Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 890. (Read 2761624 times)

How about something the younger generation will understand?

Hoc facite in ratchets (Do it for the ratchets)

Time to make news

I just spoke to John over at SongsofLove <<501(c)(3) nonprofit organization>>.  I will work with Salsacx and the rest of the marketing team to put together a charity drive that will do a number of things for us:

1. Charity, great opportunity to show our support
2. Allow us to get news coverage
3. We'll mirror it with a day of testing our new clients along with a big Trekcon announcement

We have over 200 new sources that have reported specifically on Bitcoin and/or an alt coin.  CoinTropolis plans on making this a major event... more info to come.

because Anon136BtcToken is not the same value as SuperScammerSamBtcToken. They are not homogeneous assets. The different risks need to be priced. Insurance companies can help to price in this risk and homogenize it, but if they are homogenizing extremely reliable assets with extremely risky assets than they are infact externalizing the cost of the risk from the risky actors onto reliable actors. They are causing the homodeneous asset to be more expensive than the reliable assets would have been by its self. This is a transfer of cost from superscammersam to anon136.

with that said there are certain advantages to federating. So even though the problem just described will always exist, if the difference in price between the more reliable asset and the less reliable asset is marginal than the advantages of homogeneity can outweigh the problem of externalized costs mentioned in the previous paragraph. Only when the discrepancy is marginal though.

thats why i some federating is good and too much is bad. as for clever scripted workarounds and stuff like that. Like smart contracted bonds or things, or DAC's that allow federation without externalizing costs, that stuff would be great if someone could figure it out. Until we get there though it would be wise to bear some of the previously mentioned things in mind.

If all the gateways are issuing a BTC asset, why is it a bad idea that all gateway BTC assets are all equal to each other, eg BTC?

Also, if we had a multisig requirement for all withdrawals, would that minimize or eliminate the harm bad actors can do?

It there is something wrong, I would like to understand it and hopefully fix it. This is why I am asking

Just to have it posted here as well, even if it is somewhat offtopic right now recognizing all these latin quotes: https://forums.nxtcrypto.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=530&p=3729#p3729

Don't know what the plans are on the side of CfB, JL and BCNext.

-------------------------------------

I prefer the (1 NXT fee = 1) voting system.

I'd like to explain why:

Many of you suggest a playable system as insofar as splitting and merging of accounts will occur as the shareholders see fit in order to vote appropriately.
On the one hand side, splitting and merging of accounts is a good thing as the more NXTs are distributed.
But on the other hand side: it's just teasing shareholders. They have more effort to split and to merge their accounts.

Well, if you still want a playable system because you assume some fair-thinking of the shareholders, that's okay.

BUT, if we assume fairness of the shareholders, we could easily conclude that they would vote fairly within the (1 NXT balance = 1 vote) or (1 NXT fee = 1 vote) system as well.

Fair voting would mean: a shareholder would only put that much NXT on one option that it is worth to him.

In case of (1 NXT balance = 1 vote): he creates a new account, puts the NXTs he wants to throw into the vote in that account and votes.

in case of (1 NXT fee = 1 vote): he simply pays the amount of fees that an option is worth to him.

This is why I prefer the (1 NXT fee = 1 vote) system. Just in case the shareholders want to vote fairly, they can do it effortlessly in this system. If they do not want, they can do in every system.

A federation could be fine but homogonizing all gatewayes is a VERY bad idea imo. It allows the externalization of costs from the maleficent actor to the good actors. Insurance allows the homogonization of certain actors into federations by pricing the risk so competative federations could be good, though one homogeneous asset would be terrible.

I think it is crucial that we consolidate all assets of the same denomination to a single community asset. This will allow all users to go to a single asset name within AE for BTC and ALL the bids and asks for BTC within AE will be for BTC backed by the federation of gateways. All the federation members take blood oaths, trade first born children, etc. so they work out a way to trust each other. This shifts the risk of choosing the right gateway from the hapless end user who has no clue which gateway is better to each gateway itself. A much better chance of making correct decisions. In the event one of the gateways is lacking somehow, the other gateways could require posting of a bond to cover the risk.

perhaps our slogan should be "Caveat emptor"? No but seriously who runs the escrow for bitstamp deposits?

