| Nxt | Blockchain Platform | Proof of Stake | Official

[ChuckOne]

How much have been made with mining?

Its 516.219 NXT. Paid out.

Amazing.

Holy cow!

[Brangdon]

The way I read it, the individual forgers will choose a minimum fee they are willing to accept.

There has to be a minimum minimum, to discourage spam. And that's the system we have now, with the minimum minimum 1 NXT. You can pay a higher fee if you want, but forgers aren't allowed to accept transactions paying less than 1 NXT.

The minimum minimum could be lower, but it really needs to be per-byte not per-transaction (because it's bytes that take space in the block-chain forever), and changing to per-byte isn't as trivial as updating a number.

[theironman]

How much have been made with mining?

Its 516.219 NXT. Paid out.

Amazing.

Holy cow!

Man, i got two "free" computers because of hashrate.org  


BUT there two things i dont sell: gold and NXT.

edit.... three: my wife

[TwinWinNerD]

How much have been made with mining?

Its 516.219 NXT. Paid out.

Amazing.

That is an impressive number!

I am complete opponent of mining, as I find it incredible wasteful, thus I have no specific mining equipement. If I had, I'd support this!

[theironman]

How much have been made with mining?

Its 516.219 NXT. Paid out.

Amazing.

That is an impressive number!

I am complete opponent of mining, as I find it incredible wasteful, thus I have no specific mining equipement. If I had, I'd support this!

NXT is by definition one of the "greenest" coins there is. Even my wife has NXT. She has really green values.

[ChuckOne]

I got a challenge for you, guys. https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/price-speculation/msg46665/#msg46665

We would like to see 10% of Bitcoin's network strength. Who dares to take that challenge?

[ChuckOne]

[theironman]

NXT - GOLD FUTURES ASSET

Please share your thoughts right here:

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/gold-futures-asset/

[Voluntold]

The way I read it, the individual forgers will choose a minimum fee they are willing to accept.  

The individual users will select a fee they are willing to pay.  As long as the fee of the user is above the fee of the forger, the transaction goes through.  The forger will get all of the fee offered up by the user, not just the minimum.  

The the users fee is too low, then the transaction will wait for the next block or for any block that will process it.  

I am not really sure if this is going to be implemented or not.  

Originally, I thought it was strange, but after thinking about it more, it is a really nice system.  After a while the free market will sort out an average known price for making sure a transaction goes through.

The problem with choosing a set price like 1 or .01 or .001 is it is so subjective and will constantly have to be changed as the price of NXT goes up and down.  

Static fees just don't represent a free market.  

Yes i strongly support this. I hope that JLP will implement this sometime. However it may be wise not to until the point at which at least even the most marginal demand exceeds supply.

Oh wow.  I hadn't heard of this before, but yeah, perfect idea.  Let the free market decide on the fee like it should be.  I hope this is implemented as well.  I don't see any point in waiting though...

The argument against waiting is that uncountably forgers would be willing to process transactions for free. This would mean that most people would submit transactions without paying any fee at all. This would reduce the incentive for people to forge. This would negatively impact the security of the network.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying.  So you (or others) think there would be some forgers that that wouldn't bother setting the fee up at all?...

[Anon136]

The way I read it, the individual forgers will choose a minimum fee they are willing to accept.  

The individual users will select a fee they are willing to pay.  As long as the fee of the user is above the fee of the forger, the transaction goes through.  The forger will get all of the fee offered up by the user, not just the minimum.  

The the users fee is too low, then the transaction will wait for the next block or for any block that will process it.  

I am not really sure if this is going to be implemented or not.  

Originally, I thought it was strange, but after thinking about it more, it is a really nice system.  After a while the free market will sort out an average known price for making sure a transaction goes through.

The problem with choosing a set price like 1 or .01 or .001 is it is so subjective and will constantly have to be changed as the price of NXT goes up and down.  

Static fees just don't represent a free market.  

Yes i strongly support this. I hope that JLP will implement this sometime. However it may be wise not to until the point at which at least even the most marginal demand exceeds supply.

Oh wow.  I hadn't heard of this before, but yeah, perfect idea.  Let the free market decide on the fee like it should be.  I hope this is implemented as well.  I don't see any point in waiting though...

The argument against waiting is that uncountably forgers would be willing to process transactions for free. This would mean that most people would submit transactions without paying any fee at all. This would reduce the incentive for people to forge. This would negatively impact the security of the network.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying.  So you (or others) think there would be some forgers that that wouldn't bother setting the fee up at all?...

Idk. I mean im just making the argument, that doesnt mean i agree with it. It would be interesting because the only reason you would set it to 0 is out of generosity, but it probably wouldn't actually be good for the network for you to do that, meaning it wouldn't actually be generous at all. So i really dont know if anyone would do that.

[jl777]

How much have been made with mining?

Its 516.219 NXT. Paid out.

Amazing.

Holy cow!

Man, i got two "free" computers because of hashrate.org  


BUT there two things i dont sell: gold and NXT.

edit.... three: my wife

if she is cute, have you considered renting?

[durerus]

Just reading your economic paper: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtdXE5MkF5S05oaHM/edit?pli=1

Some questions:
-Do you want Nxt to be used as money (medium of exchange + store of value)? Because on page 4 I read "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."

-Do you want to increase the amount of 1 billion Nxt? On page 4 it says "there is no limit for a specific type of monetary expansion".

I really like Nxt, but these economics discourage my enthusiasm

i too am quite interested in NXT, i'd be interested for an answer to this too as coming from a tradtional mine and trade crypto background I dont quite get the payment system platforms like NXT and Ripple

nxt should always be used as "the money" inside of the nxt ecosystem because the security of the network is atleast partially a function of the price of nxt.

the 1 billion amount can never be changed except with a hard fork. just like bitcoin.

https://nxtforum.org/general/%27pos-stands-for-something-other-than-%27stake%27%27/

Here I read from allbits:
    "The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term."

CfB answers:
"Antideflation is the last key element of Nxt. It's supposed to solve this problem."

Does this mean that Nxters in the end want to inflate the Nxt supply somehow?

[Anon136]

Just reading your economic paper: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtdXE5MkF5S05oaHM/edit?pli=1

Some questions:
-Do you want Nxt to be used as money (medium of exchange + store of value)? Because on page 4 I read "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."

-Do you want to increase the amount of 1 billion Nxt? On page 4 it says "there is no limit for a specific type of monetary expansion".

I really like Nxt, but these economics discourage my enthusiasm

i too am quite interested in NXT, i'd be interested for an answer to this too as coming from a tradtional mine and trade crypto background I dont quite get the payment system platforms like NXT and Ripple

nxt should always be used as "the money" inside of the nxt ecosystem because the security of the network is atleast partially a function of the price of nxt.

the 1 billion amount can never be changed except with a hard fork. just like bitcoin.

https://nxtforum.org/general/%27pos-stands-for-something-other-than-%27stake%27%27/

Here I read from allbits:
    "The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term."

CfB answers:
"Antideflation is the last key element of Nxt. It's supposed to solve this problem."

Does this mean that Nxters in the end want to inflate the Nxt supply somehow?

I see no good reason to expect wealth concentration and a static community of holders. I mean its true that a large stake holder will tend to make larger transactions than a smaller stake holder meaning a smaller percentage of his wealth will be consumed in fees, but you need to also assume that larger stake holder will tend to redeploy a smaller percentage of their nxt worth than a smaller stake holder. Do we we have any data to support this? Granted wealthy people tend to consume a smaller percentage of their net worth but are they not, in general, more diversified in their investments than less wealthy people?

The point is that, maybe its true, im not saying that it isnt, but we simply lack the data necessary to come to a determination either way.

[PilotofBTC]

The way I read it, the individual forgers will choose a minimum fee they are willing to accept.  

The individual users will select a fee they are willing to pay.  As long as the fee of the user is above the fee of the forger, the transaction goes through.  The forger will get all of the fee offered up by the user, not just the minimum.  

The the users fee is too low, then the transaction will wait for the next block or for any block that will process it.  

I am not really sure if this is going to be implemented or not.  

Originally, I thought it was strange, but after thinking about it more, it is a really nice system.  After a while the free market will sort out an average known price for making sure a transaction goes through.

The problem with choosing a set price like 1 or .01 or .001 is it is so subjective and will constantly have to be changed as the price of NXT goes up and down.  

Static fees just don't represent a free market.  

Yes i strongly support this. I hope that JLP will implement this sometime. However it may be wise not to until the point at which at least even the most marginal demand exceeds supply.

Oh wow.  I hadn't heard of this before, but yeah, perfect idea.  Let the free market decide on the fee like it should be.  I hope this is implemented as well.  I don't see any point in waiting though...

