Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 203. (Read 2761645 times)

Twitter kind of had the same problem with usernames, and everything is fine.Even some big companies had to add a number or letter to their brand name,because it was already taken, or buy it for not a lot of money,as it isnt such a big problem.Then the name that appears on your profile can be repeated,and people is used to going to the official website or googling to verify which account is the official one of who they want to follow. They follow it,and never see fake ones again.

Again on this "true randomization" issue. In general, what amount of randomization is desirable, i.e., how often should it happen? If not very often (e.g., several times a day), then the real world will take care of this (because nodes go online and offline, money are transferred, etc.).

If this is not enough, then the following procedure is possible. First X accounts (w.r.t. the inverse weights) choose some "random" numbers locally, and publish their hashes. X is supposed to be large enough so that the bad guy would never control exactly all of them. Then, they publish numbers themselves; if the published number does not correspond to the hash or is not published at all, then the corresponding account is heavily penalized. If that happens for at least one account, the whole procedure is invalidated (and we wait for the next try)..

For now, I don't see how this can be gamed...

USD is currently the world currency. Everyone know it. That's why people want to use it, even if it's "inferior".

NXT will be the dominant currency in the NXT ecosystem no matter what, because that's just logic. But we need to let people make their choice and don't enforce our currency.

Bravo, keep posting!

James,

I think you aren't taking into account that whoever has the NXT doesn't want USD's. If I had a large vestment in NXT (which unfortunately I don't), why would I want to trade it for an inferior currency like USD's? To get me to come of off my NXT you are going to pay MY price. If any other currency other than the NXT currency is given influence like this in the NXT ecosystem, it would automatically denominate the NXT currency to a point of weakness in terms of value for negotiation and purchasing power. NXT currency should be the dominant currency in the NXT ecosystem (imo).

Well there is right click , add to group functionality in the sidebar.

If it were possible to create a Chase.USD client that could operate within the NXT blockchain, and allow for purchasing goods and services and charge a fee in NXT for transactions, it would create an outlet that would encourage usage of the NXT network as a tool for commerce, and it would also create a valueing demand for the NXT currency. To modify AE transactions to create less of a demand for NXT is without a doubt economically counterproductive, and in my opinion should not be done. From a capitalist free market stand point, creating a demand for a commodity or asset or product or currency, that can't be filled is a good thing, as value is determined by what the market will bare.

Allowing other currencies this type of influence in the NXT ecosystem would be bad, and could potential put fiats or any other currency in a network controlling position. NXT currency HAS to be the base currency (in my opinion).

Ok I went into the assett exchange and clicked on "assett issuer" which gave me the issuers public address. I then went in a created a new contact with that address and named it "BOOB SELLER".

What I think might solve a lot of the problems you are referring to is if now when I went back into the Asset Exchange and looked at BOOBS
that any assets being issues by "BOOB SELLER" would be readily apparent in that window. I'd know "BOOB SELLER" was a trusted vendor of boobs and would choose his assets. Would also be nice to be able to filter the BOOBS sell order so only "BOOB SELLER" showed up there so I know that if I buy BOOBS I am only buying them from that seller..

The whole broken idea of DNS names was something from the 1980's.

It is now getting closer to 2020 and we *need to do things differently* and in a *decentralised manner* rather than just "it was good enough back then".

The aliases is basically .bit and look how well that went.

If a user gets *confused* by duplicate names *then that is good* as they are unlikely to just "click one at random" and "buy shares".

Again, the suffix is not intended for uses to take a glance at and instantly trust the issuer. It is there so *humans* can remember which issuer is which (instead of 12312314141 vs. 1231514241), even if they are scams. All of these other systems - verification (basically ripple trustlines), service providers, self-added, etc. - can be done on top of this.

Asset names were made non-unique because that didn't make sense, it's completely possible for two different companies to release "swimming trunks". However, now the focus is shifted on the to issuer, which matches how reality works, and is not a "back-door" to unique asset names. It is not possible for two people to claim to be the CEO of Microsoft at the same time. You would buy Windows 8 from Microsoft, not Evil Bob. Same thing with AE - if Microsoft's true name on the AE is Microsoft123, then people will buy from Microsoft123 and not the scam Microsoft. Once the user verifies Microsoft123 is the real one, he can simply add Microsoft123 to his trust list, and never have to worry about buying from scam Microsoft ever again.

Realize the current system (account #'s) is just as prone to scamming, if not more. You can have two issuers, 12312314141 and 1231514241, both with the descriptions "BTC from Bitstamp"... that's confusing, and the user would have to look up which one was real anyways.

And then what about new companies who start with NXT? They can make their name as they want, without being squatted. This is the same situation with the internet - what do you do when you start a new company? You register your site before you announce anything publicly. In fact, it would be crazy not to. So it seems that we want to limit *all* future potential companies that start with NXT so present companies can't be squatted? (Which they can get around anyways, if aliases transfers is implemented. Or, they can just use a "verified" alternate name) Granted, that's where the money is, but the internet can be squatted, and that's not stopping them from using it. IMO, most companies have no problem having a "sub-name" for a certain market. This can apply to the AE as well.



I actually thought about this the other day (because it was related to NXTopia). Expiring Aliases could be very useful, for things like Proof of Ownership (PoO) that become invalidated after a certain time period (rent). The owner of the alias can refresh the duration at anytime before the alias expires, to prevent someone from snatching the alias away right when it expires. This is actually why I asked c-f-b a while back if parallel chains could define their own parameters (but it seems not to be the case). EDIT: Although, AT could probably do something like this anyways.

Pandaisftw

so true! and i like it! 

The AT approach I described would do no such thing (it would be effectively *outside* of AE).

The feature that makes this possible is the Asset Transfer one (you can play with it on testnet).

So right now you do "do a swap" with someone *but* you'd need to trust them to uphold "their end of the agreement". The difference with using AT to do this is you can "take out the trust" (in fact the AT acts as an "escrow").

Remember also that ATs are not going to be *cheap* (and their fuel is NXT) so the more that they are used then the more NXT will be worth.

I think denominating AE trades to external currencies is a bad idea. If NXT were the only accepted tender for AE transactions, it WOULD create a scarcity of NXT currency, but this scarcity would by inherent laws of supply and demand, only valuate the NXT currency. The "Free Market" would dictate trading, and either the amount of external assets being traded on the AE would gradually increase with as the value and capacity of NXT allowed, or the demand for NXT would drive the value and capacity to facilitate trading assets.  In my opinion the NXT network should be valued in NXT and only NXT. We could allow other forms of currency or assets use of the blockchain for purchase of goods and services and charge a transaction fee in NXT, but I think all NXT network features should be exclusive to NXT currency. We should be patient and let NXT currency be the base currency of the NXT free market.

What is the best CPU miner for AMD 64-bit ? hashrate.org CPU pool mining..

Anyone know any non-testnet nodes with API available and ajax CORS enabled? (except nxtcrypto.org)

There would be no reason to encrypt your trust list unless you wanted to keep it outside of Nxt (in which case just use GPG).

GPG also gives you "levels" of trust which is another thing to consider (e.g. "someone I've met in person" would have a higher trust level than someone I'd only met via forum or chat).

I already have (client side) contacts in my web client. Check it out. An asset will show up as issued by "Bob" if you have set that person up as a contact.

Keep the discussion about asset names running.

About the trading between different Assets (I had to think about it for some time, so some things were already pointed out I believe):

- With AT, it is possible to trade between different Assets without using NXT. But the first step is that someone *wants* to trade exactly these two pairs. So we won't have AE cluttered with corn/oil and seasalt/schmoggleboggles pairs (O(n^2)) as long as there is no one who wants to trade it. Like the cigarette analogy in prisons. NXT provides fungibility, and Nxt provides free markets.
- Afaik, with AT, we cannot prevent these trading pairs to popup. We should foster it instead (see next point)
- Nxt is about the free market. Business people want to be free and not restricted on how to do their businesses. Nxt should embrace these free markets to attract business people and the (free market minded) crypto community in general

That's my understanding right now.

Any  opinion on that?

How would "trust" work if the list is encrypted?

Here is the US you can litigate for the rights to your trademarked name. If you squat a name someone has IP rights to they will just take it away from you and give it to whoever should rightfully own that name. With decentralized systems like namecoin (.bit) there's no authority to do this.  

I have squatted some nxt aliases just in case they become transferable. If so I would sell them for a small profit. Ideologically though, I think squatters are bad for these kinds of systems. namecoin (.bit)  is never going to take off because of it and good nxt aliases are already pretty much all taken before it's even gotten off the ground.