elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Nxt 2.0 design  
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.2

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 217036 times)

martismartis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +73/-10
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1238
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #460 on: February 18, 2016, 10:53:02 am »

Maybe this is stupid idea, I don't know, but is it possible to link fnxt directly to effective NXT balance during fork and during 2.0 version live? :)
 I mean in ver. 1.0 forging is done only with effective balance. In 2.0 all NXT accounts have corresponding balance of fnxt equal to effective balance. If you transfer your NXT to other account, you also transfer fnxt. Or in this 2.0 proposal fnxt is completely other world?
Logged

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #461 on: February 18, 2016, 11:03:57 am »

Maybe this is stupid idea, I don't know, but is it possible to link fnxt directly to effective NXT balance during fork and during 2.0 version live? :)
 I mean in ver. 1.0 forging is done only with effective balance. In 2.0 all NXT accounts have corresponding balance of fnxt equal to effective balance. If you transfer your NXT to other account, you also transfer fnxt. Or in this 2.0 proposal fnxt is completely other world?

There's the pegged NXT/fNXT and shadowNXT suggestions here: https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-child-chain-tokens-pegged-to-fnxt/?all
I'm not sure about pegged NXT, but the criticism of sNXT (which is I think what you're suggesting) is that to know your fNXT balance, you'd also have to have the entire NXT blockchain.
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #462 on: February 18, 2016, 11:06:08 am »

The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #463 on: February 18, 2016, 11:09:04 am »

The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #464 on: February 18, 2016, 11:10:42 am »

Is this a situation where this discussion is just a farce and the devs have already decided and we are just being dumbasses for thinking otherwise?

After seeing the bitcoin core devs give everyone the middle finger, I'm sensing the same type of attitude in this thread. Can someone tell me if I am right or wrong about this?

You are absolutely wrong. I've never worked in a dev team which consulted so much with its users before implementing a feature.
I can recall dozens of times that we changed a feature based on user feedback.

Come up with a well thought proposal, explain it clearly and we'll consider it.

Great!

Ok here is my 1 simple and easy to do proposal.

EvilDave has said, and let's assume he is right, that you and Jean-Luc are only interested in the best technical solution as pertains to the long term technical health of Nxt.

Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

From a tech perspective there is no difference between this and a distribution done sometime in the future.

Meanwhile, you are mitigating most of the potential unforeseen effects of this distribution on investors and the eco system.  Assets will not be sold in a race to the bottom so that people can have more Nxt to get more fNxt on the day of distribution. Likewise, the Nxt price will not be pumped and dumped by people trying to get as much free fNxt as possible.

However, if the changes in 2.0 are appealing Nxt price may still pump. But it will pump from people interested in the long term potential verse some short term free FNxt. Therefore the pump may be permanent, not a cheap trick used by people to turn a profit.

There. That is my proposal.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 11:27:18 am by Windjc »
Logged

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #465 on: February 18, 2016, 11:13:05 am »

The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

How much Nxt and Nxt assets do you own?

And while you are at it, can you list some Assets you think deserve to be "flushed"?
Logged

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #466 on: February 18, 2016, 11:21:36 am »

The issue is the risk of crashing the AE as an unintended consequence of the creation of fNXT, beating up the guys who have pretty much driven Nxt adoption thus far.

If it's a vaporware asset in a bubble, it'll crash sooner or later. If price of NXT goes up, it'll crash sooner than later. It's guaranteed to crash unless more NXT supply is printed to artificially prop the asset market.
Crashes purge investing miscalculations and help the market return to normal valuations. Kicking the can down the road and deluding oneself is not the solution.

When it crashes (and it will), it's better to use this crash to implement a new better scalable design than waste the crash and implement nothing.

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

How much Nxt and Nxt assets do you own?

And while you are at it, can you list some Assets you think deserve to be "flushed"?

Why does it matter? The assets, especially vaporware, will be dumped regardless of what my personal holdings are, it's based on economic laws of supply and demand. If the price of NXT goes higher or investors lose patience with bad assets, it'll still be 1 billion NXT coins in the system. When the number of businesses on AE increases because more users are attracted by the price, earlier assets will be dumped to buy into newer ones, because supply of NXT is limited. It's basics.

I won't list the assets I believe are vaporware, because it'll provoke unnecessary inflammatory posts.

I like your proposal from the post above. It may be the answer to the problem.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +440/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #467 on: February 18, 2016, 11:28:08 am »

EvilDave has said, and let's assume he is right, that you and Jean-Luc are only interested in the best technical solution as pertains to the long term technical health of Nxt.

I agree with this statement.

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #468 on: February 18, 2016, 11:35:58 am »

EvilDave has said, and let's assume he is right, that you and Jean-Luc are only interested in the best technical solution as pertains to the long term technical health of Nxt.

I agree with this statement.

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

Given the constraints of the NXT/fNXT proposal (I'd still like to hear about viable alternatives), I think this is approaching a least-worst solution. I know that's not a ringing endorsement, but under the circumstances I think we're looking at damage limitation.

I know devs want the best technical solution. But let's remember that Nxt is FinTech. Please don't forget the present as well as the future implications of the 'Fin' bit of what's going to happen, because that will inevitably colour Nxt's reputation and support going forwards.
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

cc001

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +68/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #469 on: February 18, 2016, 11:44:02 am »

If it's a good asset that investors believe in, why will they sell it? Selling means they don't believe in the asset and would sell anyway because the asset is not delivering on the promises.

