Transparent mining 2, or What part of Legacy should be left behind

[pandaisftw]

Nxt could have a special kind of asset backed by fixed amount of NXT.

But if we aren't supposed to "trade NXT" then that wouldn't have any value then would it?

The point is that we are NOT supposed to do anything, it's up to the community how to develop Nxt further.

I think it is best for NXT to have multiple purposes.

1 - As a store of value because of it's scarcity.

2 - As an intermediate currency between IOUs issued on the asset exchange.

IMO, of all things, NXT - as the base unit - is like gold. It backs up everything in the system because everything can be traded for it, the supply is constant, and its value (within the NXT ecosystem) is guaranteed by the protocol. EDIT: Plus, it makes sense, people don't use gold as currency (anymore) but it still has huge store of value.

And holy shit, why is NXT still tied to BTC... maybe we should contact coinbase to do USD/NXT pair

[pinarello]

MtGox: Bitcoin Transaction Malleability bug

https://www.mtgox.com/press_release_20140210.html
BTC Crash!

"Note that this will also affect any other crypto-currency using the same transaction scheme as Bitcoin."
NXT not affected!!

marketing should jump on this and use it immediately

[CIYAM]

Pegging INSIDE the NXT ASSET EXCHANGE would be Decentralized....as I said I need real time with the Asset Exchange to take my solution forward.

This makes no sense at all - in order to peg NxtUSD to say NxtAUD *inside* the Asset Exchange would mean that the actual USD/AUD exchange rate has to be ignored (as that by definition is *outside* the AE).

So by definition you can't peg those currencies to each other in any meaningful way - you might decide you are going to always exchange 1 NxtUSD for 1 NxtAUD and the opposite but even that won't work unless you have exactly the same amount of either.

[bitcoinpaul]

The btc tx bug seems to be known since ages. It is more of a exchange bug I think.

[ChuckOne]

Changing the total supply from 1B to something else would be a lot more controversial than reducing the fees - effectively that amount was a "promise" made at the outset so if that promise were to be broken I would expect some investors (especially the 73 initial ones) would be unhappy about that (actually it would probably upset those who have invested at recent "market prices" much more than the 73 as they have already probably each taken large profits from their initial investment).

BCNext doesn't propose to change 1B limit, he is even against it coz this would break forging. His idea is similar to issuance of eDollars on Asset Exchange.

I don't want it either. Especially after reading that paper and thinking through TF thoroughly.

[ChuckOne]

BCNext doesn't propose to change 1B limit, he is even against it coz this would break forging. His idea is similar to issuance of eDollars on Asset Exchange.

Oh - I thought the purpose of the Asset Exchange was always going to be for such things. At the end of the day I think that the AE just brings the Nxt functionality closer to Ripple (which may or may not be a good thing).

NXTs r not coins, at least the creator of Nxt didn't want them to be coins.

I have a problem to understand where the difference is now

- CfB always said there should be coins on top of Nxt
- Now BCNext says there should be coins on top of Nxt and this should be the sole purpose of Nxt.

Since you need NXT for this coins, NXT will automatically gets evaluated (high) and BCNext idea of using NXT as coins cannot become real because NXT will get traded like gold coins, e.g. eDollars backed by NXT, dollars (long time ago) backed by gold. Wrong?

edit: Or is this a terminology problem, because 'gold coins' are no coins?

What's problem? Scarcity of a precious and in this case I mean really precious good is what make that precious good a perfect thing for a basis. Even better than gold because it cannot be created by mining or nuclear fusion.

[bitcoinpaul]

BCNext doesn't propose to change 1B limit, he is even against it coz this would break forging. His idea is similar to issuance of eDollars on Asset Exchange.

Oh - I thought the purpose of the Asset Exchange was always going to be for such things. At the end of the day I think that the AE just brings the Nxt functionality closer to Ripple (which may or may not be a good thing).

NXTs r not coins, at least the creator of Nxt didn't want them to be coins.

I have a problem to understand where the difference is now

- CfB always said there should be coins on top of Nxt
- Now BCNext says there should be coins on top of Nxt and this should be the sole purpose of Nxt.

Since you need NXT for this coins, NXT will automatically gets evaluated (high) and BCNext idea of using NXT as coins cannot become real because NXT will get traded like gold coins, e.g. eDollars backed by NXT, dollars (long time ago) backed by gold. Wrong?

edit: Or is this a terminology problem, because 'gold coins' are no coins?

What's problem? Scarcity of a precious and in this case I mean really precious good is what make that precious good a perfect thing for a basis. Even better than gold because it cannot be created by mining or nuclear fusion.

edit: Or is this a terminology problem, because 'gold coins' are no coins?

Hm, looks like this is a problem with my English. BCNext's idea is that NXTs shouldn't be used as mean of exchange.

So the only problem I have now is, that I don't see any news with his 2nd plan. Anyone, please?

[ChuckOne]

FORGET IOU....I'm not even talking about IOU's.

You are - but let's look at what you say "next" (pun intended).

Example: NXTMONEY is pegged at 1 USD....so everyone who has or wants to receive NXTMONEY knows that it is worth 1 USD, 1 YEN, 1 CNY for example locally in his country.

This is the problem - *how* is it *pegged*?

It can only be so if some individual or group is "guaranteeing" to accept it for 1 USD (or whatever) but if that person/group decides that they are not worth it (for whatever reason - maybe they don't have any USD left) then your *pegging* has just failed and in fact the coins are worth ZERO.

This is why they are not *actual* USDs (or whatever) - they are actually IOUs - this is EXACTLY how Ripple works.

That is what I was talking over and over again.

NXT has no control over offchain activities. It's humans that have. They decide whether they accept it or not. If not, *boff* value=0.

[Come-from-Beyond]

So the only problem I have now is, that I don't see any news with his 2nd plan. Anyone, please?

Nothing really new.

[bitcoinpaul]

So the only problem I have now is, that I don't see any news with his 2nd plan. Anyone, please?

Nothing really new.

[landomata]

Pegging INSIDE the NXT ASSET EXCHANGE would be Decentralized....as I said I need real time with the Asset Exchange to take my solution forward.

This makes no sense at all - in order to peg NxtUSD to say NxtAUD *inside* the Asset Exchange would mean that the actual USD/AUD exchange rate has to be ignored (as that by definition is *outside* the AE).

So by definition you can't peg those currencies to each other in any meaningful way - you might decide you are going to always exchange 1 NxtUSD for 1 NxtAUD and the opposite but even that won't work unless you have exactly the same amount of either.

My aim is a fix price scenario...I will continue thinking along this line once I have some actual experience with the Asset Exchange.


Lets discuss after a month. 

[ChuckOne]

Mining reward is another obsolete part. True reward for supporting Nxt network comes from services that use Nxt. Someone owns a currency exchange and mine blocks to keep his business running. Another one owns a shop and mine blocks to keep his business running. The 3rd person owns a software company that develops programs for Nxt-based services and mine blocks to keep his business running. Selfish miners (those who mine only to earn fees) should be "removed" from the system, they r not interested in success of Nxt and only want to cash-out. If a clone appears such the people will likely jump to another ship, they add very little value to Nxt. All this doesn't mean that we should get rid of fees completely, we still need them as a countermeasure against spamming.

Well, that is interesting. I would like really like it because it seems keeping NXT running because of keeping an actual business running focuses more on the actual value being created other than on NXT itself.

So, yes. I would like it with low fees to incent everybody to stabilize the network and preventing big businesses from soley controlling NXT.


Am I right, that the only technical change we strive to is lowering the fees?

[CIYAM]

Lets discuss after a month. 

No worries - am sure we'll see some interesting ideas coming out once the AE is live.

I guess I am just a little more skeptical than most about its benefits other than removing the reliance upon 3rd party servers/DBs to store information (which in itself of course is a very clear benefit).

