

Lower fees would offer more utility to the AE. More people would be able to use it for more things.

Fees are always going to be a "political" issue - personally I think that the fee should be kept "high" as we don't want to *encourage* scams.

I think that there is going to be a little bad in the good no matter how you try to control it. I would assume it would be in proportion to volume at high fees and low fees. People are going to scam either way. Lower fees would have more scammers but it would also have more transactions overall.

You may be right though, at least temporarily. As the AE is right now, as far as ease of use, it lends itself to scamming. This weakness will be more pronounced the more popular it becomes. I think that the change that was made regarding asset names and alias registration will help, and I think that future evolution of the AE could help reduce this problem by possibly organizing listings to make it easier for people to use. I just really don't like the idea of putting any artificial controls on the market. It may restrict scamming, but at the same time will restrict other aspects of commerce.

It seems like there could be other ways to keep scamming to a minimum without setting the fees for asset registration higher than any of the other fees.

[l8orre]

Okay Nxt Community here is a quantum riddle;

My real NXT account number (Public Key) is 14730376987822377578 on NXT Mainnet. I have never used my real NXT passphrase on NXT testnet. However,   14730376987822377578 exists on NXT Testnet.

Yesterday, after I asked for TestNXT on this thread; 18232225178877143084 sent me a 1,000,000 + 1 TestNXT.

While testing this morning, I sent 1,000,000 + 1,000  TestNXT to 14730376987822377578 which showed as a valid public key and appeared to have transaction success.

Upon looking at the history of 14730376987822377578 from NxtTestnet, I see "This account has a balance of 1'063'416 NXT" ; 1,000,000 being the TestNXT transferred this morning and 63,416 an old real NXT balance of real NXT account 14730376987822377578.

And even more bizarre, looking down into the transaction history I find dozens of Asset transfers between 3/11/2014 and 3/14/2014 all to the same account number 18232225178877143084. WHICH is the SAME TestNXT account that sent me 1,000,000 TestNXT on 3/19/2014.

Maybe I need another cup of coffee.

did you take a ride with the ambien walrus?

sorry - haven't been able to catch up on it today. I have a testnet acct with MASSIVE numbers of asset transactions, but I'll have to find a way to make it better traceable.

The asset balances themselves all look good.

I have to check tomorrow, can't today...

[igmaca]

a transactions's fee should be tied to its byte size on the blockchain

...


There is another possibility.

a Dynamic fees. byte size on the blockchain Vs Nxt coins market so that in order to if you want to forge you can provide a nxt per byte minimum price you are willing to offer to forge.
everybody have the possibility to make their numbers to see if it is profitable or not to forge.
if the price reaches a very high value should nevertheless have a minimum VPS nodes to ensure network.
in order to forge more attractive can be charged other services like;
leasing of computer

and so on

I think this solution solves;

fee is adjusted automatically
fee takes into account the costs of the nodes always updated
fee is charged per byte size on the blockchain
the concept of instant transactions is not broken
prevents spam

[brooklynbtc]

2400++  48001++