NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 195.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 12:10:09 PM

We will also have the image of openness and accessibility to everyone. the opportunity for someone to build him self up from almost nothing. someone with almost NO assets to his name can bootstrap his way to success.

I get that - but do we *need* to *start with that* as most people haven't even *heard* of Nxt.

Anyway - I'll not try and stop the fees being lowered but just think me might want to do that "in steps" (as it gets wider adoption).

Sebastien256

hero member

Activity: 715

Merit: 500

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 12:10:09 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 12:04:28 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 12:02:42 PM

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

I think the cost is the "image" of the project - if we are wanting to court more business types then fees such as 1000 NXT are not going to frighten them at all.

But kids having fun are going to create Assets left, right and center if we make it the same price as creating an AM.

the image is scammie sure, but it will also have positive assets. We will also have the image of openness and accessibility to everyone. the opportunity for someone to build him self up from almost nothing. someone with almost NO assets to his name can bootstrap his way to success. its easy to think of ourselves in isolation in the west (or i guess the east in your case) but there are a lot of people out there with a lot of potential to whom 1000 nxt may as well be a million. again if the advantage was great enough than i would say "yea ok cut those people out" but it just isnt. its a tiny advantage we are talking about here. fewer assets listed in the exchange, but so what you can filter and you will have to consult outside sources anyway before you make a purchase whether there are 2 microsofts or 10,000 microsofts.

Anon, can you give example where issue cheap asset is need (less than an 100$)?

EDIT: Ok I miss read, I agree, that for some poeple in less rich country 100$ may be a lot. Fee should be lower. However, im not sure if this is urgent matter.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

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.

Sebastien256

hero member

Activity: 715

Merit: 500

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 12:08:21 PM

Quote from: Sebastien256 on March 22, 2014, 12:06:37 PM

imo, I don't really care the price of issuing asset. It could be lower. Just need to define what is low. 1000nxt seem low to me, but if poeple think it is high, maybe there is a reason. It true that since name is not unique, price could be cheap.

With the name not being unique anyway - it is easy enough to lower fees as we go.

I am not against "low fees" but would rather that *at first* we have a less *spam* basically.

(just to paint a nicer picture before we let every kid in the world scribble on it)

I agree that this is not an urgent matter. This can be postpone imo.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 12:04:28 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 12:02:42 PM

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

I think the cost is the "image" of the project - if we are wanting to court more business types then fees such as 1000 NXT are not going to frighten them at all.

But kids having fun are going to create Assets left, right and center if we make it the same price as creating an AM.

the image is scammie sure, but it will also have positive assets. We will also have the image of openness and accessibility to everyone. the opportunity for someone to build him self up from almost nothing. someone with almost NO assets to his name can bootstrap his way to success. its easy to think of ourselves in isolation in the west (or i guess the east in your case) but there are a lot of people out there with a lot of potential to whom 1000 nxt may as well be a million. again if the advantage was great enough than i would say "yea ok cut those people out" but it just isnt. its a tiny advantage we are talking about here. fewer assets listed in the exchange, but so what you can filter and you will have to consult outside sources anyway before you make a purchase whether there are 2 microsofts or 10,000 microsofts.

Conurtrol

sr. member

Activity: 478

Merit: 250

Is a two tiered system possible? I want to sell 100 lollipops for 50 cents each. Nxt fee = 1. I want to sell 100 ssd's for $250 each. Nxt fee =1000

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

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.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Sebastien256 on March 22, 2014, 12:06:37 PM

imo, I don't really care the price of issuing asset. It could be lower. Just need to define what is low. 1000nxt seem low to me, but if poeple think it is high, maybe there is a reason. It true that since name is not unique, price could be cheap.

With the name not being unique anyway - it is easy enough to lower fees as we go.

I am not against "low fees" but would rather that *at first* we have a less *spam* basically.

(just to paint a nicer picture before we let every kid in the world scribble on it)

Sebastien256

hero member

Activity: 715

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.

imo, I don't really care the price of issuing asset. It could be lower. Just need to define what is low. 1000nxt seem low to me, but if poeple think it is high, maybe there is a reason. It true that since name is not unique, price could be cheap.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

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.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 12:02:42 PM

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

I think the cost is the "image" of the project - if we are wanting to court more business types then fees such as 1000 NXT are not going to frighten them at all.

But kids having fun are going to create Assets left, right and center if we make it the same price as creating an AM.

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

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.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 12:01:59 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 11:58:32 AM

think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it.

I read it - but I think that we need to progress "step by step" rather than "jumping into the deep end".

We may well end up with 1000's of "Junk Assets" eventually but does it look good to "start with that"?

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: Anon136 on March 22, 2014, 11:58:32 AM

think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it.

I read it - but I think that we need to progress "step by step" rather than "jumping into the deep end".

We may well end up with 1000's of "Junk Assets" eventually but does it look good to "start with that"?

Come-from-Beyond

legendary

Activity: 2142

Merit: 1010

Newbie

Quote from: IveBeenBit on March 22, 2014, 11:52:10 AM

Is there a reason we can't just have transaction fees market-driven? Let the forgers decide what fee is acceptable. Why impose "price controls?"

I'm adding it right now.

brooklynbtc

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

AKA jefdiesel

Quote from: Sebastien256 on March 22, 2014, 11:56:40 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.

I don't think 1000nxt is very limiting right now to create asset. Maybe in the near future.

its limiting in the fact that few people are going to buy very many with no use.

If dot coms were $.01 we'd just buy them all day long as jokes. Even at $4 USD people will limit AEs to real things.

HEck, I feel like im wasting money to create a TESTNxt AE just as a joke..

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 11:54:29 AM

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

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

Agreed - to incorporate in most countries is nowhere near as cheap as 1000 NXT.

think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it. you are telling little girls that they can not incorporate their dreams of opening a lemonade stand. which is worth it if necessary to stop scams but it isn't anymore. with these recent changes the advantages to barrier to entry no longer outweigh the costs.

Sebastien256

hero member

Activity: 715

Merit: 500

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.

I don't think 1000nxt is very limiting right now to create asset. Maybe in the near future.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

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.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

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

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.

It is easy enough to "lower the fees" once we have got things started and have seen how that has "panned out".

If it wasn't for OTC then pirateat40 would never have got so far (if it had cost say 1000 BTC back then he wouldn't have been able to even start his ponzi - when he started it BTC was around 2 USD from memory).

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 195. (Read 2761645 times)