The argument against waiting is that uncountably forgers would be willing to process transactions for free. This would mean that most people would submit transactions without paying any fee at all. This would reduce the incentive for people to forge. This would negatively impact the security of the network.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying.  So you (or others) think there would be some forgers that that wouldn't bother setting the fee up at all?...

Idk. I mean im just making the argument, that doesnt mean i agree with it. It would be interesting because the only reason you would set it to 0 is out of generosity, but it probably wouldn't actually be good for the network for you to do that, meaning it wouldn't actually be generous at all. So i really dont know if anyone would do that.

It would be one way to get 0 fee transactions accepted. Set your wallet to forge for 0 fee, then anytime you spend your going to confirm you own transactions for free. Or would it not work that way? Would I still have to be the one to forge the block in order for that transaction to go through?

[Voluntold]

The way I read it, the individual forgers will choose a minimum fee they are willing to accept.  

The individual users will select a fee they are willing to pay.  As long as the fee of the user is above the fee of the forger, the transaction goes through.  The forger will get all of the fee offered up by the user, not just the minimum.  

The the users fee is too low, then the transaction will wait for the next block or for any block that will process it.  

I am not really sure if this is going to be implemented or not.  

Originally, I thought it was strange, but after thinking about it more, it is a really nice system.  After a while the free market will sort out an average known price for making sure a transaction goes through.

The problem with choosing a set price like 1 or .01 or .001 is it is so subjective and will constantly have to be changed as the price of NXT goes up and down.  

Static fees just don't represent a free market.  

Yes i strongly support this. I hope that JLP will implement this sometime. However it may be wise not to until the point at which at least even the most marginal demand exceeds supply.

Oh wow.  I hadn't heard of this before, but yeah, perfect idea.  Let the free market decide on the fee like it should be.  I hope this is implemented as well.  I don't see any point in waiting though...

The argument against waiting is that uncountably forgers would be willing to process transactions for free. This would mean that most people would submit transactions without paying any fee at all. This would reduce the incentive for people to forge. This would negatively impact the security of the network.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying.  So you (or others) think there would be some forgers that that wouldn't bother setting the fee up at all?...

Idk. I mean im just making the argument, that doesnt mean i agree with it. It would be interesting because the only reason you would set it to 0 is out of generosity, but it probably wouldn't actually be good for the network for you to do that, meaning it wouldn't actually be generous at all. So i really dont know if anyone would do that.

Hmm... Definitely hard to predict what people would do.  Idk either.  But if it is a bit of an experiment, than I see it as all the more reason try the 'experiment' sooner rather than later, before it gets too big.  But that would have to be up to the community obviously.

[Voluntold]

Just reading your economic paper: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtdXE5MkF5S05oaHM/edit?pli=1

Some questions:
-Do you want Nxt to be used as money (medium of exchange + store of value)? Because on page 4 I read "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."

-Do you want to increase the amount of 1 billion Nxt? On page 4 it says "there is no limit for a specific type of monetary expansion".

I really like Nxt, but these economics discourage my enthusiasm

i too am quite interested in NXT, i'd be interested for an answer to this too as coming from a tradtional mine and trade crypto background I dont quite get the payment system platforms like NXT and Ripple

nxt should always be used as "the money" inside of the nxt ecosystem because the security of the network is atleast partially a function of the price of nxt.

the 1 billion amount can never be changed except with a hard fork. just like bitcoin.

https://nxtforum.org/general/%27pos-stands-for-something-other-than-%27stake%27%27/

Here I read from allbits:
    "The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term."

CfB answers:
"Antideflation is the last key element of Nxt. It's supposed to solve this problem."

Does this mean that Nxters in the end want to inflate the Nxt supply somehow?

I see no good reason to expect wealth concentration and a static community of holders. I mean its true that a large stake holder will tend to make larger transactions than a smaller stake holder meaning a smaller percentage of his wealth will be consumed in fees, but you need to also assume that larger stake holder will tend to redeploy a smaller percentage of their nxt worth than a smaller stake holder. Do we we have any data to support this? Granted wealthy people tend to consume a smaller percentage of their net worth but are they not, in general, more diversified in their investments than less wealthy people?

The point is that, maybe its true, im not saying that it isnt, but we simply lack the data necessary to come to a determination either way.

