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 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 216086 times)

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #480 on: February 18, 2016, 12:33:57 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.

It sounds as if you feel Nxt has suffered from reputation. But Nxt is what it is. Those of in this community right now - we signed up for NXT, initial distribution and all. And now you would prefer to put the risk on the shoulders of us that have supported the coin as it is, as we believed it to be, in exchange to be seen as a coin with a "more fair distribution?"  That sounds like some sort of communism or socialism to me.

We signed up for a coin with this distribution. Is the distribution an issue for you?
Logged

abctc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +148/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1396
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #481 on: February 18, 2016, 12:34:49 pm »

What about including the value of assets in the initial fNXT distribution, but with a lower weight?
...
 For every holding of such an assets, its value in NXT is calculated.
I am absolutely against a distribution to asset holders. If you invest in an asset, you trade a certain amount of NXT against a share of the business. As a result, you are no longer invested in Nxt for the amount you invested in the shares. Just because assets are valued in NXT doesn't mean you are having a stake in Nxt itself. The question you have to ask yourself as an asset investor is which way will benefit you more: stay in the asset or sell it for fNXT.

Please note that 95% of my NXT are invested in assets.
- agree 195%

Moreover, it's absolutely impossible to determine "asset value in NXT" on anonymous AE. Anyone can fake huge trading volume of garbage asset with two (or more) accounts.
Logged
Welcome to the Nxt generation of crypto!   Magis quam Moneta (More than a Coin)
"Do not worry, it is an attack" (c) Jean-Luc

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #482 on: February 18, 2016, 12:39:11 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.

It sounds as if you feel Nxt has suffered from reputation. But Nxt is what it is. Those of in this community right now - we signed up for NXT, initial distribution and all. And now you would prefer to put the risk on the shoulders of us that have supported the coin as it is, as we believed it to be, in exchange to be seen as a coin with a "more fair distribution?"  That sounds like some sort of communism or socialism to me.

We signed up for a coin with this distribution. Is the distribution an issue for you?

JL is right on one thing here: Nxt could/probably will get hammered by the trolls if we choose for a fNXT distribution based only on a past snapshot.
We'll probably get hammered anyway, though, no matter which method of fNXT distro we choose...... :(
Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #483 on: February 18, 2016, 12:39:37 pm »

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

Can we add the 4th option?

50% goes to 1.7 snapshot (block 621000), 50% goes to 2.0 hardfork snapshot.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 12:53:19 pm by lurker10 »
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #484 on: February 18, 2016, 12:39:45 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.
People who bought NXT after the snapshot date are losing.
Let's say 10.02.2016 Bob has bought 1M NXT expecting the ability to forge NXT fees. He is honestly holding and forging but 18.02.2016 Alice announces that starting 09.02.2016 NXT are loosing the ability to forge.
This way Alice has stolen the ability (and the value) to forge from Bob although he did not get any prior notice about it.
Logged

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #485 on: February 18, 2016, 12:43:37 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.

It sounds as if you feel Nxt has suffered from reputation. But Nxt is what it is. Those of in this community right now - we signed up for NXT, initial distribution and all. And now you would prefer to put the risk on the shoulders of us that have supported the coin as it is, as we believed it to be, in exchange to be seen as a coin with a "more fair distribution?"  That sounds like some sort of communism or socialism to me.

We signed up for a coin with this distribution. Is the distribution an issue for you?

JL is right on one thing here: Nxt could/probably will get hammered by the trolls if we choose for a fNXT distribution based only on a past snapshot.

Why? People have had 3 YEARS to invest in NXT.

You know what people sound like in this community? They sound desperate. Like they will grab on to ANYTHING to try to get more interest or potentially pump the price. Its lazy. Nxt has had great projects and its biggest success- the asset exchange is constantly pubicly  trashed by members of the community and has been hurt by backwards compatibility updates in development. You - being actively involved with Bas with the new outreach projects should know this better than anyone, because you are actually on the ground doing something.

Logged

Windjc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +59/-17
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #486 on: February 18, 2016, 12:45:26 pm »


nm
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 12:48:27 pm by Windjc »
Logged

NxtSwe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +124/-9
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 657
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #487 on: February 18, 2016, 12:50:39 pm »

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

If A1 or A2 gets chosen, be prepared for heavy NXT dumping.
The second that block is passed, there will be a race to get out by everyone who is in this for the money.
Some true believers might not do it, because of the negative price chock will give NXT a bad reputation, but given the low liquidity there will be dumping for sure.

Say I have 500k NXT and the magic snapshot block is passed.
Assuming I'm not a true NXT believer, why would I keep my NXT?
I might as well sell them to get BTC, then I'll get my fNXT AND some "free BTC" from some trader who didn't read the forums.
Logged
Check out the NxtLib, the .NET Framework API for the Nxt platform.

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 #488 on: February 18, 2016, 12:52:50 pm »


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


Where I come from, that's fighting talk.

Realistically, whatever the subjective or objective merits of one option or another, a vote is probably the least-FUD option, and the only way to reflect the majority's wishes.
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 #489 on: February 18, 2016, 12:54:53 pm »

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.

I like voting. But lets discuss the polls and the selectable options first, before setting up the polls. Or add at least an option "Something else, check forum".
Maybe a new thread, where you adapt the op post and include the different proposed options to vote on?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 01:09:33 pm by cc001 »
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

durerus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +106/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • user-owner
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #490 on: February 18, 2016, 01:09:47 pm »

Let's first vote whether we shall have a vote about alternatives to 1:1 at hard fork. Afterwards we can discuss these alternatives in detail. Or we won't have to anymore, because the NXT stakeholders won't vote for less potential of a price increase of their stake.
Logged

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #491 on: February 18, 2016, 01:59:42 pm »

Yup...we need to start voting, get a feel for how the entire Nxt community would like this to go.

2 things that we do need to keep in mind: this is still purely a discussion. We're a long way from making any firm decisions.
And: we might need to balance our own personal wishes against what will be best for everyone, and for Nxt as a whole.

What I am seeing is that the more we discuss this, the more understanding we gain of potential problems.
If we choose for a 1:1 fNXT distribution at the moment that 2.0 goes live, this will almost certainly lead to a speculative bubble in NXT, at the cost of Assets.
This could , potentially, heve the effect of dumping some Assets to very low levels, if enough asset-holders choose to build up their NXT holdings in anticipation of the fNXT issue.
Will assets and the AE recover from this dump to NXT ?

On the other hand....a snapshot from before the NXT 2.0 debate began will effectively exclude any speculation in NXT, thereby protecting Asset values.
But: some large Asset holders may be unhappy about this option, and may want to have the opportunity to recieve fNXT, by liquidating their holdings to Nxt, even if that is not in the short-term interests of Nxt as a whole. (not to mention the opportunity to accuse Nxt of being an insiders club on BTT)

What looks like a simple technical question of snapshot timing, can have far-reaching economic consequences.

   
Logged
Nulli Dei, nulli Reges, solum NXT
NXT Donations: NXT-BNZB-9V8M-XRPW-3S3WD
We will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

cc001

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +68/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 829
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #492 on: February 18, 2016, 02:09:24 pm »

a snapshot from before the 2.0 discussion began makes definitively no sense because it will take at least 1 year until the 2.0 hardfork will happen. 1 year in crypto is like 10 years in "real" markets. You wouldn't want to distribute the assets of a brand new tech product (which is still highly unknown how it will work, how it will look like, and it will not be ready within the next 10 years!) based on the market distribution/situation from before it even has been mentioned, would you?
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

durerus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +106/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • user-owner
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #493 on: February 18, 2016, 02:21:51 pm »

1:1 distribution based on NXT holdings at 2.0 going live gives the asset issuers a year time to start paying dividends or paying higher dividends to prevent a dump. And it gives the asset holders the longest possible time to sell assets for NXT (and thereby future fNXT). I think that is the fairest solution for all participants.
Logged

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #494 on: February 18, 2016, 02:38:13 pm »

Regardless of where this goes, I think it's good for all of us involved to realise that there are many different kinds of people who have contributed to the fact that Nxt is where it is now and has been at the top (say what you want, it IS true!) of the markets for over two years.

Just to name a few:

1. Users
2. Initial stakeholders
3. Investors
4. 3rd party devs
5. Core devs
6. Asset Issuers
7. Asset investors
8. Forgers
9. Holders

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but any solution and way forward MUST take into account that all these groups have (sometimes conflicting) investments into the Nxt ecosystem, but ALL have been equally valuable and are necessary for the health of the system.

Because crypto is so heavily ideological, it is easy to want to steamroll over other's point of view, but in the end this is detrimental.
None of these can survive without the other, even though interests might not be directly aligned.

I want to advocate a healthy discussion, where topics are seperated properly. They tend to get conflated.

So far I have at least seen two that are floating to the top and should be treated seperately:

1. The issue wheter fNXT is needed.
Been discussed a lot, and I think it needs some summarising to clearly see the options and counterproposals.

2. The METHOD of making the transition to the fNXT/NXT system: this one can have very unfortunate consequences if not done correctly. It's also the one that I consider vital as a test on how we can manage such a transition with a view to taking into account ALL interests in the community.
Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog

MrV777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +115/-4
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 988
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #495 on: February 18, 2016, 02:42:57 pm »

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.

Currently I like A2 and B2.

I'll through one other option in there for A to make it more complex :-)
A4) The average NXT in the accounts from the "pre-announced block, say 3 month from now" until the fork? 
Would that help with any rush to buy and/or sell NXT/NXT assets? (From a technical perspective, this doesn't sound the easiest though  ;D )

Just my 2 NXT :)
« Last Edit: February 18, 2016, 02:45:50 pm by MrV777 »
Logged
NXT: NXT-BK2J-ZMY4-93UY-8EM9V
NXT nodes: 209.222.98.250, 216.155.128.10

dude

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Karma: +44/-5
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #496 on: February 18, 2016, 03:01:33 pm »

Anything else than 1:1 distribution at the time of the 2.0 fork doesn't make sense.

You can try to justify it any way you like, but there is no good reason to do it otherwise.
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 #497 on: February 18, 2016, 03:11:25 pm »

Anything else than 1:1 distribution at the time of the 2.0 fork doesn't make sense.

You can try to justify it any way you like, but there is no good reason to do it otherwise.

Except for, y'know, all the good reasons [see above]
Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

durerus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +106/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • user-owner
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #498 on: February 18, 2016, 03:12:04 pm »

Regardless of where this goes, I think it's good for all of us involved to realise that there are many different kinds of people who have contributed to the fact that Nxt is where it is now and has been at the top (say what you want, it IS true!) of the markets for over two years.

Just to name a few:

1. Users
2. Initial stakeholders
3. Investors
4. 3rd party devs
5. Core devs
6. Asset Issuers
7. Asset investors
8. Forgers
9. Holders

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but any solution and way forward MUST take into account that all these groups have (sometimes conflicting) investments into the Nxt ecosystem, but ALL have been equally valuable and are necessary for the health of the system.

Because crypto is so heavily ideological, it is easy to want to steamroll over other's point of view, but in the end this is detrimental.
None of these can survive without the other, even though interests might not be directly aligned.

I want to advocate a healthy discussion, where topics are seperated properly. They tend to get conflated.

So far I have at least seen two that are floating to the top and should be treated seperately:

1. The issue wheter fNXT is needed.
Been discussed a lot, and I think it needs some summarising to clearly see the options and counterproposals.

