Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 277. (Read 2761645 times)

Personally I value BrianNowhere's opinion.  Although I would like to see him offer some more solutions rather than state how Ripple is better in this way or that.  On a side note, I personally know several of the Ripple Lab developers here in the silicon valley.  I don't trust Ripple, they are a for profit company backed by VC's, they have a stockpile of reserve Ripple to use whenever they want.  They can issue new Ripple whenever they want.  They can be shut down by the US government at any moment and all be arrested.  They could be acquired by Google tomorrow.  They have close to zero street credibility.  They didn't release their source code until they were all but dead and completely discredited. There are no Ripple enthusiasts (other than BrianNowhere    Emunie has so many issues and the UK government can arrest Dan tomorrow and the project is dead, totally closed source, and price controlled.  I like Nxt for all the reasons they are not Ripple or Emunie.  At this point I wouldn't care if Nxt goes to $1Mil marketcap, it's about focusing on usability and projects like DAC, NxtCash, Nodecoin, AT, Parallel Blockchain, CCT get me excited.  That is my opinion.

BTC is POW coin and will still require computation/electricity once the mining phase is over.  It costs me absolutely nothing to run Nxt software on my computer, as my system is already running regardless if I run nxt node or not, and my bandwidth is unlimited.
 

I dont understand a bit how these correlate to any defined computational effort.  How are some transactions more computationally intense than others?  Also, consider that AM are periodically purged, so perhaps their fee structure should be a little different somehow?  (smaller, larger, not sure)

FTR, I am 100% against charging fees based on amount of NXT being transferred.

Well the stance some of us are trying to make is to move to .1 as lowest fee and scale up from there based on a multiplier of how much bigger in bytes a transaction is compared to byte size of a NXT transfer.  Then in the future we just have to change 1 figure to scale everything.

But everyone  HAS to admit that .1 is high, at least for long term.  Consider BTC now and how extremely low fees are.  This is because BTC is still in mining phase now; consider what BTC will look like is 2140 when no more coins are generated and miners are then paid only in fees.  Hell, consider what will happen to mining soon when block subsidy is halved again - drastic ROI change.  Does anyone know when this happens again?

Anyway, yes .1 for now, and a sliding scale based on byte size is what we are suggesting.  With a vision for the long term of what those numbers should be lowered to.  The thought is that the lower the transaction fee, the higher the utility.

Well explained.

Does anyone else have their 0.8.x client, when forging, run off on its own fork and generate every single block?  This happens to me multiple times per day.  At first my client would just stop receiving new blocks; I thought it was caused by forging behind TOR, but I stopped using TOR and now every so often I just go off on a fork all by myself.  0.7.7 works fine though.

I rebooted, same thing.  Im using ubuntu.

Any ideas?  I enabled debugging but the log file doesnt really show anything.  What other diags/debugs can I enable?

What if asteroid hits Earth in a week?? Relax man, everything will be good. Fees will be lowered as needed, as many have said before me. Nothing prevents us to lower fees to even 0.00001 and lower in the future.

Sudden growth about which you are speaking - well let's all hope will happen. It would be nice to get into that situation that current fees prevent our growth in the future, but for now on leave the fees alone.

Can you send asset to genesis? Interesting. How do you do it?

Someone would have to learn Java! Cosmos forbid! Or we clone the whole system and move.

BrianNowhere, please put together a proposal to help Nxt find Java coders and submit it to the appropriate committee.

And if Jean-luc gets hit by a bus? (Buddha Cosmos forbid)

The network is decentralized, but the core software development isn't. The lead developer is Jean Luk.  There is nothing decentralized about the core software development.

First of all, it's nice to see the trolls have gone to bed, please ignore them when they post, it's hard to read this thread as is.  

I don't think it's a good idea to change the issuance of Assets whatsoever.  If someone wants to register BTC and squat on it, then so be it.  We can't police someone registering CIYAM who isn't CIYAM.  I assume we will have a registration process similar to Alias, where the highest bidder will get the Asset name when the block is forged.  This will help prevent spam Assets as well.

I do think it's a good idea (as James suggested) to have a reputation system, voting +/-, and perhaps linking Alias name with Asset to verify within Wesleyh client.  We need freedom to register Assets and I don't like the idea of someone telling me when I can trade my asset or what name I can use.  I don't think it's a big deal to have BTC or 1BTC or zBtc as the standard for Bitcoin in Nxt AE.  I don't imagine anyone will be buying Assets for Crypto other than through James' DAC.  Buyers need to beware and Wesleyh can put in a warning screen for people who click on Asset Tab "Please verify Asset owner before buying ANY Asset in exchange"

We still need a couple Java guys to help CIYAM with AT code port and Parallel Blockchain, this should be a priority!  Please register at http://ciyam.org/open and help him.

Then you must also have to believe that the Devs are immune to/don't understand the effects of market forces.

Do you honestly think the fee won't change if it costs $620,000 to issue an asset (to use your example)?

The FUD is deep in here right now.

You are not bringing any new info. As I told you it was already agreed that 1 nxt fee is too  high 1 month ago when reddit tipping bot was developed.. There was consensus to drop it to 0.1 Nxt, but it requires some work in the core. This is already being done. This is an old topic. What else do you want?

I don't want to base a decision to use a platform on some arbitrary decision that may or may not happen in the future. I have no faith in the decentralized developers to make this decision correctly in the future. I want to know now what would happen in the future before I decide to waste any more time believing in this product's potential.

In my opinion .1 fee is way too much for spam protection. basing it on transaction size makes way more sense. The competition is going to eat Nxt's lunch.

I'm starting to think this whole idea is just not going to work and has too many problems, but I'll shut up and take a wait and see approach.

So are you refusing to acknowledge that the fee can be changed as the situation dictates?

Or that you want us to match ripples fee right now?


Sometimes I don't see the benefit of some posts in moving things forward.

You are going way too long again and again on tx fees. This is not an issue. TX fee will be changed to 0.1  and they can be lowered even more if nxt prices go up.

This is not an issue.

TX fees exists to prevent spam and flooding.