If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion?
so buyer beware....

On which block are you? Chances are that you use an old client / don't have up to date blockchain...




Hi lophie, I speak Mandarin (lived in east China for a few years). Send me the details via PM and I'll try to sort this out for you. Their "support" is indeed almost inexistent.

ps: you may ask allwelder for support as well

i like this coin... but its very complicated to set it..

We gather to create a cryptocurrency... but not just any cryptocurrency.... but a "2nd generation" cryptocurrency in order to crush the current, antiquated fiat banking system (that most people don't understand) but then we turn around and inscribe it with words from a dead, antiquated and ancient language that no one uses and nobody understands... lol

How ironic...

I propose we use more modern terms and stick to our "2nd generation" heritage and use terms that everyone can understand such as:

Rated R Version = "Down With The Fed BITCHES!"
PG-13 Version = "The People's Money"

Tai Zen

This one is really nice:

terra nullius    "land of none" - That is, no man's land. A neutral or uninhabited area, or a land not under the sovereignty of any recognized political entity.

vox populi - "voice of the people". Short non-prearranged interview with an ordinary person (e.g. on the street); sometimes shortened to "vox pop".

OK, this is my cue to update status of community gateways. Keep in mind I am talking about the first step along the path toward fully automated DAC solution. No need to wait for that if we can get a more traditional solution in the meantime.

I have a job offer out to a fulltime dev who will help code my ideas, both crazy and not so crazy. The first task is to create reference code for automated gateways and clients along the lines of my post about this yesterday.

In parallel, I am working with traditional gateway providers to create a federation of gateways that users can choose between. We will create requirements to be part of the gateway and the community will need to help do the due diligence on each of the gateways as I have little expertise in data center security, etc.

NXT community gateway federation requirements:

A) we need source code of the automated gateway functionality, this way the smart guys can make sure that all the error cases are properly handled and if a database is used, that proper database techniques are used, etc. It is expected that all the federation members will work together to create best practices for deposit/withdrawal handling. No more bter funny business!

B) There needs to be an automatically updated balance of Assets issued and a corresponding account that can be checked using blockchain.info, trust but verify. This ensures that there is 100% backing of all the Assets issued into AE and people can trade it without worrying about fractional reserve.

C) There needs to be a publicly posted information about any and all fees charged. There will also be the option of the gateway provider to put up a bond against deposit flight risk. This allows even gateways run by an unknown newbie to have a chance, especially if they put up a bond big enough to cover all their deposits. Any reductions in bond will require enough time for adjustments to be made by holders of gateway's assets. [I need a place to host this information and also someone to keep it updated, maybe nxtcrpto.org?]

D) There needs to be an agreement to exchange gateway assets of the same denomination with the community asset at 1:1, this is something that ripple never achieved and it fragments the trading for all gateways to this day. By pooling all assets for the same thing, it reduces confusion for the user and also creates more liquidity and tighter spreads. Imagine if the highest bid and lowest ask for DOGE was always available within AE!

D) Anything else that is missing?

I cannot stress how important it is that we unite all the Assets for the same crypto, otherwise it will be a giant confusing mess. In ripple right now, anybody can issue anything, but there are no standards or requirements to be able to do this. Buyer beware. I am hopeful that each federation gateway will either start with enough credibility or be able to find a sponsor/partner that will be able to put up a big enough bond to allow for true interchangeability among all Assets for the same thing.

Getting the tech to achieve this is actually not new, having the community that can achieve freely interchangeable Assets among a federation of gateways, that is what is new here.

James

perhaps our slogan should be "Caveat emptor"? No but seriously who runs the escrow for bitstamp deposits?

If I read this right - 'No escrow' or atomic completion?
so buyer beware....