2. The METHOD of making the transition to the fNXT/NXT system: this one can have very unfortunate consequences if not done correctly. It's also the one that I consider vital as a test on how we can manage such a transition with a view to taking into account ALL interests in the community.

Discussing rationally is great, if really done. But in the end we need a way to make a decision. With asset investors equally valuable as NXT holders, Damelon, do you think that 1 NXT = 1 vote is the right way to make a decision? Should we allocate voting power to asset investors? And who decides that? Can "we" make such decisions based on forum discussions?
Logged

Damelon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +792/-54
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2314
    • View Profile
    • Nxt Inside
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #499 on: February 18, 2016, 03:35:50 pm »

Regardless of where this goes, I think it's good for all of us involved to realise that there are many different kinds of people who have contributed to the fact that Nxt is where it is now and has been at the top (say what you want, it IS true!) of the markets for over two years.

Just to name a few:

1. Users
2. Initial stakeholders
3. Investors
4. 3rd party devs
5. Core devs
6. Asset Issuers
7. Asset investors
8. Forgers
9. Holders

This is just the tip of the iceberg, but any solution and way forward MUST take into account that all these groups have (sometimes conflicting) investments into the Nxt ecosystem, but ALL have been equally valuable and are necessary for the health of the system.

Because crypto is so heavily ideological, it is easy to want to steamroll over other's point of view, but in the end this is detrimental.
None of these can survive without the other, even though interests might not be directly aligned.

I want to advocate a healthy discussion, where topics are seperated properly. They tend to get conflated.

So far I have at least seen two that are floating to the top and should be treated seperately:

1. The issue wheter fNXT is needed.
Been discussed a lot, and I think it needs some summarising to clearly see the options and counterproposals.

2. The METHOD of making the transition to the fNXT/NXT system: this one can have very unfortunate consequences if not done correctly. It's also the one that I consider vital as a test on how we can manage such a transition with a view to taking into account ALL interests in the community.

Discussing rationally is great, if really done. But in the end we need a way to make a decision. With asset investors equally valuable as NXT holders, Damelon, do you think that 1 NXT = 1 vote is the right way to make a decision? Should we allocate voting power to asset investors? And who decides that? Can "we" make such decisions based on forum discussions?

I don't know, to be honest. This is new territory for us all.
In Bitcoin, there is a "voting" by mining: the fork that wins out, get to be "it".

We're treading new territory: we are PoS and for the first time (except the rollback fork) have to decide on a major change.

This is why I am advocating looking at the bigger picture and taking into account the health of the system as a WHOLE.

Yes, the forgers "vote", but their interest need to be informed by ALL people with interest in the system. This is why all opinions and observations are important.
It's also why before we even start coding, we need to have a minimum alignment.

Asset holders need to be sure their investment is safe within standard parameters.
3rd party devs need to be sure their creations will be reasonably supported and don't need to be scrapped.
Users and holders need to be reassured their Nxt value interests will be guarded if possible.

All these of course are never "hard" guarantuees, but need to be within reasonable limits. This is about trust as much as technological advancement.
If we lost trust by not being serious about our investors we might end up with a shiny new system that will have little trust and thus will not be adopted.

For now, my own preference would be regular "advisory" polls on specific issues to see how things stand.
I'd also make seperate threads for seperate issues to avoid conflation and mixing of arguments, where possible.
Discussing is difficult, but it's possible to at least streamline it so the crucial points are getting accross.

At all time, I think we need to keep in mind this is not

a) something that is being done spuriously
b) not something that will happen overnight
c) we are all involved and SHOULD be involved: tech and non-tech.
Logged
Member of the Nxt Foundation | Donations: NXT-D6K7-MLY6-98FM-FLL5T
Join Nxt Slack! https://nxtchat.herokuapp.com/
Founder of Blockchain Workspace | Personal Site & Blog
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly