Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 192. (Read 2761645 times)

Quote from: TwinWinNerD on March 22, 2014, 01:49:39 PM

What do you mean? Lets say I want buy pot. ( i take the risk of getting scammed).

Give me a solution to use either asset or digital goods infrastructure to do so.

There is no solution so far...

Ok, then I misunderstood "asset" exchange and I take everything back I said about it. You can have unique names all you want. It's crap and I doubt it's worth that much pages of discussion.

It's not going to do anything for nxt. It basically will encourage ponzi schemes. I issue an "asset" and tell you to buy it and sell it to next person for higher price. The next person buys it and sells it to next person even higher.

This is worth nothing unless I can trade it for something real.

Too many pages of discussion on something that will never pickup (not in the next 2 or 3 years)

congratulations on "not getting it". if all those pages of discussion weren't enough than only time will be able to sort this one out. some day you will "get it" you will just have to see the applications with your own eyes. (granted there will probably be 100 scams for every 1 legitimate use but thats neither here nor there, the 1% that are legit are going to change the world)

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: bitcoinpaul on March 22, 2014, 01:53:40 PM

What do you mean? Lets say I want buy pot. ( i take the risk of getting scammed).

Give me a solution to use either asset or digital goods infrastructure to do so.

There is no solution so far...

Ok, then I misunderstood "asset" exchange and I take everything back I said about it. You can have unique names all you want. It's crap and I doubt it's worth that much pages of discussion.

It's not going to do anything for nxt. It basically will encourage ponzi schemes. I issue an "asset" and tell you to buy it and sell it to next person for higher price. The next person buys it and sells it to next person even higher.

This is worth nothing unless I can trade it for something real. Every "asset" is just another "crapcopin" on nxt blockchain.

Too many pages of discussion on something that will never pickup.

Lets move on to a different topic.

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Ask CfB

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

I think the digital good store could be the place to go. Let's wait how it will look like.

CfB - ETA?

im confused why its a digital goods store and not just a goods store

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

I think the digital good store could be the place to go. Let's wait how it will 'look' like.

CfB - ETA?

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell 8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So it's totally new code that will become part of NRS?

Yes.

What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10?

Neither is fit for your needs. (Due to trust issues etc)

What do you mean? Lets say I want buy pot. ( i take the risk of getting scammed).

Give me a solution to use either asset or digital goods infrastructure to do so.

Pot seller posts pot listing on marketplace signed by the key to his OTC_WebOfTrust account. In listing is a link to OTC_WebOfTrust. You check his authenticity first, then his trust rating and send the nxt with a message containing your home address attached to the transaction encrypted with the public key he used for his WOT ID. Done.

TwinWinNerD

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1001

CEO Bitpanda.com

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 01:40:50 PM

What do you mean? Lets say I want buy pot. ( i take the risk of getting scammed).

Give me a solution to use either asset or digital goods infrastructure to do so.

There is no solution so far...

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 01:40:50 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell 8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So it's totally new code that will become part of NRS?

Yes.

What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10?

Neither is fit for your needs. (Due to trust issues etc)

What do you mean? Lets say I want buy pot. ( i take the risk of getting scammed).

Give me a solution to use either asset or digital goods infrastructure to do so.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 01:10:39 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell 8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So it's totally new code that will become part of NRS?

Yes.

What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10?

Neither is fit for your needs. (Due to trust issues etc)

we just need to figure that bit out. we need our marketplace to fill the niche left open by bitmit imo.

alxx77

member

Activity: 95

Merit: 10

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 01:09:00 PM

I've been thinking about it more and im starting better understand your position ciyam.

Yes - now you are seeing it - we have *real* competition who are courting "big business".

If we want to "thumb our noses" then we will "pay the penalty" of doing that.

It's up to the community how it "wants to be perceived".

+1000

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:11:02 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital goods" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40 to issue as an asset, the seller needs to sell 8 copies to just make it even

This is not going to work.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much.

you are confusing the asset exchange and the marketplace. they are different concepts entirely.

BitcoinForumator

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 12:04:44 PM

think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.

I wasn't able to read the end of ur post coz of tears in my eyes.

I'm working on market-set fees code.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell 8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So it's totally new code that will become part of NRS?

Yes.

What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10?

Neither is fit for your needs. (Due to trust issues etc)

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell 8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So it's totally new code that will become part of NRS?

Yes.

What about non-digital goods? Lets say I want to sell a USB drive that's worth $10?

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

It uses AM, not AE.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell 8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So it's totally new code that will become part of NRS?

Yes.

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM

Quote from: Sebastien256 on March 22, 2014, 01:25:00 PM

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

This makes sense. Let's think how we'll come to a consensus.

Dude, this is pretty simple. You were working on "digital good" ("porn store"). If one video (that costs $5 on clips4sale) costs $40, the seller needs to sell 8 of them to just make it even

This is not going to work. Trust me.

No one is opening a digital "good" store if it costs that much to add a new clip

Asset exchange is not for digital goods. It is for parts of a company.

In fact, cfb is working on a digital goods store as we speak.

I thought it would use the same infrastructure.

So that part is totally new code that will become part of NRS?

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Eadeqa on March 22, 2014, 01:21:48 PM

Quote from: Sebastien256 on March 22, 2014, 10:23:01 AM

Quote from: Sebastien256 on March 22, 2014, 10:05:18 AM

Nxt is in dared need of a 100% trust forum. Im wondering how long it will take until we get one. I believe community fund should fund a forum to get thing structure a bit. It good to be decentralized, but not desorganized.

I'm setting one up now and if opticalcarrier agrees it can be the new forums.nxtcrypto.org:

http://107.170.117.237

Nice it look like bitcointalk!

EDIT: @wesley, make sure there is two admins, to avoid the case that Nxt have with nxtcrypto at the moment.

Why just two? We can can have perhaps 6 admins (or moderators) that are well known

Forgot to add, "at least"
[/quote]

Let's make everyone an admin Grin

but no there will be at least 3 or more admins (maybe even 6), and of course moderators as well.

Sebastien256

hero member

Activity: 715

Merit: 500

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 01:31:21 PM

Quote from: Eadeqa on March 22, 2014, 01:29:13 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 11:43:36 AM

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

Yes, the logic behind 1000 nxt was to discourage scamers from squatting on names. If the names are not unique, the fees should be dropped.

Besides, if I have something that is worth $5. 1000 nxt fees ($40) is 8 times higher than my asset value.

tell me what you think of this argument

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5842937

Hey guy, go try the new forum and discuss the Asset exchange fee issue there:
http://107.170.117.237/index.php/topic,16.0.html

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 12:02:48 PM