| Nxt | Blockchain Platform | Proof of Stake | Official

[ChuckOne]

I don't see the logic in these arguments

Just to be clear, everyone knows we're going from 1000000000 to 1000000000.00000000NXT

And not 1000000000 to 100000000000000000 NXT, right?  < this one is dilution

The transaction fee won't change immediately. So it will be 1NXT before the change and 100000000 NQT (or 1 NXT) just after the changed.

Am I missing something?

Perfectly correct.

[Ludom]

But there is the fee problem. One transaction of asset or one decentralize message can't cost 0.01 NXT fee. If NXT take the same value of Bitcoin now, it's 0.01 $. It's too much and the value of 1 NXT can go higher (as BTC).

We want to build on the top of Nxt and we must divide the NXT for that.

[ChuckOne]

Good to see NXT is highly divisible now. One of two basic features NXT was lacking is finally implemented. Well done! The other very basic feature, which is a must - checksummed address, hopefully it will soon be implemented too.

Is it not implemented already?

[lophie]

Also guys I just thought of this.

What if you want to increase nxt to 10 billion? what would you do with the existing holders? hmmm how about you make their balance (balance*10)?

So? how is this different from this idea by enabling more decimal places?

If the above scenario makes you rethink about my arguements. Please share with us your thoughts and input.

[Eadeqa]

The transaction fee won't change immediately. So it will be 1NXT before the change and 100000000 NQT (or 1 NXT) just after the changed.

Yes not immediately but this change allows it to happen, which is a good thing.

[bitcoinpaul]

wow, lophie, do you want to buy back after you sold everything?

[ChuckOne]

@Iophie

Just that I get that: your problem is that NXTs are dividable soon?

[LiQio]

Also guys I just thought of this.

What if you want to increase nxt to 10 billion? what would you do with the existing holders? hmmm how about you make their balance (balance*10)?

So? how is this different from this idea by enabling more decimal places?

If the above scenario makes you rethink about my arguements. Please share with us your thoughts and input.

other factors aside:

value -> 1 oldNXT = 10 newNXT

everybody has same wealth as before -> if you possessed 1k of 1billion you now possess 10k of 10billion

[Eadeqa]

Also guys I just thought of this.

What if you want to increase nxt to 10 billion? what would you do with the existing holders? hmmm how about you make their balance (balance*10)?

So? how is this different from this idea by enabling more decimal places?

If the above scenario makes you rethink about my arguements. Please share with us your thoughts and input.

No, the above scenario doesn't make me rethink anything. If everyone's account is increase by 10 then we will have 10 times more nxt, and one nxt will be equal to 1/10 current price, at the current demand/supply marketplace. Nothing has changed. The same applied to fractions. Nothing has changed.

We need more users, less fees, higher demand. Introducing NQT is the right thing.

[stdset]

Good to see NXT is highly divisible now. One of two basic features NXT was lacking is finally implemented. Well done! The other very basic feature, which is a must - checksummed address, hopefully it will soon be implemented too.

Is it not implemented already?

I didn't notice, may be I'm wrong, it's easy to check. Send any amount of NXT to e.g. your own slightly changed (1 digit is enough) address. If such transaction is accepted - there are still no checksums in addresses.

[Daedelus]

Also guys I just thought of this.

What if you want to increase nxt to 10 billion? what would you do with the existing holders? hmmm how about you make their balance (balance*10)?

So? how is this different from this idea by enabling more decimal places?

If the above scenario makes you rethink about my arguements. Please share with us your thoughts and input.

You have missed out a negative sign. We are adding 10^-8 (i.e. decimal places) not 10^8 (dilution of supply). The ideas are opposites, that is how they are different.


If a loaf of bread costs 5Nxt before the change, it will cost 500000000NQT after the change. Or 5 Nxt as 500000000 * 10^-8 = 5 NXT

Who are you working for!?  Blackcoin? Ripple?    

[ChuckOne]

I didn't notice, may be I'm wrong, it's easy to check. Send any amount of NXT to e.g. your own slightly changed (1 digit is enough) address. If such transaction is accepted - there are still no checksums in addresses.

How are we supposed to fund new accounts? Do we need a new transaction type?

[Daedelus]

The transaction fee won't change immediately. So it will be 1NXT before the change and 100000000 NQT (or 1 NXT) just after the changed.

Yes not immediately but this change allows it to happen, which is a good thing.

I agree. It will probably increase the number of transactions too.

[lophie]

It is 4 in the morning here and the wife cant sleep -_-! but  will leave you guys with some good reads:

Q:

I've read that bitcoins are infinitely divisible:

Bitcoins can be divided up and trade into as small of pieces as one wants

How is this possible programmatically? The only thing that comes to mind are floating points which are inaccurate.
Are bitcoins truly infinitely divisible or merely practically?
A link to the relevant source code would be more than welcome.
   
A: (last one)

If there is a need for them, additional decimal places can be added with concensus of the network. This is why some refer to "infinite" divisibility, because we can select the level that we need as time goes on.

The current level selected in the code (by Satoshi) is 8 decimal places (1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC) hence the nickname for the smallest unit currently possible for bitcoin today.

As a thought exercise, if a consensus of the network (miners, but also clients and server applications for compatibility reasons) decides to update to a version of the protocol that includes 16 decimal places inspired by your post, we could end up with a new base unit (1 satoshi = 100,000,000 gracchi) as well as nanobitcoins (nBTC), picobitcoins (pBTC), and even femtobitcoins (fBTC, 10 gracchi)

I have trouble imagining the need for such a thing, unless destroying bitcoin becomes a prevalent method of use. If it is needed the potential is there and will never dilute your held bitcoins, which actually makes it a problem some would love to see the need to solve.
shareimprove this answer
  

• @ Gracchus In theory, every cryptocurrency modeled after bitcoin could be retrofitted for more (or less) decimal places. Some altcoins have made changes to these parameters already, but so far I have not seen anyone who has tried to alter one after issuance. @Murch, that is an example of one of many technical details that would need to be solved. Check bitcointalk for more detailed discussions, there are several threads along this topic IIRC (with actual core developers commenting.) –  CoinEnablers Jan 4 at 15:03

Source: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19661/how-is-bitcoin-infinitely-divisible

[Daedelus]

It is 4 in the morning here and the wife cant sleep -_-! but  will leave you guys with some good reads:

Q:

I've read that bitcoins are infinitely divisible:

Bitcoins can be divided up and trade into as small of pieces as one wants

How is this possible programmatically? The only thing that comes to mind are floating points which are inaccurate.
Are bitcoins truly infinitely divisible or merely practically?
A link to the relevant source code would be more than welcome.
   
A: (last one)

If there is a need for them, additional decimal places can be added with concensus of the network. This is why some refer to "infinite" divisibility, because we can select the level that we need as time goes on.

The current level selected in the code (by Satoshi) is 8 decimal places (1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC) hence the nickname for the smallest unit currently possible for bitcoin today.

As a thought exercise, if a consensus of the network (miners, but also clients and server applications for compatibility reasons) decides to update to a version of the protocol that includes 16 decimal places inspired by your post, we could end up with a new base unit (1 satoshi = 100,000,000 gracchi) as well as nanobitcoins (nBTC), picobitcoins (pBTC), and even femtobitcoins (fBTC, 10 gracchi)

I have trouble imagining the need for such a thing, unless destroying bitcoin becomes a prevalent method of use. If it is needed the potential is there and will never dilute your held bitcoins, which actually makes it a problem some would love to see the need to solve.
shareimprove this answer
  

• @ Gracchus In theory, every cryptocurrency modeled after bitcoin could be retrofitted for more (or less) decimal places. Some altcoins have made changes to these parameters already, but so far I have not seen anyone who has tried to alter one after issuance. @Murch, that is an example of one of many technical details that would need to be solved. Check bitcointalk for more detailed discussions, there are several threads along this topic IIRC (with actual core developers commenting.) –  CoinEnablers Jan 4 at 15:03

Source: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/19661/how-is-bitcoin-infinitely-divisible

Is this your only source? A discussion page? Because they are wrong too. Adding decimal places doesn't dilute. See previous posts.

Find a source saying the same thing from a credible (i.e. checked before published or from a reputable dev) and I might consider a bounty for it 

[lophie]

Also guys I just thought of this.

What if you want to increase nxt to 10 billion? what would you do with the existing holders? hmmm how about you make their balance (balance*10)?

So? how is this different from this idea by enabling more decimal places?

If the above scenario makes you rethink about my arguements. Please share with us your thoughts and input.

You have missed out a negative sign. We are adding 10^-8 (i.e. decimal places) not 10^8 (dilution of supply). The ideas are opposites, that is how they are different.


If a loaf of bread costs 5Nxt before the change, it will cost 500000000NQT after the change. Or 5 Nxt as 500000000 * 10^-8 = 5 NXT

Who are you working for!?  Blackcoin? Ripple?    

{0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0}  <- Data space domain (descrete system)
<------------0000.0000---------->  <- Real numbers domain (continuous system)

[Eadeqa]

It is 4 in the morning here and the wife cant sleep -_-! but  will leave you guys with some good reads:

Q:

I've read that bitcoins are infinitely divisible:

Bitcoins can be divided up and trade into as small of pieces as one wants

How is this possible programmatically? The only thing that comes to mind are floating points which are inaccurate.
Are bitcoins truly infinitely divisible or merely practically?
A link to the relevant source code would be more than welcome.
   
A: (last one)

If there is a need for them, additional decimal places can be added with concensus of the network. This is why some refer to "infinite" divisibility, because we can select the level that we need as time goes on.

The current level selected in the code (by Satoshi) is 8 decimal places (1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC) hence the nickname for the smallest unit currently possible for bitcoin today.

As a thought exercise, if a consensus of the network (miners, but also clients and server applications for compatibility reasons) decides to update to a version of the protocol that includes 16 decimal places inspired by your post, we could end up with a new base unit (1 satoshi = 100,000,000 gracchi) as well as nanobitcoins (nBTC), picobitcoins (pBTC), and even femtobitcoins (fBTC, 10 gracchi)

I have trouble imagining the need for such a thing, unless destroying bitcoin becomes a prevalent method of use. If it is needed the potential is there and will never dilute your held bitcoins, which actually makes it a problem some would love to see the need to solve.
shareimprove this answer
  

• @ Gracchus In theory, every cryptocurrency modeled after bitcoin could be retrofitted for more (or less) decimal places. Some altcoins have made changes to these parameters already, but so far I have not seen anyone who has tried to alter one after issuance. @Murch, that is an example of one of many technical details that would need to be solved. Check bitcointalk for more detailed discussions, there are several threads along this topic IIRC (with actual core developers commenting.) –  CoinEnablers Jan 4 at 15:03

Funny the sentence that you made bold in above text says, "If it is needed the potential is there and will never dilute your held bitcoins,

[Daedelus]

Also guys I just thought of this.

What if you want to increase nxt to 10 billion? what would you do with the existing holders? hmmm how about you make their balance (balance*10)?

So? how is this different from this idea by enabling more decimal places?

If the above scenario makes you rethink about my arguements. Please share with us your thoughts and input.

You have missed out a negative sign. We are adding 10^-8 (i.e. decimal places) not 10^8 (dilution of supply). The ideas are opposites, that is how they are different.


If a loaf of bread costs 5Nxt before the change, it will cost 500000000NQT after the change. Or 5 Nxt as 500000000 * 10^-8 = 5 NXT

Who are you working for!?  Blackcoin? Ripple?    

{0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0}  <- Data space domain (descrete system)
<------------0000.0000---------->  <- Real numbers domain (continuous system)

Please expand. Is one or the other bad/impossible/a light hue of yellow on a crisp spring morning?

This is the concept that is NQT, a stock split care of CfB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_split

If you have 1 NXT before the change, you have 100000000NQT after. No dilution or change to the market cap.

[stdset]

I didn't notice, may be I'm wrong, it's easy to check. Send any amount of NXT to e.g. your own slightly changed (1 digit is enough) address. If such transaction is accepted - there are still no checksums in addresses.

How are we supposed to fund new accounts? Do we need a new transaction type?

Checksums do not depend on wheather an account is new or not. A correct new address with a checksum can be funded as easily as an address without a checksum.
A checksummed address consists of two parts: the significative part (an address such as we use now) and it's hash. If you made a mistake in either part, hashing of the significative part no longer produce the checksum, what means - the address contains an error, it cannot be accepted for sending money to.

[ChuckOne]

Checksums do not depend on wheather an account is new or not. A correct new address with a checksum can be funded as easily as an address without a checksum.
A checksummed address consists of two parts: the significative part (an address such as we use now) and it's hash. If you made a mistake in either part, hashing of the significative part no longer produce the checksum, what means - the address contains an error, it cannot be accepted for sending money to.

I see where you are coming from.

There is/was this new address format that is even 'self-healing'. I think it is already there but has been disabled right now.