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 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 221262 times)

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #700 on: February 20, 2016, 10:25:49 pm »

you say the entire AE ecosystem doesnt matter

Another silly manipulation of yours, seriously this is tiring. I never said this and I never will. Undoubtedly AE is an important part of the ecosystem. What I did say up thread is that market corrections are healthy to purge bubbly assets, and I also said a few pages ago that deflation of asset prices is inevitable for at least three reasons, regardless of the NXT 2.0 plans.
Sorry  I didnt quote you specifically and I used some logic:
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10828.msg210311#msg210311
"The true voting is done by forging, it's all that matters."

You do agree that you said this right.
So logically if forging is all that matters, nothing else matters, right?
Is that too much distortion of the truth by me?

And if assets are not NXT, they cant forge right?
So combining these separate but true parts we can transform your statement to have logical equivalence to saying that since asset holders cant forge they dont matter at all.

I am done with you trying to paint me as misrepresenting and manipulating. Short of a retraction and apology it is not worth my time debating with someone that makes such outlandish claims about my honor and then doesnt admit it was a mistake.

So it was either a mistake and your forgot what you wrote, so you apologize or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I say and I have no time for that

James
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

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #701 on: February 20, 2016, 10:26:09 pm »

Where is the commitment to adhere to voting results by the dev team?

I'd like to see it too, but is it that important or significant?
The true voting is done by forging, it's all that matters.
Show me a more decentralized system and I'll sell my NXT and buy that system coins.
Sorry  I didnt quote you specifically and I used some logic:
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10828.msg210311#msg210311
"The true voting is done by forging, it's all that matters."

You do agree that you said this right.
So logically if forging is all that matters, nothing else matters, right?
Is that too much distortion of the truth by me?

And if assets are not NXT, they cant forge right?
So combining these separate but true parts we can transform your statement to have logical equivalence to saying that since asset holders cant forge they dont matter at all.

I am done with you trying to paint me as misrepresenting and manipulating. Short of a retraction and apology it is not worth my time debating with someone that makes such outlandish claims about my honor and then doesnt admit it was a mistake.

So it was either a mistake and your forgot what you wrote, so you apologize or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I say and I have no time for that

James
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 #702 on: February 20, 2016, 10:29:14 pm »

There you go, you are presented with proof of why your historical evidence of the 1873 demonetization of silver doesn't apply to demonetization of fNXT (partially stripping fNXT from the money function doesn't remove value from fNXT unlike stripping money function from silver crashing its value because utility for silver was limited back then until 20th century scientific advances happened) and you accuse me of trolling. So manipulative, it reeks. It's up to the readers to make conclusions.

The value of fNXT is locked up in forging accounts and has no relation to assets, now or after the NXT 2.0 fork. Please try to understand it, I am sure you do. This 400 million forging coins have no interest to trade assets, now or after the NXT 2.0 fork. It's like they don't exist for the asset market, doesn't matter if they are detached from the total supply or not, they don't participate in trading, they forge and are locked up.
The more fNXT is worth the bigger delta is, the bigger the problem is. Can we agree with that? The assumption is the 2.0 as proposed as I have no indication that your swapping back and forth would be allowed.

I am not suggesting swapping back and forth. The supply of fNXT will be fixed at the hard fork by burning NXT with no more fNXT ever allowed to be created. The total supply will be 1 billion (assuming 60/40 ratio, 600m+400m). fNXT can be traded for NXT, same as it can be traded for BTC, USD or cowrie shells, but no swapping.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #703 on: February 20, 2016, 10:33:28 pm »

What if asset-to-asset trading is implemented first, then before proceeding with the 2.0 plan we wait until assets get repriced in Btc/Fiat terms. Once assets are mainly traded in Btc/Fiat there should be no issue, isn't it? Is this idea flawed or could work?
I can get asset/BTC pairs working in a couple months, but that wont fix things.

The fundamental problem is that all the power is with the NXT holders and this proposal is tilted in favor of NXT holders, who have all the voting power. so they will vote for it, forcing the nonrepresented to stay on a zombie chain, live with whatever the devaluation event and the following rebasing to a weakened reference currency does, or leave.

No tech will fix such an imbalance and the fact that in spite of many complaints about this, all concerns of the asset ecosystem are denied, dismisses or trivialized by the devs.

News Flash!

Millions of dollars is not a trivial amount and money will find a safe place to be.

So if you are responsible for millions of dollars of other people's money, will you take a chance that everything will just work out because, well just because some people say it will?