[Isildur23]

NXTs as coins... NXTs r not coins, at least the creator of Nxt didn't want them to be coins. They r tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt. Deflation is not much better than inflation, "real" coins should be created on top of Nxt and be issued in quantities that keep their value constant. BCNext understands that this is very arguable, the community should decide if it wants to follow the path showed by him or stick to Bitcoin legacy with unchangeable supply of coins in hope to become rich by doing nothing.

@Come-from-Beyond, I am not sure if I understand this right. I see to possible interpretations:

1st:
BCnext doesn't want the price of nxt to rise (i find this unlogical because even if we issue coins backed by Nxt, the value of Nxt will still rise even if we issue more and more of them. The value of those coins will not rise.

2nd:
BCnext means that we shouldn't just hold Nxts and wait until their price rises, but rather we should make services and develop businesses on top of Nxt in order to support Nxt and consequently it's price will grow.

Or neither of them? Sorry, i wish i didn't care about price, but i do, if it rises i would be able to start a business connected with nxt, work from home and don't see much people, be part of the revolution and see how banks' revenue is crashing. I hope this doesnt sound too bad.

[ChuckOne]

2nd:
BCnext means that we shouldn't just hold Nxts and wait until their price rises, but rather we should make services and develop businesses on top of Nxt in order to support Nxt and consequently it's price will grow.

It is not about the price. It is about a complete ecosystem that supports NXT just because it build upon it.

[Come-from-Beyond]

NXTs as coins... NXTs r not coins, at least the creator of Nxt didn't want them to be coins. They r tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt. Deflation is not much better than inflation, "real" coins should be created on top of Nxt and be issued in quantities that keep their value constant. BCNext understands that this is very arguable, the community should decide if it wants to follow the path showed by him or stick to Bitcoin legacy with unchangeable supply of coins in hope to become rich by doing nothing.

@Come-from-Beyond, I am not sure if I understand this right. I see to possible interpretations:

1st:
BCnext doesn't want the price of nxt to rise (i find this unlogical because even if we issue coins backed by Nxt, the value of Nxt will still rise even if we issue more and more of them. The value of those coins will not rise.

2nd:
BCnext means that we shouldn't just hold Nxts and wait until their price rises, but rather we should make services and develop businesses on top of Nxt in order to support Nxt and consequently it's price will grow.

Or neither of them? Sorry, i wish i didn't care about price, but i do, if it rises i would be able to start a business connected with nxt, work from home and don't see much people, be part of the revolution and see how banks' revenue is crashing. I hope this doesnt sound too bad.

BCNext created a platform to build economy on. We use NXT as coins but BCNext planned that "money" will be built on top of Nxt core. Anyway it doesn't really matter what he wants, Nxt will evolve the way the community wants it to evolve. I wouldn't pay much attention to BCNext's plans.

[bitcoinpaul]

I wouldn't pay much attention to BCNext's plans.

[hypersire]

NXTs as coins... NXTs r not coins, at least the creator of Nxt didn't want them to be coins. They r tokens that grant privileges to support Nxt. Deflation is not much better than inflation, "real" coins should be created on top of Nxt and be issued in quantities that keep their value constant. BCNext understands that this is very arguable, the community should decide if it wants to follow the path showed by him or stick to Bitcoin legacy with unchangeable supply of coins in hope to become rich by doing nothing.

I would stay away from referring to Nxt as "tokens" as it is similar to Ripple's "Postage Stamp" reference (i.e. implying that it isn't really a currency in itself).

[MyZhre]

I think it is best for NXT to have multiple purposes.

1 - As a store of value because of its scarcity.

2 - As an intermediate currency between IOUs issued on the asset exchange.

For me, this make sense;

[pandaisftw]

Lets discuss after a month. 

No worries - am sure we'll see some interesting ideas coming out once the AE is live.

I guess I am just a little more skeptical than most about its benefits other than removing the reliance upon 3rd party servers/DBs to store information (which in itself of course is a very clear benefit).

Just wanted to say thank you CIYAM for being levelheaded all the time. It's good to have constructive criticism!