Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 279. (Read 2761645 times)

It should not only tied to the size of  the blockchain but also to the computational effort a node must perform to include this transaction.

this is what completely untie'ing all fees from any fiat representation, and setting it to a fee/transactionByteSize ratio will do for us

I say for now, as soon as fractional NXT is possible, that we go to .01, but the community voted for .1 some time ago, so that is prob where we will start.  But I can see it changing in the future.

My concern is that any subsequent fee change based on future price increases will be necessarily decided on by this decentralized development team, or be arbitrarily decided upon by one person (Jean-Luc) I don't know which is worse.

Then if/when the price goes back down it will have to be changed again. Nxt will be unable to scale to rapid market fluctuations and volatility. It is not enough for me for CIYAM OPEN to say a sudden and rapid price spike is impossible. The "what if" in me says that if that would occur the market would suddenly grind to a halt because the fees would be "too damn high".

I realize that we still have some discussing to do on non/unique "names" for assets.  I just laid out some very good reasons why I think we should change it to be non-unique:  the squatting issue, and by doing so it allows us to reduce fees for assets which in the event price of NXT shoots up, this low price for issuing assets will be SORELY needed on the AE.

That being said, if we do choose to go non-unique route, then we MUST move from using the term "name" of the asset to "description" of the asset to really send home that it is not a unique value.  And then, all client devs should, on the asset purchase page of their client, put big warnings up for users to be sure that the asset they are purchasing is the one they want.  Maybe even show them that there are lots of assets with the same description so that they realize that they need to do some due diligence.  And for them to click "yes im sure" once more just before actually doing the purchase.

Economics and Entropy. Nxt Ecosystem

Gilder creates a very interesting analogy between capitalism and information theory . The same that powers internet , telephony and computers. Science initiated by Alan Turing in world war to decrypt German "Enigma" code and further developed by C. Shannon compression for bandwidth in mobile telephony .

To transmit data , we need a channel ( cable , optical fiber , open space ) and interference-free sound , predictable , ordered , no surprises, that is, with low entropy.

Instead , the information flows must reach for it as a clear signal. For information to provide us with knowledge , we should be surprised . If the signal that comes to us is completely predictable , we will not add knowledge. Information is the raw material of knowledge, this surprises us increase our knowledge forward . The signal should have high entropy -disorder ( high entropy of Shannon) - and an orderly discourse on canal , noise - low entropy . Creativity is the foundation of capitalism. Creativity is surprise. Otherwise, planning and socialism have triumphed.

The more freedom of choice is the issuer, information - surprises - can transmit. Companies , entrepreneurs - emitting - create ideas, unpredictable , surprising, disordered high entropy . To flourish in need of a tidy vehicle. This channel is contractuality and laws , the better the simpler , low and unchanging . If the channel is unpredictable , changing constantly , you can not separate the signal from the noise. We have to distinguish between signal and noise between the word and the cable. Property rights , stability of money, the maintenance of law , order and contractuality and a very modest and anticipatable role of government (Nxt Platform) to entrepreneurs to launch their ideas through this channel .

For Karl Popper, a proposition is scientific if it is falsifiable , that is, likely to raise test or tests to test it . The result of the experiment, a new company , for example - must be refutable. If the result is predictable and not contribute knowledge. So when the state guarantees results with bank bailouts , guaranteeing mortgages , businesses, etc. . , Knowledge is destroyed because the falsifiability of the experiment is lost, information is lost.

So the famous stimulus packages our politicians do not reduce unemployment and create wealth . Breaking the principle of innovation and creativity and provide no surprise , therefore, not knowledge. The expansion of the government (centralization) introduces noise into the system.

Interest rates are critical . When governments manipulate an important signal for the economic analysis is destroyed. Interest rates become more noise than signal and sent false information to the actors . Knowledge is destroyed.

The regulator / central planner does not have all the information to structure the economy. There is no deterministic scheme which can accommodate entire entrepreneurial entropy , so any planned economy can succeed ( no bureaucrat can know every aspect of the economy ) . Here link with our dear Von Mises theorem and the impossibility of socialism .

Find a balance - entropy - down of markets has led to the current Great Recession. Human nature seems to want to replace by surprise . From Newton , science want to give us accurate predictions , science appears as the elimination of surprise. But creativity, even laissez - faire art - are surprise.

Source : http://www.juandemariana.org/comentario/6489/capitalismo/teoria/informacion/

Then please ACT.....become a profitable cog in this chaos....and CENTRALIZE an improvement project under YOUR control.

OK a few more people chiming in... good lets get some traction.  Do we know what the smallest possible size transaction is?  Assuming that it is 128bytes like a NXT transfer is, IMO we need something even smaller than .1 NXT, I would prefer at least .01 NXT as smallest possible amount, then scaling up from there.  But that is a different conversation on the base transfer size/fee ratio is.

And another thing, Im glad that it looks like we are going the direction where an assetID is what is unique, not the text.  This will prevent squatting.  And, Im also in favor of reducing the asset purchase fee to correlate with the size/fee ratio we come up with, but this will require us to dramatically increase the number of digits used to identify each asset - possibly just moving to hex even.  The non unique names and increased number of possible assets will accomplish multiple needed things for us:

1) prevent squatting
2) reduce fee for asset, effectively also untie'ing its fee from fiat, and moving it equivalent to the rest of NXT, based on its size in blockchain.
3) overcome spam.

I guess decentralized development is great, until it's not.  I have really been confused by this notion that because the idea is for a decentralized exchange that development should also be decentralized. Didn't BcNext hisself decide to code alone (centralization) in the beginning because of crap like we see here every day?

There's good stuff happening, but this decentralized everything idea is a bad one. Cancer is decentralized. The cure could never be.

i bought a lottery ticket, if i win big i will invest in nxt!
 

If you mean:

The key is that the fees to use the Nxt network can only be paid using NXT coins (tokens).

Then THIS! As they say.


Then we have a finger in every pie, taking a tiny slice but (years from now) there will be hundreds of thousands of pies and millions (billions) of transactions.

Someone comes in a buys Doge for BTC (+0.1 nxt fee), someone sells NEM for NEX (+0.1nxt fee), Someone buys BTC for DOGE (+0.1nxt fee) etc etc. We are effectively be backing all cryptos and we don't care which of them fail and which succeed because we are the platform it is all done on. We will still be here when they have all gone.

How many transactions happen everyday to move the prices of ALL the coins on CoinMarketCap? What if we captured 10% of this. 50%? 100?!! (Now I really am dreaming). Well why wouldn't we? We have the lowest fees around. And this is only considering Nxt when confined just to the Crypto world and no other asset class.

There is a point where Nxt becomes unattractive if the price rises. We have room to maneuvere to lower our fees so the market is still getting x transactions per Nxt it wants.

There may be a point, a few years down the line, where Nxt is unattractive AND we can't control spam by any lowering the fees anymore BUT

i) Nxt will be worth much more than 5cents in my humble opionion (so everyone here will be happy);
More importantly:
ii) We have devs and intelligent people now who are already considering these problems now (something with the word hash in the name, not pool related).


In December, I *confess* (sorry guys) I bought my first Nxt, hoping for a quick pop just becasue Nxt was different to the rest. Then I learned about TF, AE, 1000 TPS, Parallel chains where my brain melted and my heartrate quickened at the POTENTIAL of Nxt. That was my conversion.

Things have only got better since then. The real risk is can these things be delivered? Nothing is a given, there still are huge risks but we all knew that when we got into cryptos right?  

I am very pleased with the devs we have and all those who have poured time into Nxt. KEEP IT UP.

The fee can always be adjusted to the situation, just as we are planning to change it to 0.1 NXT. No worries.

Well, I thin kthat the average user will go after the name...
I see some discussions between friends:
"I bought ABC shares on Nxt"
"Really? Cool! I will also buy one when I get home."
"But take care as there are hundreds of shares with the same name..."

This IS confusing..isn´t it?
Anyway, looking forward to the decision of the wise counsel.

+ 1440
Like probably most people here, I work in a gigantic centralized corporation and every time i catch up with the developments in this decentralized next ecosystem, the obvious benefit of a decentralized working culture hits me. In a centralized environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the approval/whims/fancies of a few people. In a decentralized work environment, new ideas and concepts are subject to the proving grounds.. if it is proven to work / benefit the decentralized ecosystem, it will get implemented!! Decentralized systems mimic nature in some way.. think fractals, think organisms.. okay maybe that is too far out.
Fantastic work and my sincere RESPECT to all the doers in this awesome community!!

the value of the fee should obey two criteria

to deter spam.
to maintain and secure decentralized network with the lowest cost of energy.

Who has ever said the fees can't change to match the situation?

Because that is what this is predicated on.

if we have a verification system there should be no issue, right? (with non unique names)

We are in the middle of discussing fees.

And if we don't discuss it and NXT raises in value, it is obvious that the devs will lower it more.

I don't get your post

So can the price of Nxt skyrocket one day, or not? For those who think that is possible based on the above, is it of no concern that the fees for transacting and assets will be based on a fixed number rather than a percentage that can self adjust based on current value?

If Nxt ever matched the value of current BTC (which can't happen according to CIYAM OPEN and others here) and the transaction fee is the proposed .01 Nxt  then the cost to make a transaction in Nxt would be $6.20 USD It would cost $6.20 to PLACE a buy or sell order on the AE exchange. It would cost $620,000 to issue an asset at the proposed 1000 Nxt fee for issuance.

Even if Nxt only reached LTC heights we're looking at $0.23 or so for transaction fees, which basically makes the idea microtransactions a non-starter.

Supposedly the 1000 Nxt rate is temporary, which is the same thing they said about tollbooths in my state about 40 years ago.