James
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 #704 on: February 20, 2016, 10:34:25 pm »

you say the entire AE ecosystem doesnt matter

Another silly manipulation of yours, seriously this is tiring. I never said this and I never will. Undoubtedly AE is an important part of the ecosystem. What I did say up thread is that market corrections are healthy to purge bubbly assets, and I also said a few pages ago that deflation of asset prices is inevitable for at least three reasons, regardless of the NXT 2.0 plans.
Sorry  I didnt quote you specifically and I used some logic:
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10828.msg210311#msg210311
"The true voting is done by forging, it's all that matters."

You do agree that you said this right.
So logically if forging is all that matters, nothing else matters, right?
Is that too much distortion of the truth by me?

And if assets are not NXT, they cant forge right?
So combining these separate but true parts we can transform your statement to have logical equivalence to saying that since asset holders cant forge they dont matter at all.

I am done with you trying to paint me as misrepresenting and manipulating. Short of a retraction and apology it is not worth my time debating with someone that makes such outlandish claims about my honor and then doesnt admit it was a mistake.

So it was either a mistake and your forgot what you wrote, so you apologize or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I say and I have no time for that

James

We were talking about voting. I said forging is all that matters. Implying it's all that matters for ultimate consensus of the blockchain at the hard fork block, to counter argument your claim than NXT is centralized and everybody dances to JL's tune. You can interpret my words any way you want, of course, it's your right and nobody can take it from you.

I'll call it a day too.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2016, 10:42:28 pm by lurker10 »
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #705 on: February 20, 2016, 10:46:28 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

Like this name 'Meta'  8)

Your 're-distribution of the forging power' idea, not so much.  ;)

Short NXT anyone?  ;D


I'm flip flopping but feeling it again for this NXT 2.0 plan to split it up.

Giving fNXT the name META gives me 2 coins instead of 1, each different strength, each ready to focus.

I feel having invested in NXT may finally get me some sweet juice.  8)

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #706 on: February 20, 2016, 10:46:46 pm »

you say the entire AE ecosystem doesnt matter

Another silly manipulation of yours, seriously this is tiring. I never said this and I never will. Undoubtedly AE is an important part of the ecosystem. What I did say up thread is that market corrections are healthy to purge bubbly assets, and I also said a few pages ago that deflation of asset prices is inevitable for at least three reasons, regardless of the NXT 2.0 plans.
Sorry  I didnt quote you specifically and I used some logic:
https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10828.msg210311#msg210311
"The true voting is done by forging, it's all that matters."

You do agree that you said this right.
So logically if forging is all that matters, nothing else matters, right?
Is that too much distortion of the truth by me?

And if assets are not NXT, they cant forge right?
So combining these separate but true parts we can transform your statement to have logical equivalence to saying that since asset holders cant forge they dont matter at all.

I am done with you trying to paint me as misrepresenting and manipulating. Short of a retraction and apology it is not worth my time debating with someone that makes such outlandish claims about my honor and then doesnt admit it was a mistake.

So it was either a mistake and your forgot what you wrote, so you apologize or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I say and I have no time for that

James

We were talking about voting. I said forging is all that matters. Implying it's all that matters for ultimate consensus of the blockchain at the hard fork block, to counter argument your claim than NXT is centralized and everybody dances to JL's tune. You can interpret my words any way you want, of course, it's your right and nobody can take it from you.
I will take this as an apology and in turn I will apologize for misinterpreting what you said.

So you deny that NXT development is centralized? That there is no open github, but rather closed until a release. I claim that the more closed the development process is the closer to centralized it is as who else can even do anything until it is released.

Not saying that it is sufficient to have a fully open process as even then it can be quite controlled by rejecting all contributions. But with a closed development process that releases source at release points, it is very centralized to the inside developers.

Are you a coder by any chance? Maybe a software project manager? Or will you just hypothesize some abstract concept to say that closed enables higher quality so its not centralized as the result will be coherent and perfect.

And I take it you do not deny that assetholders have no forging power and therefore cannot vote on the hardfork.

So basically I am correct in all my points, just misunderstood why you were objecting

James
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

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #707 on: February 20, 2016, 10:50:23 pm »

Open development would be a step forward, imo, but this discussion should be in another topic.
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 #708 on: February 20, 2016, 10:52:13 pm »

There you go, you are presented with proof of why your historical evidence of the 1873 demonetization of silver doesn't apply to demonetization of fNXT (partially stripping fNXT from the money function doesn't remove value from fNXT unlike stripping money function from silver crashing its value because utility for silver was limited back then until 20th century scientific advances happened) and you accuse me of trolling. So manipulative, it reeks. It's up to the readers to make conclusions.

The value of fNXT is locked up in forging accounts and has no relation to assets, now or after the NXT 2.0 fork. Please try to understand it, I am sure you do. This 400 million forging coins have no interest to trade assets, now or after the NXT 2.0 fork. It's like they don't exist for the asset market, doesn't matter if they are detached from the total supply or not, they don't participate in trading, they forge and are locked up.
The more fNXT is worth the bigger delta is, the bigger the problem is. Can we agree with that? The assumption is the 2.0 as proposed as I have no indication that your swapping back and forth would be allowed.

I am not suggesting swapping back and forth. The supply of fNXT will be fixed at the hard fork by burning NXT with no more fNXT ever allowed to be created. The total supply will be 1 billion (assuming 60/40 ratio, 600m+400m). fNXT can be traded for NXT, same as it can be traded for BTC, USD or cowrie shells, but no swapping.
Well a one time swap reminds me of russian roullete, but with all but one chambers having a bullet. If the wrong amount of NXT is burned, then your rebalancing wont work and depending on the margin of error that can be absorbed (unknowable) all others would cause imbalances.

less than current prosal so it is an improvement and if we magically figure out the value of delta ahead of time, then maybe all will be well for this aspect.

If the absorbable tolerance is +/-5%, then there are 20 possible values,lets toss out half of them, so we would have a 10% chance of being right and preventing a liquidity crunch.

What happens if fNXT value in the future changes? The 1 in 10 chance works only to prevent the hardfork liquidity problem (which is quite an achievement I have to congratulate you on that), but it is 90% of varying levels of bad.

And it assumes and unchanging and static ratio of value. But progress!

James
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

allwelder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +196/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1867
  • NxtChina.org
    • View Profile
    • NxtChina.org
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #709 on: February 20, 2016, 10:52:42 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.

Agree,obviously 1:1 is the most reasonable solution.
Any other distribution is just grab other's NXT and fully centralized.
And I only support 1:1 distribution.
Logged
NxtChina |Weibo |Twitter Donation welcomed:NXT-APL9-66GU-K8LY-B3JJJ

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #710 on: February 20, 2016, 11:05:53 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

Like this name 'Meta'  8)

Your 're-distribution of the forging power' idea, not so much.  ;)

Short NXT anyone?  ;D


I'm flip flopping but feeling it again for this NXT 2.0 plan to split it up.

Giving fNXT the name META gives me 2 coins instead of 1, each different strength, each ready to focus.

I feel having invested in NXT may finally get me some sweet juice.  8)
It is certainly in the economic interest of NXT holders without assets to really like this plan. After all if asset holders are losing value, it must be going somewhere.

However a lot of the value of NXT today is from the AE and for a value transfer from the AE that created a lot of value to the passive (but important!) NXT holders, will cause a loss of are large part of AE activity, which might or might not compensate for the gain.

The problem is that nobody can truthfully quantify the delta effect and this is one step forward two steps back situation where we are dealing not with just adding value but subtracting.

What on earth justifies this mistreatment of asset peoples? I guess profit motive and asset people deserve what happens as they shouldnt have relied on community to not vote to restructure the coin the assets were issued on.

But money is money and the big NXT holders will certainly vote for the value transfer that is in their favor. But also the asset issuers will vote the only way they can. With their feet

James

P.S. Back when you said that NXT alone will outperform assets I did not take into account the possibility that the reference currency would be devalued. So I admit you were right, since holding NXT allows to vote for restructuring the coin in whatever way will transfer value from the non-voters to the voters. It is impossible for assets to outperform the NXT (and its spawned fNXT, gNXT, hNXT,...).
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

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #711 on: February 20, 2016, 11:08:03 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.

Agree,obviously 1:1 is the most reasonable solution.
Any other distribution is just grab other's NXT and fully centralized.
And I only support 1:1 distribution.
of course 1:1 is the only distribution that makes sense.
but please do not support any distribution. Since we are arbitrarily transfering value from one part of the community to the other, why bother to pretend 1:1 is fair?

James
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

coinomat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +214/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1520
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #712 on: February 20, 2016, 11:08:24 pm »

Why I decided to go with our own fork - current NXT devs have no freaking idea about what they are doing:) maybe on drugs, don't really wanna guess. The decisions they make seem random.
Logged
Time to go further

coretechs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +161/-1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 436
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #713 on: February 20, 2016, 11:13:55 pm »

Do others agree that one of the problems with Nxt is the use of the forging token for security, tx fees and pricing assets?  We've already had problems trying to determine the "correct" amount for tx fees and acknowledge that it will always need to be adjusted depending on the market cap.  We've also seen assets lose value when the market cap drops.  It's nice to imagine that the prices will adjust, but in reality this has not been the case.  If the Nxt market cap doubles, should it cost you 2x as much in tx fees to buy/sell your assets that are now magically worth 2x?

Aside from scalability, these problems are one of the fundamental flaws of Nxt, and one of the reasons so many have asked whether assets & fees can be priced/traded in MS sub-currencies.  I don't really like the fNXT/NXT proposal very much right now, but what is interesting to me about it is that it potentially solves the problem of the PoS security being inextricably linked to economic activity in the system.  The nature of proof-of-stake IS timocracy, and should therefore be limited to the security of the system without the ability to affect asset prices or any other economic activity in Nxt, just as the BTC price should not be affected if a giant mining farm burns to the ground.

I don't know if there is an easy solution to this, and I'm glad that there are discussions ongoing.  Nothing is set in stone yet, debates should be assertive, or even aggressive, provided everyone can act like adults with thick enough skin to work it out.  We don't have a choice if we want to survive.  I wish the egos & hyperbole die down a bit as we've seen how nasty the bitcoin civil war has been.
Logged
https://ardorportal.org - Ardor blockchain explorer | https://nxtportal.org - Nxt blockchain explorer | http://bitcoindoc.com - The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin
ARDOR-T43P-R2K9-8W79-9W2AL | NXT-WY9K-ZMTT-QQTT-3NBL7

Sebastien256

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +169/-24
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2823
  • ^LOOK UP^ = Nxt community!
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #714 on: February 20, 2016, 11:17:32 pm »

When we buy assets all we get is it underlying value, or the value that the asset will create. NXT token can also be considered an asset, imo.

NXT AE is just an pass throught system that connect users and asset issuers. The asset holder, only hold the contract relative to the asset which is written in the Nxt blockchain.

I agree that AE has bring value to the Nxt ecosystem, and I also believe that it will continue to do so.

This is the way I see it from the beginning.
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 #715 on: February 20, 2016, 11:22:55 pm »

Do others agree that one of the problems with Nxt is the use of the forging token for security, tx fees and pricing assets?  We've already had problems trying to determine the "correct" amount for tx fees and acknowledge that it will always need to be adjusted depending on the market cap.  We've also seen assets lose value when the market cap drops.  It's nice to imagine that the prices will adjust, but in reality this has not been the case.  If the Nxt market cap doubles, should it cost you 2x as much in tx fees to buy/sell your assets that are now magically worth 2x?

Aside from scalability, these problems are one of the fundamental flaws of Nxt, and one of the reasons so many have asked whether assets & fees can be priced/traded in MS sub-currencies.  I don't really like the fNXT/NXT proposal very much right now, but what is interesting to me about it is that it potentially solves the problem of the PoS security being inextricably linked to economic activity in the system.  The nature of proof-of-stake IS timocracy, and should therefore be limited to the security of the system without the ability to affect asset prices or any other economic activity in Nxt, just as the BTC price should not be affected if a giant mining farm burns to the ground.

I don't know if there is an easy solution to this, and I'm glad that there are discussions ongoing.  Nothing is set in stone yet, debates should be assertive, or even aggressive, provided everyone can act like adults with thick enough skin to work it out.  We don't have a choice if we want to survive.  I wish the egos & hyperbole die down a bit as we've seen how nasty the bitcoin civil war has been.

I agree with you that separating the securing token from the economic one do bring benefit.
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).

EvilDave

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +341/-40
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1789
    • View Profile
    • NXT Foundation
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #716 on: February 20, 2016, 11:24:32 pm »

Yeah, might be time for everyone to get some sleep......this debate will still be here in the morning. :D

@james....you do have a tendency to be dramatic, mate.
I can read through it, others can't. We shouldn't need to add extra emotions to the discussion.

I don't think that anyone wants to marginalise the AE...let alone destroy it.
The problem here is that not every Nxt'er is the same: some hodl and forge, some invest in Assets.
By design, these Assets have no influence within Nxt itself, for several very good reasons....
...but the AE and asset holders are an important part of the Nxt eco-system and community, that's undeniable.

Here's a scenario to consider :
Current Nxt keeps on rolling (with some improvements, like a saner MS interface,or even another client) while JLP develops Nxt2.0.
That's gonna be at least a year, probably more like 18 months. In that time there will be no major changes in core Nxt 1.7 functionality or API.

When Nxt2.0 is ready to rock.....figure out a distribution system for the fNXT (and maybe NXT2.0 for the first childchain) and kick the blockchain off, with no connection to the current Nxt 1.7 blockchain at all, (except for fNXT/NXT2.0 distribution)
If projects/users want to migrate....they can, or they can remain on the Nxt 1.7 fork...or on both.
Yeah, having 2 completely seperate NXT blockchains running simultaneously might be tricky, but it is certainly decentralised. :D

(and I doubt that the 2 blockchains will remain seperate for long, projects will spring up to bridge the gaps between 1.7 and 2.0, and the 2 should obviously share as much API compatibilty as is possible)


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

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #717 on: February 20, 2016, 11:25:42 pm »

Do others agree that one of the problems with Nxt is the use of the forging token for security, tx fees and pricing assets?  We've already had problems trying to determine the "correct" amount for tx fees and acknowledge that it will always need to be adjusted depending on the market cap.  We've also seen assets lose value when the market cap drops.  It's nice to imagine that the prices will adjust, but in reality this has not been the case.  If the Nxt market cap doubles, should it cost you 2x as much in tx fees to buy/sell your assets that are now magically worth 2x?

Aside from scalability, these problems are one of the fundamental flaws of Nxt, and one of the reasons so many have asked whether assets & fees can be priced/traded in MS sub-currencies.  I don't really like the fNXT/NXT proposal very much right now, but what is interesting to me about it is that it potentially solves the problem of the PoS security being inextricably linked to economic activity in the system.  The nature of proof-of-stake IS timocracy, and should therefore be limited to the security of the system without the ability to affect asset prices or any other economic activity in Nxt, just as the BTC price should not be affected if a giant mining farm burns to the ground.

I don't know if there is an easy solution to this, and I'm glad that there are discussions ongoing.  Nothing is set in stone yet, debates should be assertive, or even aggressive, provided everyone can act like adults with thick enough skin to work it out.  We don't have a choice if we want to survive.  I wish the egos & hyperbole die down a bit as we've seen how nasty the bitcoin civil war has been.
The market caused price fluctuations is not so drastic. a 2x change as compared to 10x that was put into the new release.

And the problem is that the forging power determines where the mainchain is. So nothing prevents the large stakes to vote for their self-interest. After all that is what they are supposed to do! If a company didnt vote their self interest then people would lose their jobs.

So combine this shark behavior (which is expected and encouraged) with a development process that is closed and where feedback is ignored. So what prevents the NXT holders from voting for value transfer from other classes of the ecosystem?

With block security, the difficulty of the scattered forgers to coordinate is a barrier and arguable BTC is more centralized in this area. Plus who cares about a few thousand NXT if you have millions. However, if there is a new hardfork, ZERO coordination is needed. ALL NXT holders will vote their economic interest automatically. And they cant be blamed for it.

The temptation is too great, especially if we are talking about significant amounts.

Basically the NXT community must solve this issue and convince the nonvoting AE community that they wont be abused.

James
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

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #718 on: February 20, 2016, 11:51:25 pm »

@james....you do have a tendency to be dramatic, mate.
I can read through it, others can't. We shouldn't need to add extra emotions to the discussion.
So here is where I start being called emotional, will the next one call me childish and immature?

So if I just posted my analysis without relatable contexts then people will come to their senses? It seems with the BC2 nothing happened, in spite of the dangers. And that means I need to make a stronger point to prevent the splitting of NXT

Quote
I don't think that anyone wants to marginalise the AE...let alone destroy it.
The problem here is that not every Nxt'er is the same: some hodl and forge, some invest in Assets.

intent and effect are not always the same. Does that mean if you dont mean to hurt someone, but you do that its ok?

Quote
By design, these Assets have no influence within Nxt itself, for several very good reasons....
...but the AE and asset holders are an important part of the Nxt eco-system and community, that's undeniable.
it is by design that assets have no influence but they are important. OK I agree, but what prevents the NXT forgers from adopting fNXT? and gNXT and hNXT...

Quote
Here's a scenario to consider :
Current Nxt keeps on rolling (with some improvements, like a saner MS interface,or even another client) while JLP develops Nxt2.0.
That's gonna be at least a year, probably more like 18 months. In that time there will be no major changes in core Nxt 1.7 functionality or API.

When Nxt2.0 is ready to rock.....figure out a distribution system for the fNXT (and maybe NXT2.0 for the first childchain) and kick the blockchain off, with no connection to the current Nxt 1.7 blockchain at all, (except for fNXT/NXT2.0 distribution)
If projects/users want to migrate....they can, or they can remain on the Nxt 1.7 fork...or on both.
Yeah, having 2 completely seperate NXT blockchains running simultaneously might be tricky, but it is certainly decentralised. :D

(and I doubt that the 2 blockchains will remain seperate for long, projects will spring up to bridge the gaps between 1.7 and 2.0, and the 2 should obviously share as much API compatibilty as is possible)


Think about it, sweet dreams.
So a new NXT without any connection to the current NXT, which means NXT being used as the reference currency basically gets frozen with the current feature set and all the new tech into fNXT, which is what I predicted would happen.

My assessment is that this is the best plan so far that involves splitting NXT, but you realize you are proposing that existing assets wont get any new tech unless they go to the new chain where they will be at the mercy of the forgers.

So contrary to your statement that AE is important it isnt important enough to allow for 1GB/year increase in the size of the blockchain. You will protect the assets from the one two punch of deflation event and 1873, but the choice is to get stranded on 1.7 tech forever as clearly all the rest of the technologytree will be on the new 2.0 codebase.

It seems I am talking in circles. I hope I made myself clear. If a hardfork means that asset issuers will have to suffer through a self-inflicted deflation event and recovery or left behind and not linked to the main currency, it will show the same disregard that third party developers were shown by BC2

That is my feedback. Any plan that doesnt protect the assets is DOA for the asset issuers and investors and migration plans will need to be started. Just like the forgers by design have the power to vote for blocks and hardforks, asset issuers have the power to move to a different blockchain.

I am sad that I have to be so blunt and probably people will spin this to make it my fault that fNXT will split NXT. At this point I await a decision from the community if it wants the SuperNET and my other assets to remain with NXT or if like BC2 you feel NXT doesnt need the bother to deal with such a demanding person.

James

P.S. For investors in my assets you might have missed it but the logic is simple, either NXT will take actions to protect your interests or I will. Either way your investments in assets I control will be protected. Current plan would be to have a way to transfer to the BTC/BTCD chains where BTCD is used for the one minute blocktime things and BTC for archival coldstorage. That way you can benefit from the security of BTC, but have the one minute speed. However if you want to remain on the NXT blockchain and take your chances, that will be supported to. You will be able to choose which blockchain to reside on. If there are enough arbitrageurs (no guarantee of this) then it will provide decent protection from deflation events due to the automatic liquidity that would flow in.
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

jl777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +718/-123
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6170
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #719 on: February 21, 2016, 12:09:28 am »

On Feb 2nd I made a release of iguana InstantDEX that supports nxtae as one of the "exchanges"

I had asked to get some help from the community to help with testing it. After almost 2.5 weeks the total amount of testing by the NXT community: 0

I saw some posts where I was somehow being unrealistic to expect any help from the NXT community after what I did. I guess my trying to stop BC2 at a personal loss of marketcap of over a million USD makes me a really evil person. I knew there would be some backlash and I debated if I should just stay silent, but I did not feel it was right to ignore an arbitrary decision that was made that would hurt NXT.

There are many new comers here without any background to know who I am and must think that I must be some sort of ego maniac. I apologize for my dramatic entry, but my assessment was this is the last chance to stop a fatal mistake. Dont get me wrong it wont be overnight and NXT price should do just fine, in fact it should go up by the delta amount, whatever that amount is.

For the longest of time I had more value in my assets than all others combined. I actually know assets pretty well, so dont be convinced by the people who say there is no problem. There is a big problem as I have written and I am not smart enough to be able to figure out any solutions as impossible constraints have already been decided on.

And since there is a total lack of support for helping with the testing of NXT, please do not complain about how long it is taking. I will get it done, but without anybody testing it, it will get to the bottom of the list as I prioritize specific issues that the testers are finding and if there are no testers I wont get to it until I am done with the other parts.

Now I know I am having no power other than my words, so I did word things a bit stronger than normal, but I still speak the truth. With the current structure NXT is at the mercy of tech decisions made in a vacuum that usually is pretty good, sometimes brilliant, but occasionally disastrous. I try to stay out of the way and step in only when I see a disaster in the making.

Good luck and I hope this wont end up like BC2, but if anybody wants to sell SuperNET assets below NAV let me know

James
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
Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly