NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 193.

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

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

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 11:53:57 AM

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.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

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

Mario123

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Using AE for a 5$ product? Am I missing something here?

Mario

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

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.

Sebastien256

hero member

Activity: 715

Merit: 500

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
[/quote]

Forgot to add, "at least"

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

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.
[/quote]

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

Mario123

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

forums.mynxt.org

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 10:13:40 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

Great job.

Is nxt.org owner still asking for a million nxt?

That should be the default URL (but definitely not for a million nxt).

bitcoinpaul

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 01:12:40 PM

im starting to like the idea of gradually lowering the price down to market rates. in light of the fact that my arguments were good and right (atleast im pretty sure they were) i think market rates should be the ultimate goal. just maybe not immediately.

+1

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 08:51:07 AM

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 08:49:23 AM

So frustrating that some of these other guys cant see what an elegant solution this is to an age old problem.

Indeed - also practically speaking the "list of Assets" will end up being huge (so you are not likely to be searching for an Asset by scrolling through a list).

Yes, this is a good point. If the list of assets goes into hundreds of thousands, who will care about "names" anyway?. It will be impossible to display that many names in the client. If the user is shown only the assets whose issuer they added to the trust list, that will make the list clean and manageable.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

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

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".

im starting to like the idea of gradually lowering the price down to market rates. in light of the fact that my arguments were good and right (atleast im pretty sure they were) i think market rates should be the ultimate goal. just maybe not immediately.

Jerical13

full member

Activity: 266

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 12:46:32 PM

Quote from: Jerical13 on March 22, 2014, 12:44:21 PM

Yes, but you only have to pay to incorporate one time. This 1000 NXT fee would be charged for every asset. Maybe Alias registration fees should be higher. Alias registration is more in line with incorporation.

This makes no sense - each Asset *is* a new listing so it is nothing to do with "one time".

That is what I mean. You compared registering an asset with incorporation..... some thing about the fee for registering an asset being cheaper to incorporate in most countries..... My response points out the fact that asset registration will require multiple fees and that incorporation is a one time fee.... so your analogy to the registration fee being similar to an incorporation fee is not a fair comparison.

It would be more analogous to relate alias registration fees with incorporation fees, as they are both one time fees.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

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".

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

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

Its not that the reputation of nxt would be hurt per say but rather that it would create a situation where the reputation of any one who wanted to bootstrap a project would be hurt by the fact that they decided to issue it on nxt. There would be so many scams on nxt that people would see a new offering on bitcointalk and as soon as soon as they saw "nxt" they would think "oh its another scam, moving on". And so then legit people would chose to put their offerings on counterparty or mastercoin instead just for the sake of protecting THEIR reputation. Thus creating a feedback loop where our assets had an even higher scam to legit ratio.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 12:53:38 PM

So now that the "fatal flaw" has been discovered I think it is time that we realised that we really need to "pull together" or risk losing to a "clone".

I fear we're going to start seeing the "C" word a lot now. And not in a good competitive way. More like a "have a look at the craptacular list on coinmarketcap" kind of way.

If I am not mistaken... injected fatal flaw != Nxt clone trap... right C-f-B? Undecided

No, that was one of the traps for lazy cloners.

BitcoinForumator

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1000

http://themisescircle.org/blog/2014/03/14/the-coming-demise-of-the-altcoins/

Jerical13

full member

Activity: 266

Merit: 100

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 12:13:34 PM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 12:08:50 PM

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

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

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 11:53:57 AM

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.

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.

Doesn't make sense to me. Incorporate a lemon stand? Lol. OK the second idea is better, but for buying a shovel you don't need to issue an asset.. what would the return on investment be of that?.. I guess someone could create a Nxt microloan service instead.

why on earth shouldn't a little girl be able to incorporate a lemonade stand for all of the exact same reasons that incorporating anything else benefits everyone else? maybe she has entrepreneurial aspirations and ideas but no assets. maybe she has the assets and the idea but wishes to defer to the wisdom of the market to determine whether its a good idea or not.

Right on Anon. Who should be able to tell who what an "asset" is? Do Bankers and Wall Street types hold all the "assets"?

Webster's Dictionary-: Asset- (a) valuable thing which belongs to you. (b)anything owned which can be sold to pay debt.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 11:56:18 AM

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 11:53:57 AM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 11:45:07 AM

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?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

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.

What's the benefit of allowing people to issue assets for pennies? Nothing I can think of, except allowing more and more junk assets that are not backed by anything and are only meant to confuse / scam users.

advantage is that we will not be excluding people who have useful things to contribute to society but relatively little in the way of assets.

you have the disadvantage right. though it still wouldn't be practical to try to trick people into thinking that they are buying something other than what they think they are buying it would make it easier for people to make fraudulent but unique new schemes with their own unique identities.

the poor should not be the whipping boy for scammers and the fools who fall victim to them. caveat emptor.

chanc3r

sr. member

Activity: 952

Merit: 253

Quote from: Sebastien256 on March 22, 2014, 11:48:36 AM

Quote from: Come-from-Beyond on March 22, 2014, 11:45:07 AM

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?

Let's leave it as is to keep entry barrier high enough. To limit number of scam attempts.

Good idea, especially at start.

Yes someone will DDOS the AE by creating loads of assets... we should not make the price too low.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

So now that the "fatal flaw" has been discovered I think it is time that we realised that we really need to "pull together" or risk losing to a "clone".

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 193. (Read 2761645 times)