Yeah, I tried to compare it to the argument about how people are still willing to spend their money on technology items, fully knowing that they will become cheaper and obsolete soon after purchase.  I'm totally against inflating the supply personally, as I don't think there's any proof that deflation (even though I wouldn't call nxt deflationary unless people start sending their nxt to the genesis account) is a bad thing.  In fact, I think it's very advantageous for governments/central banks to 'teach' people the opposite, that inflation is good and deflation is bad bad bad.  

[Anon136]

Just reading your economic paper: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtdXE5MkF5S05oaHM/edit?pli=1

Some questions:
-Do you want Nxt to be used as money (medium of exchange + store of value)? Because on page 4 I read "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."

-Do you want to increase the amount of 1 billion Nxt? On page 4 it says "there is no limit for a specific type of monetary expansion".

I really like Nxt, but these economics discourage my enthusiasm

i too am quite interested in NXT, i'd be interested for an answer to this too as coming from a tradtional mine and trade crypto background I dont quite get the payment system platforms like NXT and Ripple

nxt should always be used as "the money" inside of the nxt ecosystem because the security of the network is atleast partially a function of the price of nxt.

the 1 billion amount can never be changed except with a hard fork. just like bitcoin.

https://nxtforum.org/general/%27pos-stands-for-something-other-than-%27stake%27%27/

Here I read from allbits:
    "The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term."

CfB answers:
"Antideflation is the last key element of Nxt. It's supposed to solve this problem."

Does this mean that Nxters in the end want to inflate the Nxt supply somehow?

I see no good reason to expect wealth concentration and a static community of holders. I mean its true that a large stake holder will tend to make larger transactions than a smaller stake holder meaning a smaller percentage of his wealth will be consumed in fees, but you need to also assume that larger stake holder will tend to redeploy a smaller percentage of their nxt worth than a smaller stake holder. Do we we have any data to support this? Granted wealthy people tend to consume a smaller percentage of their net worth but are they not, in general, more diversified in their investments than less wealthy people?

The point is that, maybe its true, im not saying that it isnt, but we simply lack the data necessary to come to a determination either way.

Yeah, I tried to compare it to the argument about how people are still willing to spend their money on technology items, fully knowing that they will become cheaper and obsolete soon after purchase.  I'm totally against inflating the supply personally, as I don't think there's any proof that deflation (even though I wouldn't call nxt deflationary unless people start sending their nxt to the genesis account) is a bad thing.  In fact, I think it's very advantageous for governments/central banks to 'teach' people the opposite, that inflation is good and deflation is bad bad bad.  

too me stable purchasing power is most ideal. i think this could be achieved in a crypto by having a supply that never stops inflating at a constant rate (i.e. 50 coins per block forever) because eventually the value of the new coins produced would reach an equilibrium with the cost to individuals of sufficiently securing their coins inorder to prevent an amount from being lost which is greater than the amount of coins being produced in each block. that is to say, eventually the money supply would be inflated to the point where its value was such that people took only enough care to protect their coins from loss that the amount lost in each 10 minute period equaled the amount of new coins produced in that block. (assuming blocks were produced every 10 minutes). If i made a crypto this is how i would do it.

[PilotofBTC]

Just reading your economic paper: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtdXE5MkF5S05oaHM/edit?pli=1

Some questions:
-Do you want Nxt to be used as money (medium of exchange + store of value)? Because on page 4 I read "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."

-Do you want to increase the amount of 1 billion Nxt? On page 4 it says "there is no limit for a specific type of monetary expansion".

I really like Nxt, but these economics discourage my enthusiasm

i too am quite interested in NXT, i'd be interested for an answer to this too as coming from a tradtional mine and trade crypto background I dont quite get the payment system platforms like NXT and Ripple

nxt should always be used as "the money" inside of the nxt ecosystem because the security of the network is atleast partially a function of the price of nxt.

the 1 billion amount can never be changed except with a hard fork. just like bitcoin.

https://nxtforum.org/general/%27pos-stands-for-something-other-than-%27stake%27%27/

Here I read from allbits:
    "The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term."

CfB answers:
"Antideflation is the last key element of Nxt. It's supposed to solve this problem."

Does this mean that Nxters in the end want to inflate the Nxt supply somehow?

I see no good reason to expect wealth concentration and a static community of holders. I mean its true that a large stake holder will tend to make larger transactions than a smaller stake holder meaning a smaller percentage of his wealth will be consumed in fees, but you need to also assume that larger stake holder will tend to redeploy a smaller percentage of their nxt worth than a smaller stake holder. Do we we have any data to support this? Granted wealthy people tend to consume a smaller percentage of their net worth but are they not, in general, more diversified in their investments than less wealthy people?

The point is that, maybe its true, im not saying that it isnt, but we simply lack the data necessary to come to a determination either way.

Yeah, I tried to compare it to the argument about how people are still willing to spend their money on technology items, fully knowing that they will become cheaper and obsolete soon after purchase.  I'm totally against inflating the supply personally, as I don't think there's any proof that deflation (even though I wouldn't call nxt deflationary unless people start sending their nxt to the genesis account) is a bad thing.  In fact, I think it's very advantageous for governments/central banks to 'teach' people the opposite, that inflation is good and deflation is bad bad bad.  

too me stable purchasing power is most ideal. i think this could be achieved in a crypto by having a supply that never stops inflating at a constant rate (i.e. 50 coins per block forever) because eventually the value of the new coins produced would reach an equilibrium with the cost to individuals of sufficiently securing their coins inorder to prevent an amount from being lost which is greater than the amount of coins being produced in each block. that is to say, eventually the money supply would be inflated to the point where its value was such that people took only enough care to protect their coins from loss that the amount lost in each 10 minute period equaled the amount of new coins produced in that block. (assuming blocks were produced every 10 minutes). If i made a crypto this is how i would do it.

Sounds a bit like Doge. After 600,000 blocks the block reward will be 10k coins per block for every more.

[Anon136]

Just reading your economic paper: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtdXE5MkF5S05oaHM/edit?pli=1

Some questions:
-Do you want Nxt to be used as money (medium of exchange + store of value)? Because on page 4 I read "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."

-Do you want to increase the amount of 1 billion Nxt? On page 4 it says "there is no limit for a specific type of monetary expansion".

I really like Nxt, but these economics discourage my enthusiasm

i too am quite interested in NXT, i'd be interested for an answer to this too as coming from a tradtional mine and trade crypto background I dont quite get the payment system platforms like NXT and Ripple

nxt should always be used as "the money" inside of the nxt ecosystem because the security of the network is atleast partially a function of the price of nxt.

the 1 billion amount can never be changed except with a hard fork. just like bitcoin.

https://nxtforum.org/general/%27pos-stands-for-something-other-than-%27stake%27%27/

Here I read from allbits:
    "The reason why having a fixed never-growing supply is undesirable is obvious: it encourages wealth concentration and creates a static community of holders without an effective way for new people to get in, and it means that the coin has no way to incentive any specific kind of activity in the long term."

CfB answers:
"Antideflation is the last key element of Nxt. It's supposed to solve this problem."

Does this mean that Nxters in the end want to inflate the Nxt supply somehow?

I see no good reason to expect wealth concentration and a static community of holders. I mean its true that a large stake holder will tend to make larger transactions than a smaller stake holder meaning a smaller percentage of his wealth will be consumed in fees, but you need to also assume that larger stake holder will tend to redeploy a smaller percentage of their nxt worth than a smaller stake holder. Do we we have any data to support this? Granted wealthy people tend to consume a smaller percentage of their net worth but are they not, in general, more diversified in their investments than less wealthy people?

The point is that, maybe its true, im not saying that it isnt, but we simply lack the data necessary to come to a determination either way.

Yeah, I tried to compare it to the argument about how people are still willing to spend their money on technology items, fully knowing that they will become cheaper and obsolete soon after purchase.  I'm totally against inflating the supply personally, as I don't think there's any proof that deflation (even though I wouldn't call nxt deflationary unless people start sending their nxt to the genesis account) is a bad thing.  In fact, I think it's very advantageous for governments/central banks to 'teach' people the opposite, that inflation is good and deflation is bad bad bad.  

too me stable purchasing power is most ideal. i think this could be achieved in a crypto by having a supply that never stops inflating at a constant rate (i.e. 50 coins per block forever) because eventually the value of the new coins produced would reach an equilibrium with the cost to individuals of sufficiently securing their coins inorder to prevent an amount from being lost which is greater than the amount of coins being produced in each block. that is to say, eventually the money supply would be inflated to the point where its value was such that people took only enough care to protect their coins from loss that the amount lost in each 10 minute period equaled the amount of new coins produced in that block. (assuming blocks were produced every 10 minutes). If i made a crypto this is how i would do it.

Sounds a bit like Doge. After 600,000 blocks the block reward will be 10k coins per block for every more.

the only good thing about that coin. not enough though. i dont own any.

[theironman]

Logo is nice too