Good point. The only question is: What will get you more profit/value in the future? The asset or NXT and fNXT. Bad assets will go down, good assets will stay alive.
Logged
cc001 Personal - NXT-8RXS-2SSK-RNF2-HSNL8
NxtReporting.com - The Nxt Asset Exchange Portfolio Manager with Profitability Tracking - Donations are greatly appreciated on NXT-5W4G-GAR6-JHJP-H8ZTW

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #470 on: February 18, 2016, 11:46:42 am »

I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

The proposal of Windjc takes care of the current user base. New users joining the system between block 621000 and the 2.0 hard fork will get zero fNXT from distribution, it means slightly less incentive for them to join and less adoption. Can they be allocated a share at the 2.0 hard fork snapshot? It's up for discussion again.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

cc001

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +68/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #471 on: February 18, 2016, 11:48:00 am »

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

I don't like this idea. I think it is not reasonable to take a snapshot of the distribution before a discussion, before everything is defined and clear, and one year, or probably even longer, before something which is not defined yet will be implemented. JL is right that the market should play until the happening.
Logged
cc001 Personal - NXT-8RXS-2SSK-RNF2-HSNL8
NxtReporting.com - The Nxt Asset Exchange Portfolio Manager with Profitability Tracking - Donations are greatly appreciated on NXT-5W4G-GAR6-JHJP-H8ZTW

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +440/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #472 on: February 18, 2016, 11:51:09 am »

I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

The proposal of Windjc takes care of the current user base. New users joining the system between block 621000 and the 2.0 hard fork will get zero fNXT from distribution, it means slightly less incentive for them to join and less adoption. Can they be allocated a share at the 2.0 hard fork snapshot? It's up for discussion again.

This is a good point. We want to encourage new users to join not lock them out.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #473 on: February 18, 2016, 11:53:54 am »

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.
This is a theft. Only preannounced and widely known snapshot is a legit solution. And this solution is equal to a 1:1 distribution on the fork.
Logged

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #474 on: February 18, 2016, 12:00:37 pm »

For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #475 on: February 18, 2016, 12:10:23 pm »

Sigh. What about announcing it now, doing the allocation in 2-3 months, but no one gets their fNXT for another 6-12 months, when 2.0 actually launches? Not so different to locking fNXT to prevent trading, because no one can trade something they haven't got.
It would mean anyone who took a short-term view by dumping - at personal cost due to liquidity issues - would also be taking a less-certain long-term view of Nxt's success. It's not perfect but it might mitigate a lot of the pump-and-dump risk.
 
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #476 on: February 18, 2016, 12:20:43 pm »

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.
This is a theft. Only preannounced and widely known snapshot is a legit solution. And this solution is equal to a 1:1 distribution on the fork.

How is this theft? Thats laughable. No one is loosing anything. Some people are getting something. You can't have some stolen that you don't have yet.
Logged

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #477 on: February 18, 2016, 12:21:29 pm »

For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

Again, it seems you are wanting to play economics. Please explain how a snapshot is any less of a technical solution than a date in the future?
Logged

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #478 on: February 18, 2016, 12:23:30 pm »

Quote
Do the 1:1 allocation. Base the allocation on a snapshot of Nxt distribution the day before the 2.0 announcement and outline.

I like this idea, we can base the distribution 1:1 on the distribution which existed at the 1.7 fork, block 621000, which serves as a notable milestone from just before the 2.0 discussion started. This would be simple to calculate and validate.
I'd like to get more opinions on this proposal.

I don't like this idea. I think it is not reasonable to take a snapshot of the distribution before a discussion, before everything is defined and clear, and one year, or probably even longer, before something which is not defined yet will be implemented. JL is right that the market should play until the happening.

So you are saying JL is arguing economics?
Logged

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +440/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #479 on: February 18, 2016, 12:31:04 pm »

For the last two years we had to deal with accusations of unfair initial distribution, even though the Nxt IPO was publicly announced and open for a few months, and anyone could invest.

How would an fNXT distribution based on snapshot from the past be accepted as anything other than an insider deal, benefiting existing Nxt owners without giving opportunity for anyone new to enter or increase his stake before Nxt 2.0 is launched? It would discourage new users from getting into Nxt, and would encourage dump of NXT from existing users, as they have already been guaranteed to receive fNXT.

So instead of potential but not certain asset dump, we get NXT dump, reduce the possibility of influx of new investor funds into Nxt (call it speculation or pump, but this would be new money flowing in, new users, more exposure and more adoption), and get another, this time justifiable, stain on our reputation as being an unfairly distributed coin.

Again, it seems you are wanting to play economics. Please explain how a snapshot is any less of a technical solution than a date in the future?

How about we settle this issue like man by ... voting by stake.

I suggest two poles:
A. Timing of snapshot for distribution:
(1) Block 621000 i.e. 1.7 hard fork
(2) Some pre-announced block, say 3 month from now, well ahead of the actual 2.0 fork
(3) 2.0 hard fork

B. Method of distribution:
(1) 1 fNXT for 1 NXT
(2) Like (1) but omit NXT accounts without announced public key
(3) Like (2) but only distribute fNXT to NXT accounts which registered their interest by setting an account property.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly