Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] NEX :: Nxt Reimagined - Industrial Strength - Imagine Fairness! - page 78. (Read 102003 times)

legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
So..this project won't take off the ground unless NXT release the source code?

FrictionlessCoin is busy working on http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1450&sid=a631b91d8173c41ed98aa95e6b86a49e right now, so yes, we have to wait when Nxt releases the code.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
Sign the petition to demand Nxt release source code so we can begin our journey:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=422590.msg4598983

So..this project won't take off the ground unless NXT release the source code?

I think I see a slight inkling of a flaw here.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
But nobody will give a other person money for something that the person has get for free in the past. You need ever a initial value. This is a question of psychologie and human envy

Money is inherently worthless, no matter what currency you look at. I agree it won't have value until someone buys NEX, but again this goes back to the market. If the market thinks it's worth something, it will be worth something.

Worth isn't a tangible property. Worth doesn't mean bitcoin, or USD or NXT or anything like that. Worth is what people determine. A currency doesn't have to be exchangable to have worth, therefore it does not have to have a price to acquire worth.

Scarcity alone gives something worth. When the free NEX is over, it then becomes scarce. Enough alone to give something value.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1010
Newbie
legendary
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
Cryptotalk.org - Get paid for every post!
Sign the petition to demand Nxt release source code so we can begin our journey:  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4598983
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
Philanthropy may get you to the top, or may be employed by people at the top, but it's not a capitalist ideal.
It actually is IMO. Money — just a tool to comfort yourself and, when u're comfortable enough, to make the world a better place (for yourself, again — rational egoism: u'll feel the best if everything around u is the best either) in every way u choose to do it.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250


I am interested, please add me
thanks
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 500
But nobody will give a other person money for something that the person has got for free in the past. You need ever a initial value. This is a question of psychologie and human envy
full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Yes, I want a part of the 1 Billion coins.
full member
Activity: 378
Merit: 104
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The project sonds a little to socialistic .

How could something for free evolve a value? It it will be ever worthless?

Well, all crypto coins are basically worthless. People are what give coins value, not the coins themselves. I hold 10 million of some altcoins and it's absolutely worthless, but if enough people said it had value, by buying it for BTC, or trading it, or using it to buy or sell goods, then it would be valuable.

It being free just negates the coin having a precedent; a value already placed on the coin as a benchmark. The value would be entirely dependent on the market. It's by no means worthless. It depends on market confidence, which depends on the developer's execution of this idea and the people who deal in NEX.

But altcoins and nxt are not for free. They cost btc or cpu/gpu power. But without this nobody will belive in a value.

Well OK, not "free". Nothing in life is free. But for all intents and purposes the cost is extremely minimal, until the market gives it value. I should said the cost vs the potential value is vastly disproportionate when the cost to mine/obtain the coin is very minimal.

NEX will gain value if enough people buy into the idea that it will have value. It's as simple as that. Every crypto currency has this idea at its core. Whether it be difficulty, market value, development or community; People control the price.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The project sonds a little to socialistic .

How could something for free evolve a value? It it will be ever worthless?

When Bitcoin came out, it was given away free.  

Buying a Pizza for 10,000 BTC, meant that Bitcoin at that time was virtually free.

Value is created because of network effects.



Please see my post above yours. Yes, I totally agree. It's more about psychology than it is inherent worth. Bitcoins are just information. They're not a physical commodity. They don't have to be. We give something value. The value doesn't have to be built in from the start.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 500
The project sonds a little to socialistic .

How could something for free evolve a value? It it will be ever worthless?

Well, all crypto coins are basically worthless. People are what give coins value, not the coins themselves. I hold 10 million of some altcoins and it's absolutely worthless, but if enough people said it had value, by buying it for BTC, or trading it, or using it to buy or sell goods, then it would be valuable.

It being free just negates the coin having a precedent; a value already placed on the coin as a benchmark. The value would be entirely dependent on the market. It's by no means worthless. It depends on market confidence, which depends on the developer's execution of this idea and the people who deal in NEX.

But altcoins and nxt are not for free. They cost btc or cpu/gpu power. But without this nobody will belive in a value.
newbie
Activity: 38
Merit: 0
sounds good!
I'm interested!
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
I could have said "You have to have people at the bottom if you want people at the top, but it means the same thing. You need one to have the other. It was just the way I phrased it. The top want people to be at the bottom, and the bottom want people to be at the top. It's a symmetry.
For what? It's simplification. Not so smart top-people, ofc, asserting itself against bottom-people, but smart ones don't wanna social voltage at all. Everybody'd be on top, and techrevs step by step taking us there. Today almost everyone can read and have access (less or more easy) to unbelievable database of human knowledge, vast amounts of work have become mechanized. Some hundreds of years ago it was just unimaginable.

U can't get off risks, so Elysium-like future possible as well, if not so smart'll win.

Yes, this is true, but people who don't aspire to be at the top in this way aren't being capitalist. I was only speaking of capitalist ideals. Philanthropy may get you to the top, or may be employed by people at the top, but it's not a capitalist ideal.
legendary
Activity: 868
Merit: 1000
Cryptotalk.org - Get paid for every post!
The project sonds a little to socialistic .

How could something for free evolve a value? It it will be ever worthless?

When Bitcoin came out, it was given away free.  

Buying a Pizza for 10,000 BTC, meant that Bitcoin at that time was virtually free.

Value is created because of network effects.

hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
The project sonds a little to socialistic .

How could something for free evolve a value? It it will be ever worthless?

Well, all crypto coins are basically worthless. People are what give coins value, not the coins themselves. I hold 10 million of some altcoins and it's absolutely worthless, but if enough people said it had value, by buying it for BTC, or trading it, or using it to buy or sell goods, then it would be valuable.

It being free just negates the coin having a precedent; a value already placed on the coin as a benchmark. The value would be entirely dependent on the market. It's by no means worthless. It depends on market confidence, which depends on the developer's execution of this idea and the people who deal in NEX.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 500
I could have said "You have to have people at the bottom if you want people at the top, but it means the same thing. You need one to have the other. It was just the way I phrased it. The top want people to be at the bottom, and the bottom want people to be at the top. It's a symmetry.
For what? It's simplification. Not so smart top-people, ofc, asserting itself against bottom-people, but smart ones don't wanna social voltage at all. Everybody'd be on top, and techrevs step by step taking us there. Today almost everyone can read and have access (less or more easy) to unbelievable database of human knowledge, vast amounts of work have become mechanized. Some hundreds of years ago it was just unimaginable.

U can't get off risks, so Elysium-like future possible as well, if not so smart'll win.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
I am interested, please add me
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 500
The project sonds a little to socialistic .

How could something for free evolve a value? It it will be ever worthless?
Pages:
Jump to: