Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 253. (Read 2761645 times)

Of course, more competition is bad but I still think Nxt has them beat.  Nxt is so much more than just a coin.

I had to look up incisive.

Feedback is feedback. Do with it what want AND do not evaluate it (first rule of feedback).


No. There might be value in this. But your workflow is quite error-prone. I would like a simpler solution.


Quite some time ago, we used a migration strategy that activates feature F at block B. But distribution of F what at block B - X, where X >= say 20,000.

This way, people have two weeks to upgrade. We need to increase X in the future as the number of NXT nodes increases. More nodes will slow down upgrading.

Can anyone in this thread who is mining in my pool please comment on https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-nxtmultipool-hashrateorg-522872 ?
Particularily if you're one of the people who have already recieved one of the payments.

Thanks for your incisive negative feedback! So it is your conclusion that since it is impossible to make sure it is perfectly accurate that there is absolutely no value in detecting potentially active forks?

What if the fork is caused by upgrading? What if Evil Bob isnt around? What if we could detect things are a bit unstable? There is no value in this?

James

P.S. I am sure everyone is rushing out to write their own NRS as we speak!!

Tagging means to apply n tags to an object (this case: an asset).

For instance:

asset1: furniture, chair
asset2: table, furniture
asset3: furniture


People can easily filter for furniture, chairs or tables without loosing flexibility.

Many studies already showed that facet search (aka filtering) is the future and many webshops like ebay and amazon apply this way.

Hierarchical searches are not practical anymore. Best example: You want to buy wine for your best friend. You know he loves wine from Italy.

There is a shop offering wine. It applies a hierarchical search:

red
 - sweet
   - Italy
   - Portugal
 - semi-sweet
   - Portugal
 - dry
   - Portugal

white
 - sweet
   - Italy
   - Greece
   - Portugal
 - dry
   - Greece
   - Portugal

rosé
 - sweet
   - Greece
 - dry
   - Italy
   - Greece

How do you find what you need? You have no chance but to look it all through.

When using a tagging system the flexibility is built in. No categorization is better or more top than another.

Just my 2 cents.

Ah, I understand what you are saying. Yes, we are talking about the same thing. So the issuer can only chose from existing categories (or be placed in Misc. if he doesn't) such as "currency"?

So the asset would look something like:

[fakeCoin asset]

Looking deeper, I still think we should have for search purposes. For example, if Google releases a line of products on the AE (each one with the google tag), then when I type in "google" into your client's search bar, I would find all assets with the google tag. This enables us to search by company, product line, etc. This would be too limiting if we only allowed pre-defined categories.

So the asset may look something like this:

[fakeCoin asset]

Quote

(in the description)

OR

Tags123 URI: ("fake", "fakecompany", "moon")
This will allow the issuer to update his tags later if he wants to make his asset more search-relevant.

Simplifying:

[fakeCoin asset]

Quote

(in the description)
"currency"> OR

Tags123 URI: ("fake", "fakecompany", "moon", "currency")

In this case, your client would just look for "pre-defined" categories (same as the previous example) and place the asset under those categories. So the asset in this example would be placed under the "currency" category in your client, and ignore the other tags for this purpose.

Understandably, if the search function will take a lot of work to implement, we can define the standard now (so issuers can place these tags on their assets) and enable the search functionality in the future. But I think implementing the pre-defined list of categories should be achievable in the short-term.

Pandaisftw

I don't know if that will fix the issues i mentioned in the article. I'm not even sure what makes one transaction have more bandwidth than another unless you are talking about large amounts of text or whatnot.  I don't even want to get into this too much here because I'll probably be accused of throwing FUD. I'll be happy to field any questions on reddit though.

I did, although I don´t think that they will be able to add it in the beginning.

Move the NXT from your account to a new account before sending anything on the other chain.  If you duplicate an account across blockchains, consider them compromised and act accordingly.

This is why I suggested adding a unique identifier/GUID to a NXT style blockchain.  A transaction would have to specify which blockchain it belongs to.

Hey guys, just a heads up, to any of you trading at Cryptostocks:

AlcurEX, a listing for an exchange traded there, has posted a list of coins to be voted by the shareholders and NXT is on the list.
If any of you are holding any AlcurEX shares, please vote for NXT.

Thank you
-Fo-

I am not sure I understand what you mean by tagging. To me It would seem be more practical to implement if there were a set of "check the one that applies" categories that would actively limit the types of listings that could be used. Flexibility could be achieved by having a comprehensive set of categories to choose from, that could be added to if needed; and by allowing more detailed descriptions of the asset in the description field during the assets registration.

+1

Hi Brian. Thanks for posting your concerns in detail. I found it easier to digest than trying to follow the back-and-forth nature of discussion here.

I agree that the fee thing needs to be sorted out with an eye towards future price appreciation. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a simple solution. Charging fees based on bandwidth usage or size of transaction seemed like an elegant solution when I first heard about it. However, as nxt intends to compete with a variety of financial systems, each with complicated fee structures of their own, I'm concerned that some great nxt services will be "priced out" of the market, while other services will be unnecessarily cheap.

When thinking of nxt as bitcoin in the future, I think the analogy breaks down when talking about fees. Specifically, the future of bitcoin assumes much lower price volatility. Therefore, denominating fees in bitcoin instead of fiat isn't a big deal. For us, we expect high volatility for the near term. Denominating fees in terms of fiat (or gold or any other asset with lower volatility) might make sense in the near term.

With regards to charging fees for placing an order in the asset exchange, I think that there is room for the nxt AE to improve upon the way markets currently work. If you follow nanexllc on twitter (his work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, amongst other publications), you will learn that high frequency trading firms have been abusing the stock markets in the United States. They take profit, and justify this profit by claiming to increase liquidity and lower the bid-ask spread. However, in reality, the displayed liquidity (order book) can rarely be accessed by real trades, and orders often disappear before a counterparty can fill them. I know that setting walls is a strategy for day trading. However, for a wall to be effective, it has to be large. This implies that the fee would be tiny in comparison to the size of the wall.

Additionally, Nanex's recent studies show that the bid-ask spread has not tightened over the life of the current regulation (Reg NMS). Based on these issues in current stock markets, I am suspicious of HFT terrorizing our infant network, and I think that charging fees for placing an order prevents both spam and these predatory trading practices. We aren't designing the AE for the profit of algorithmic day traders.

 I posted it to get opinion of others (as it is scheduled to be the default client that is distributed with NRS server)

The general consensus is that wesleyh client's password generator is safe

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/53659/is-this-password-generator-safe

That is a good idea, and technically it wouldn't be centralized, it would be a perfect example of "Free Market". It would seem centralized if there weren't a lot of competition in what is essentially a virgin market though, but if it is a profitable enterprise, I would guess competition in the market would be eventual.

Think of all the free market opportunities like this that the AE will create!!!!

It should be tagging system. It is more flexible.

Send to whom?

You could index them according to type of asset:  cryptocurrencies, fiat currencies, precious metals, stocks, bonds, loan markers, services, agricultural assets, real estate/land holdings, natural resources, energy resources, tech assets, miscellaneous assets.

It would also be cool if you could index the sellers location and length of time that the sellers account has been established.

I can imagine in the future that categorizing the AE will be a very smart move. I would suggest using an indexing similar to Craigslist (if you are familiar with it). Craigslist indexes a lot of postings from a lot of geographic locations and includes a large number of general category descriptions in a way that is very easy to navigate.

If any of these node providers sees this: fix it!