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 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 221271 times)

OutSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +60/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 332
  • Banned!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #620 on: February 20, 2016, 11:16:18 am »

Hi  :D
i don't know why but the 1st thing that i got in mind after reading is this :
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10371.msg201457#msg201457  ;D ;D ;D

i agree, this is a big fat problem affecting all the cryptos because the majority are clones of bitcoin...
but at the NXT level, the problem is not technical but economic... we don't have the economic activity to push the things at the top limits like bitcoin... and without this activity (mean users, merchands, assets traders...) = dead coin.

this said, any effort that is not directed towards the development of more attractive things (extreme relooking ) that will bring more users is an effort in vain even if is technically important to develop a means to prevent a resource overload as bitcoin...

let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...
because you will not have data to put in the child chains if you don't have users...

sorry for my poor english  :(
Thank you and @++
Logged
Thank you for your financial help, your donations will be used in the R&D related to the implementation of NXT in the virtual worlds running under OpenSimulator.org | Donations Box : NXT-PC8Q-ZW86-7UYK-CC4XJ
Visit The NXT Community Virtal World! Your NXT 3D Chat Service

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #621 on: February 20, 2016, 11:33:26 am »

Hi  :D
i don't know why but the 1st thing that i got in mind after reading is this :
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10371.msg201457#msg201457  ;D ;D ;D

i agree, this is a big fat problem affecting all the cryptos because the majority are clones of bitcoin...
but at the NXT level, the problem is not technical but economic... we don't have the economic activity to push the things at the top limits like bitcoin... and without this activity (mean users, merchands, assets traders...) = dead coin.

this said, any effort that is not directed towards the development of more attractive things (extreme relooking ) that will bring more users is an effort in vain even if is technically important to develop a means to prevent a resource overload as bitcoin...

let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...
because you will not have data to put in the child chains if you don't have users...

sorry for my poor english  :(
Thank you and @++

I'm wondering what if JLP works towards the 2.0 scalability while NXT 1.8 and/or 1.9 has user friendliness improvements.
That's more or less the plan, although since those UI improvements will not require a hard fork or major new functionality, they may be released gradually as 1.7.x versions instead of 1.8 and 1.9.

Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.
I agree, but this is besides the point. It is not like the work on 2.0 will conflict with finding new users. For the next few months, it would be mostly me alone that will work on 2.0. I need to put a basic framework in place, before development can be parallelized and tasks split between more developers. And then still, it will continue to take development resources only. Attracting new users, marketing and adoption is not the job of the core developers.

If you wait until scalability becomes a problem, it will be too late to start work on 2.0.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

websioux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +69/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 343
  • Great changes grow bottom up
    • View Profile
    • Scriba.io the Blockchain Scribe
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #622 on: February 20, 2016, 01:49:00 pm »

let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...

We would harm ourselves a lot calling a "re-looking" : 2.0
I've never seen sexy stuff create long term adoption.

However, what you suggest is welcome at any time, hence right now, it's just off topic.
These are feature requests to add for the client, or good plugins ideas to start with.
Logged
Secret Miner <= communicate with style | NotBot <= timestamp digital docs

Jose

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +78/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 658
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #623 on: February 20, 2016, 02:30:59 pm »

The Asset Exchange, along with millions of USD of assets on it, is the primary use case for Nxt right now. DGS, MS have little adoption.
Can we keep AE on mainchain on a limited/temporary basis, and bump everything else off onto a child chain that runs on a separate token (determined by 1:1 split)? AMs will quite happily run on that and nothing else is going to upset people much.

Sure it means a little extra bloat in the medium-term, but not much and probably not permanently - and that seems like a small price to pay for not destroying or at least disenfranchising the most vibrant part of Nxt's community. Maybe there would be ways of incentivising assets to move to different chains in the future if bloat really was an issue - or preventing new assets from launching on mainchain? There would be a transition phase, at the very least. Grandfather existing assets but make sure no new ones can be created. Over time the rest will die or migrate. And we're somewhere close to where we want to be without razing the place to the ground to get there.

J-L/Riker: can you comment on the suggestion of moving everything but AE (DGS, MS, AMs) to a child chain, freezing creation of new assets on the mainchain and incentivising assets to move to to child chain over time, pruning as you go?
There will be a transition period before new chains start to be used anyway, and this would be a good way to make the most of it.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg210056/#msg210056

I find this question interesting, and I think it wasn't answered.
Anyone?
Logged

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #624 on: February 20, 2016, 02:33:55 pm »

Hi  :D
i don't know why but the 1st thing that i got in mind after reading is this :
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10371.msg201457#msg201457  ;D ;D ;D

i agree, this is a big fat problem affecting all the cryptos because the majority are clones of bitcoin...
but at the NXT level, the problem is not technical but economic... we don't have the economic activity to push the things at the top limits like bitcoin... and without this activity (mean users, merchands, assets traders...) = dead coin.

this said, any effort that is not directed towards the development of more attractive things (extreme relooking ) that will bring more users is an effort in vain even if is technically important to develop a means to prevent a resource overload as bitcoin...

let this architecture to the 3.0 and do from the 2.0 a real business toolbox with an ultra sexy look and a ebay like marketplace (just in the look!!!)... an asset exchange with graphs... maybe merging the nxtreporting assets listing part into the AE homepage...
because you will not have data to put in the child chains if you don't have users...

sorry for my poor english  :(
Thank you and @++


Scalability is not our problem today. Finding new users is our challenge.


I very much support these views!
This exactly points to what is needed for NXT:
Not become marginalized by arduous implementation of features that may well destroy the entire economic base of the platform,
while squandering time and opportunities to fill real world demands.
Real world demands existing today, which will otherwise be filled by competitors that have more sense for the priorities of adoption, growth and survival:
Supplying solutions for real world use cases.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 02:38:03 pm by LocoMB »
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #625 on: February 20, 2016, 02:42:11 pm »

The Asset Exchange, along with millions of USD of assets on it, is the primary use case for Nxt right now. DGS, MS have little adoption.
Can we keep AE on mainchain on a limited/temporary basis, and bump everything else off onto a child chain that runs on a separate token (determined by 1:1 split)? AMs will quite happily run on that and nothing else is going to upset people much.

Sure it means a little extra bloat in the medium-term, but not much and probably not permanently - and that seems like a small price to pay for not destroying or at least disenfranchising the most vibrant part of Nxt's community. Maybe there would be ways of incentivising assets to move to different chains in the future if bloat really was an issue - or preventing new assets from launching on mainchain? There would be a transition phase, at the very least. Grandfather existing assets but make sure no new ones can be created. Over time the rest will die or migrate. And we're somewhere close to where we want to be without razing the place to the ground to get there.

Thanks for this! I am convinced that destroying the assets would be unsurvivable for the NXT platform.
And unless there are guarantees that this can not happen, proceeding with this in spite of this would be insanely irresponsible.
 
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #626 on: February 20, 2016, 02:51:11 pm »

I do not believe that Nxt 2.0 as propose by JL would destroy assets. I do not understand why people think of that.

The proposed design is just a separation between the transaction and forging token. Assets are completely unaffected by this procedure. In fact, I believe quite the contrary could happen, since Nxt 2.0 will much more efficient concerning the data used in the blockchain because the transactions with the NXT token will be prunable, all the fees related for transacting, bidding, asking, trading, etc, could be made much lower. The consequence of this is that this will promote a lot the usage of the NXT platform.

@JLP et al. You have my full support on this design.

Overall, after reading all the topic, I believe that a 1:1 distribution at fork is the best case scenario.
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #627 on: February 20, 2016, 03:05:17 pm »

The Asset Exchange, along with millions of USD of assets on it, is the primary use case for Nxt right now. DGS, MS have little adoption.
Can we keep AE on mainchain on a limited/temporary basis, and bump everything else off onto a child chain that runs on a separate token (determined by 1:1 split)? AMs will quite happily run on that and nothing else is going to upset people much.

Sure it means a little extra bloat in the medium-term, but not much and probably not permanently - and that seems like a small price to pay for not destroying or at least disenfranchising the most vibrant part of Nxt's community. Maybe there would be ways of incentivising assets to move to different chains in the future if bloat really was an issue - or preventing new assets from launching on mainchain? There would be a transition phase, at the very least. Grandfather existing assets but make sure no new ones can be created. Over time the rest will die or migrate. And we're somewhere close to where we want to be without razing the place to the ground to get there.

J-L/Riker: can you comment on the suggestion of moving everything but AE (DGS, MS, AMs) to a child chain, freezing creation of new assets on the mainchain and incentivising assets to move to to child chain over time, pruning as you go?
There will be a transition period before new chains start to be used anyway, and this would be a good way to make the most of it.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg210056/#msg210056

I find this question interesting, and I think it wasn't answered.
Anyone?

Yes, it was answered. What Cassius is proposing is even worse than keeping the Nxt chain not prunable.
https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/nxt-2-0-design/msg210100/#msg210100
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #628 on: February 20, 2016, 03:21:56 pm »

Splitting NXT into a transaction and forging token is what scares the shit out of me.

But thinking about how companies work, shareholders are not the user/clients. They are separated. You can be shareholder or client or both, but a user is not automatically also a shareholder.

You have company structures where users are also automatically shareholders but these models are much less successful.

Maybe the same applies here?

Tosch110

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +211/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2365
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #629 on: February 20, 2016, 03:31:08 pm »

I have been thinking about the distribution of "fNXT" the last days and I have two ideas I have not yet read about and I think could be used  to distribute "fNXT". First, I have a name idea for this chain instead of "fNXT" we could call it "meta" as it contains information about the child chain but is not the childchain itself. It is "beyond" the childChains so I think the name META fits pretty well for this.

Metadata is "data that provides information about other data

The distribution methods I had in mind are:

1) business model for distribution - ICO + (Pow+Pos)
Ethereum has successfully used this distribution method right now. Nobody questions their distribution and everyone seems to be fine with this method. Additionally, we could gather some funds during the ICO for development and after ICO we could choose to use POW for a limited time and then switch to POS like ethereum does. Attracting miner is always a good thing because you have attention coming back regularly. But POW would not be necessary, we could also do ICO + POS.

2) enhanced forging model - distribute to forgers
We already had the idea of using NSC. My idea would be to distribute the META to people that have forged a block. This is easily observable because the block creator is noted in every block. So if we announce a certain timeframe (6-12 months) and announce that the forger of this timeframe will receive the new META currency, it could create a new upwind for forgers and buying into NXT. Forgers would before Nxt 2.0 receive a double award (NXT transaction fees + META later) and therefore cause great attraction and you can be sure that the new META owner will forge more likely.

martismartis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +73/-10
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1238
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #630 on: February 20, 2016, 03:48:25 pm »


2) enhanced forging model - distribute to forgers
We already had the idea of using NSC. My idea would be to distribute the META to people that have forged a block. This is easily observable because the block creator is noted in every block. So if we announce a certain timeframe (6-12 months) and announce that the forger of this timeframe will receive the new META currency, it could create a new upwind for forgers and buying into NXT dumping assets for NXT. Forgers would before Nxt 2.0 receive a double award (NXT transaction fees + META later) and therefore cause great attraction and you can be sure that the new META owner will forge more likely.

I think will happen this :)
Logged

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #631 on: February 20, 2016, 03:49:51 pm »

The distribution methods I had in mind are:

1) business model for distribution - ICO + (Pow+Pos)
Ethereum has successfully used this distribution method right now. Nobody questions their distribution and everyone seems to be fine with this method. Additionally, we could gather some funds during the ICO for development and after ICO we could choose to use POW for a limited time and then switch to POS like ethereum does. Attracting miner is always a good thing because you have attention coming back regularly. But POW would not be necessary, we could also do ICO + POS.

2) enhanced forging model - distribute to forgers
We already had the idea of using NSC. My idea would be to distribute the META to people that have forged a block. This is easily observable because the block creator is noted in every block. So if we announce a certain timeframe (6-12 months) and announce that the forger of this timeframe will receive the new META currency, it could create a new upwind for forgers and buying into NXT. Forgers would before Nxt 2.0 receive a double award (NXT transaction fees + META later) and therefore cause great attraction and you can be sure that the new META owner will forge more likely.

The two proposed model actually steal the forging power of the current forging power owner. I think those two are not good ideas and I'm pretty sure these will not happen.
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #632 on: February 20, 2016, 04:27:32 pm »

Splitting NXT into a transaction and forging token is what scares the shit out of me.

But thinking about how companies work, shareholders are not the user/clients. They are separated. You can be shareholder or client or both, but a user is not automatically also a shareholder.

You have company structures where users are also automatically shareholders but these models are much less successful.

Maybe the same applies here?
It has been a while but I have continued to support NXT within SuperNET (MGW, mynxt.info, instantdex), I just dont have the energy to be attacked when I try to help.

I warned that breaking Backward Compatibility is a bad idea, specifically that I literally didnt have any more time in the day to redo my software due to API changes. Then the data became prunable and permanent data 10x more expensive. A hardcap of 160 bytes was justified to keep the size of the blockchain low. OK, fine. I have no influence and it was made clear I wasnt welcome here, so I just did what had to be done to keep the SuperNET services working.

However I stated that as long as NXT didnt break the way assets work that there was no reason to change from the NXT as the financial platform.

fNXT model breaks the way assets work. I am not talking about any onetime distribution issue, that is not the problem. The asset selloff for the expected NXT pump, that also is not an issue.

The primary issue is that assets will be using NXT as the reference currency. A NXT that is a childchain subordinated to fNXT, the preferred stock that has all the power. If a stock does a 2:1 split, the price is automatically adjusted so everyone ends up with the same value. In the upcoming fNXT:NXT split, there is no such mechanism, all asset will immediately lose half their value, but will the hardfork double all AE bids/asks, I doubt it. So will the market readjust the prices back to where it was? In a perfectly efficient market, yes, but we have the cost of tx to cancel and submit a new quote and the extra effort it would take. But the biggest issue is that there simply isnt enough liquidity. I am not talking about asset liquidity, I am talking about NXT liquidity. There just is not enough NXT to allow a doubling of the prices. Primarily because there isnt an extra billion NXT, it is an extra billion fNXT. So irrespective of an asset's quality there will be a massive liquidity squeeze. This magnitude of a liquidity crisis is seldom seen in the real world, maybe the gold shortage caused depressions in the 1800's. The reality is that to make the fNXT plan neutral from the immediate 50% haircut, all AE prices need to be doubled. And to do that would require doubling the NXT supply and issuing another billion NXT. But still that doesnt balance out the loss of future growth due to fNXT present and future value, so the extra billion NXT is just the start. Of course, it probably wont work to just double the supple, though I heard ripple did it and it worked out fine.

But supposedly NXT will gain value from 2.0, but how? NXT isnt the main chain anymore. NXT doesnt benefit directly from childchains and might even be hurt by them, or simply priced out of existence. NXT doesnt have the forging power any more, so it basically becomes like an asset or MS coin is now. Nothing wrong with that, but this does nothing to strenghten NXT and that is what the assets were issued on. NXT and its future. That future is now inside fNXT.

The way I understand it, NXT would be prunable subject to paying whatever fees the fNXT nodes required. So if there are many successful childchains, NXT could simply get priced out and then pruned away. There does not seem to be any provision to guarantee archival nodes will always be there.

Also, NXT goes from having exclusive rights to all the new features to non-exclusive. If any of you are familiar with intellectual property and the difference between exclusive and non-exclusive, you know how important it is. It is hard to quantify, might be 2x or 10x or 100x, depends on specific scenario. In no scenario does demoting NXT to child chain benefit NXT.

If there are no significant child chains, then all this chaos is for nothing.

The security model for childchains cannot be evaluated until more details are known and even then having a track record of 2+ years vs 0 months, will make childchains security not as strong as fNXT security, even if mathematically they are identical.

Now, how important is security to an asset investor? Of course, very important.

1 + 1 = 2
I dont think many people will debate me about that.
NXT 2.0 + fNXT = NXT
Let us assume the value of the two is the same. the NXT after 2.0 + fNXT vs current NXT. As I wrote above NXT2.0 is not worth as much as NXT, impossible to know exactly how much less, but it is significant, especially since the expectation of future grown goes to childchain and fNXT, with NXT left behind. And clearly fNXT has value, possible the majority of value if the expectations are that childchains are going to be significant.

Now remember that the price of ALL assets and MS coins are cut the moment of the hard fork by the ratio of old value vs new value and the liquidity on the fNXT side is effectively locked away with the 100NXT/tx fee.

So in addition to looking at an immediate loss of 50%, beyond that it could get worse in the event the value of NXT is below half the combined NXT2.0+fNXT.

The fNXT issuing protects the holders of NXT and its price will probably increase leading up to the fNXT hardfork, which appears to already be fully decided based on the posts I see. However if assets and MS are immediately losing half the price and long term without any mechanism to recover it, this is basically a wealth transfer of the 50% magnitude. If anybody is wondering why asset issuers and investors are upset, hopefully my post will open your eyes.

It is one thing to just change the API and upset third party developers, after all coders are so easy to find, who cares about losing developers. And long time sites that couldnt financially justify the development costs to retool for a new API, who needs those anyway.

I am speaking as a businessman, investor and asset issuer. Areas that I have proven skills in, but it probably doesnt matter that I understand business, financing, and issuing assets. I also had proven skills in the tech side all my warnings about the API issues were ignored. However in the asset area I created more asset values that everybody else combined for quite a while and that includes not just NXT but all decentralized platforms. And I did that in a span of just over a year.

My biggest priority is to protect the millions of dollars invested into my assets. Since the NXT is apparently unconcerned about what the effects of totally changing the financial scope of the reference currency would do to everybody who built on top of it, I will have to take proactive steps to do so.

I knew the BC2 incident was going to hurt NXT and I tried to stop it and warn people, but that got turned around into somehow it being my fault that promises made after BC1 were broken and that I didnt compromise. Then a big FUD storm against me and SuperNET pushed the price of it below the value of just the core coins it held, wiping out all the gains. So I was reluctant to say anything due to the "shoot the messenger" thing that happened last time.

I have been silent, but when this farce of community "feedback" is making it clear that it has already been decided by fiat that NXT will be massively devalued permanently, I decided to make an appearance directly. So please if you want to just make me upset, attack me for what the NXT is forcing down our throats without regard to the millions of dollars at stake.

At this point I am reacting to protect investors in my assets. If you are such a person, do not worry. If indeed this fNXT plan moves forward without any protections to asset holders, there will be a way to transition off of the NXT blockchain to where it can be priced and traded against BTC and other currencies.

Anyway, I dont want to get into any extended back and forth. I just wanted to state my position that I will protect investors in my assets and unless there is a believable plan that protects asset holders interests against the issues I raise in this post and any other that might arise, then my hand will be forced. Do not bother trying to convince me to compromise as I do not have the power to just let half the investors value get "temporarily" pushed down by 50% without any clear path to recoup it. If you want to prevent this migration, you need to prevent fNXT and I have ZERO influence over that. I couldnt even get small API change reversed.

I will converse as long as things stay civil, but really I do not have the tolerance to being called names and being insulted.

For all your NXTers without any assets and just love this fNXT plan, just imagine if instead of a 1:1 distribution, all the fNXT would go to only people who have the camelmilk asset. From the asset holders point of view it is a similar type of wealth transfer, even if the ones who are benefiting might not benefit at all, it is clear that fNXT has very little chance of helping assets and a very significant chance to hurt them.

James

P.S. I will not be making technical advices as it is clear that I dont get any respect in that area from the NXT devs, so it is no point to deal with this technically as I clearly dont have the capacity to understand java and it could very well be technical limitations caused by java. I speak about the financial aspects. I will probably lose another million dollars of net worth due to this post, but I am trying to save NXT.
Logged
There are over 1000 people in SuperNET slack! http://slackinvite.supernet.org/ automatically sends you an invite

I am just a simple C programmer

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #633 on: February 20, 2016, 04:48:51 pm »

all asset will immediately lose half their value

It's a valid concern for hyped up assets with no working product.
Quality assets have no reason for concern.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #634 on: February 20, 2016, 05:00:22 pm »

If a stock does a 2:1 split, the price is automatically adjusted so everyone ends up with the same value. In the upcoming fNXT:NXT split, there is no such mechanism, all asset will immediately lose half their value, but will the hardfork double all AE bids/asks, I doubt it.

I stopped reading there.

The Nxt 2.0 proposal also split in two disjoint ensembles the fNxt/Nxt token functionnality. It is not pure inflation like in stock when all share are equal in functionnality. The value of the fNxt/Nxt token will split between those two token, but not like a 50%/50% distribution of the value. Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork. Since NXT token will have all functionnality except forging, I expect it will be value more than fNxt at fork (fNxt will only be good for forging), but will lose some value because it can't forge anymore. This is the value that will be transfer to the fNXT. If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 05:08:37 pm by Sebastien256 »
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #635 on: February 20, 2016, 05:02:52 pm »

all asset will immediately lose half their value

It's a valid concern for hyped up assets with no working product.
Quality assets have no reason for concern.

that is utter nonsense unfortunately. what you mean is that 'better' assets will feel 'less' of a negative impact, where you only operate with maximally vague concepts of such effects.

such vacuous and superficial assumptions of convenience are not the basis to bet the future of an enterprise like NXT on.
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

VanBreuk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +362/-19
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2772
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #636 on: February 20, 2016, 05:10:27 pm »

If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

I think the point is that if assets will be only tradable in NXT, as it derives from the discussion so far, even following your reasoning the value of assets will decrease proportionally to what NXT loses as non-forging currency.
Logged
GPG Fingerprint: B020 D1C1 F289 3B2C 3577  9EAD 455D D175 5913 C7F1

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #637 on: February 20, 2016, 05:10:41 pm »

If a stock does a 2:1 split, the price is automatically adjusted so everyone ends up with the same value. In the upcoming fNXT:NXT split, there is no such mechanism, all asset will immediately lose half their value, but will the hardfork double all AE bids/asks, I doubt it.

I stopped reading there.

The Nxt 2.0 proposal split also fNxt/Nxt token functionnality. It is not pure inflation like in stock when all share are equal in functionnality. The value of the fNxt/Nxt token will split between those two token, but not like a 50%/50% distribution of the value. Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork. Since NXT token will have all functionnality except forging I expect it will be value more than fNxt at fork (fNxt will only be good for forging), but will lose some value because it can't forge anymore. This value will be transfer to the fNXT. If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

Quote
Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork.

DEFINE: 'SOME' !

I took these from your rather short text:
Quote

 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...
 ... will ...


you are stringing up baseless assumptions, but you have no clue what you are blathering about.
in fact, you claim that you know the future of a highly interdependent and complex system.

I strongly object to such arrogant tea leaves reading in connection with the well being of the NXT platform in the future.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 05:13:20 pm by LocoMB »
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #638 on: February 20, 2016, 05:11:56 pm »

If distribution is 1:1 fNxt/Nxt at fork, no one is losing at that particular moment (the fork) since everyone will hold the same token values and functionnalities as before and after fork.

This part of your post only spread fud, imho.

I think the point is that if assets will be only tradable in NXT, as it derives from the discussion so far, even following your reasoning the value of assets will decrease proportionally to what NXT loses as forging currency.

Asset productivity is usually in fiat, so asset value should be constant vs fiat, e.g. usd.
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #639 on: February 20, 2016, 05:13:21 pm »

@locomb sorry for my poor english. I don't know much verb tense in english.

edit, read the text carefully and you will find where "some" is defined.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 05:15:49 pm by Sebastien256 »
Logged
Please drop your ideas concerning Nxt and/or NRS in this topic -> List of feature request for Nxt and/or NRS (with the full list in OP).
Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly