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 1.12.1 Upgrade before block 2870000 is mandatory!

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 51

Author Topic: Nxt 2.0 design  (Read 211002 times)

Marc De Mesel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +228/-83
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #720 on: February 21, 2016, 12:26:56 am »

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.

James, I agree the asset exchange is the most valuable thing nxt has right now. However, I think my NXT (fnxt + nxt) would go up in value, not because value is taken away from assets, but because fnxt will be a success, attracting many childchains. I've sometimes thought that the strength of nxt is mostly it's decentralised validation network but people didn't build enough on top of it that was adopted.

With this 2.0 design you can just fork nxt, rename it, pick whatever features you like, choose whatever currency you want to be the token, but also stay automatically up to date and get the security of the most decentralised network: fnxt. As Riker pointed out well: think what you could do with this and judge then?


The reason why I think nxt will go up more than the assets is still the same: because that is exactly what happened in bitcoin. From the hundreds of assets launched not a single one outperformed bitcoin in the long term. Some however still were great investments measured against fiat.

Ps: great you are back :)

« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 01:05:50 am by Marc De Mesel »
Logged

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 #721 on: February 21, 2016, 12:33:32 am »

Meta is great name.

jl777 is right about assets loosing absolute value in practice despite it shouldn't in long term theory.

jl777 is also manipulative in its wording and that is the reason he faces opposition.

Its true that NXT holders have almost opposite interest of asset holders. But it is also true that asset issuers comited themselves to this situation and also true that NXT holders are playing reputation there.

We do not have only the coin anymore, we have an economy numbered with a token with no future.

There  is a solution for the coin but not yet for the economy.



Envoyé de mon GT-I9195 en utilisant Tapatalk
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 07:55:22 am by websioux »
Logged
Secret Miner <= communicate with style | NotBot <= timestamp digital docs

allwelder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +196/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1867
  • NxtChina.org
    • View Profile
    • NxtChina.org
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #722 on: February 21, 2016, 12:50:24 am »

Why devs not keep current Nxt chain with all features as the MainChain,and add Sidechain with pruning?

Did we still remember that MS feature without any use?

Split Nxt into fNXT and NXT will make ChildChain NXT much like MS. 
Logged
NxtChina |Weibo |Twitter Donation welcomed:NXT-APL9-66GU-K8LY-B3JJJ

allwelder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +196/-13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1867
  • NxtChina.org
    • View Profile
    • NxtChina.org
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #723 on: February 21, 2016, 01:01:15 am »

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
The reason I support 1:1 distribution is that I saw many suggested ridiculous distribution solutions,but this does not mean I support Split Nxt.
Logged
NxtChina |Weibo |Twitter Donation welcomed:NXT-APL9-66GU-K8LY-B3JJJ

durerus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +106/-8
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
  • user-owner
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #724 on: February 21, 2016, 01:41:06 am »

The closest model to what is being proposed that I know of (I am sure there are better ones) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873

It was caused by the US going to a gold standard. Which doesnt sound so bad, but prior to that it was both gold and silver that were basically the currency status. So we have two halves that are together before the 1873 and afterwards only the gold, with silver having to stand alone on its noncurrency uses.

so current NXT is modeled by pre 1873 (gold + silver) (fNXT + NXT)
after 1873 gold/fNXT and silver/NXT2.0

Silver price crashed, and anything denominated in silver suffered. Most of you probably dont remember things back in 1873, but it was pretty grim, only the great depression of the 1930's was worse.

Splitting a currency and demoting part of it to non-currency status will devalue that part. It is logical, I have math and historical support.

@James: Welcome back to the NXT forum! Great to have your sharp and creative mind back in the discussion.

The basic problem that lead to "the crime of 1873" was the fixed exchange ratio of gold and silver. When the real world market price of 1 ounce of gold is 17 ounces of silver but your fixed exchange ratio is 16 ounces of silver for 1 ounce of gold, people will start to arbitrage and you will run out of gold. Gresham's law. People won't spend their gold so easily, since it is gaining value fast. And since any other currencies besides gold and silver (and later only gold) were forbidden, it all ended up in a deflationary crash of the commodity markets.

I don't understand your comparison of that to fNXT and NXT 2.0 (the child chain token). Both will be freely tradeable. No fixed exchange ratio. And other currencies are not forbidden: Assets can be bought with BTC or fiat, if the free market desires that. And then the price in NXT on the AE will adjust. And even if governments forbid cryptoexchanges to make asset markets, people can still exchange their BTC or fiat to NXT and buy on the AE. Of course, it's not hassle-free, but absolutely possible, if you really want to buy that asset.

So I don't think that this historical fact supports your concerns. Regarding the pure math, you are right. fNXT and NXT 2.0 together will be worth more than NXT 2.0 alone. But from that there is no mathematically necessary connection to a lower economical value of a certain asset measured in the NXT 1.x token, BTC or fiat. The pure math just doesn't prove what you suggest.

Assets are made possible by NXT and NXT benefits from assets. It's mutual egoism. Assets have all the right in the world to demand a functioning AE from NXT. AE will still function in 2.0. But everybody is responsible for the long term value of his own token, if there is a free market.

What is really happening IMO is that NXT innovates and asset investors have to make a difficult decision: Shall I go long NXT or asset XYZ. In the end it is all about where you see more value for yourself. If NXT devs would create a killer feature without splitting, it would be just the same. The true value of an asset cannot stem from the token it is mostly traded in at the moment. It stems from the value people see in the business model. If you see future divs flowing in from an asset, you will still hold, except you see more value in NXT 2.0.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 01:44:55 am by durerus »
Logged

farl4bit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +210/-45
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3465
    • View Profile
    • Blockchain Twitter
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #725 on: February 21, 2016, 01:56:24 am »

I am really happy to be part of Nxt. The Nxt 2.0 design really shows the true nature of the Nxt community. We have the balls to change and innovate, this is a structure which set us apart from most crypto's. I am convinced this will end up really good for Nxt/fNxt. Looking forward to these changes!!  (Even as a asset issuer!) :)
Logged

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #726 on: February 21, 2016, 06:50:45 am »

Today is Sunday, shuffling time again! Start your shufflers and let's do some mixing. Plan to dump your NXT? Put them through a shuffling first!
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +439/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #727 on: February 21, 2016, 06:55:34 am »

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.

No freaking idea about what I'm doing ? Perhaps
Maybe on drugs ? Unlikely

coinomat, I truly respect the work you are doing and would like you to stay with us. PM me if you like to talk.
I'd like to explain how I see your solution integrates into NXT 2.0 and benefits from it.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651

Riker

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +439/-42
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1796
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #728 on: February 21, 2016, 07:05:13 am »

Why devs not keep current Nxt chain with all features as the MainChain,and add Sidechain with pruning?

1. Since pruning the NXT chain provides the most important scalability improvement.
2. The main chain should only be used for forging.

Quote
Did we still remember that MS feature without any use?

MS was used to raise 10M NXT for TNSSE and several other projects.
The main problem we identified relating to MS (and AE for that matter) to gain wider adoption is that you perform transactions in one token (MS, AE) but pay fees in another token (NXT).
While other crypto works like this or worse (CounterParty, MasterCoin, Ethereum if they ever develop tokens on top) no other financial instrument in the real world works like this.
We had quite a few projects which run into this problem.

Quote
Split Nxt into fNXT and NXT will make ChildChain NXT much like MS.

The benefit of child chain is that you transact and pay fees in the same token. Thus fixing this fundamental problem of MS/AE.
Logged
NXT Core Dev
Account: NXT-HBFW-X8TE-WXPW-DZFAG
Public Key: D8311651 Key fingerprint: 0560 443B 035C EE08 0EC0  D2DD 275E 94A7 D831 1651

TheWireMaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Karma: +27/-0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
    • NXT Folks
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #729 on: February 21, 2016, 07:12:32 am »

I am really happy to be part of Nxt. The Nxt 2.0 design really shows the true nature of the Nxt community. We have the balls to change and innovate, this is a structure which set us apart from most crypto's. I am convinced this will end up really good for Nxt/fNxt. Looking forward to these changes!!  (Even as a asset issuer!) :)

I agree!
But I also admit that if @jl777 in the past, after devoting his (or her?) life to develop things over NXT, was not listened when it came to development, then something in the process should change. Backwards compatibility is also important. Look at nxtreporting. when it came out I was hoping for a nxtreporting app for mobile coming out as a natural next step to control your NXT account + assets situation, instead they got pissed off and abandoned the project. Same for SAE.
So this is why compromises have to be taken.
In in my job, I would go to my customers and tell them that their million dollars platform has changed protocols, interfaces, etc at each release, we won't have a customer anymore.
But if devs cannot take that, because they are honestly having a clear vision of NXT2.0 potential besides the consequences, then I still believe that the only solution is NXT2.0 being completely separate from NXT1.x.
Maybe the name NXT2.0 is not a good solution as it would clearly relate to the first one. Maybe a new name.
If there has to be an initial supply of coins to be shared, I would see that happening very well through the AE. You issue a NXT2.0 asset, with 1000000000 tokens, priced 1NXT each. fNXT will be shared according to the distribution of the asset.
NXT1.x lives as it is with the improvements that everyone wants, like MS/DGS usability, and no changes to the APIs, at least the existing ones.
NXT2.0 will be financed through the NXT1.x AE, NXT1.x will probably gain value because who wants to get in the NXT2.0 has to go through NXT. NXT1.x development will be maybe technically supervised by coinomat, james and maybe make it open source.
In that way I see all wishes of everyone here come true.
Then users will have to choose, like they do today among hundreds of altcoins.
Is there anything that doesn't make sense here, technically or from the financial dynamics point of view?
Have a nice sunday!

PS: My biggest wish is that there will be 1 NXT with a large majority of consensus on how to go on.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 07:15:40 am by TheWireMaster »
Logged
NXT-5WW2-XQ63-CFGM-G7YAJ

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #730 on: February 21, 2016, 07:22:49 am »

To have market based fees, supply must be comparable to demand. When a system can support 200 transactions per minute, but the demand currently is 2 transactions per minute, supply far exceeds the demand, and if left at market forces the fees would drop to almost zero, which would hurt security, eliminate forgers' income, and allow filling the blockchain with spam. There are two solutions - either set a minimum floor level for the fee, or reduce drastically the block size to 1 transaction per minute. Setting a minimum fee is the preferred solution.

In 2.0, if you want market rate fees for non-prunable chain (fNXT) transactions, but there is not enough transaction volume and not many active transactional chains to fill the blocks and create scarcity, either the system throughput has to be artificially restricted to 1 transaction per non-prunable chain block, or a floor on the fee must be set. Again setting a minimum fee, equivalent to the average number of transactions one could fit in a childchain block, is the preferred solution.

To exchange fNXT to NXT, or to some other prunable chain token, without paying any fees, a user would just start packaging ChildchainBlocks for that chain, collecting the NXT fees in them, and paying the equivalent (market rate) amount of fNXT to the forger of the block. This works if you either need small quantities, or can afford to wait sufficient time to accumulate the needed amount. If you need a large amount fast, you need to execute a transaction (transfer or trade) on the forging chain, but as this is a non-prunable transaction, the fee must be high.

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

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #731 on: February 21, 2016, 07:34:58 am »

To have market based fees, supply must be comparable to demand. When a system can support 200 transactions per minute, but the demand currently is 2 transactions per minute, supply far exceeds the demand, and if left at market forces the fees would drop to almost zero, which would hurt security, eliminate forgers' income, and allow filling the blockchain with spam. There are two solutions - either set a minimum floor level for the fee, or reduce drastically the block size to 1 transaction per minute. Setting a minimum fee is the preferred solution.

In 2.0, if you want market rate fees for non-prunable chain (fNXT) transactions, but there is not enough transaction volume and not many active transactional chains to fill the blocks and create scarcity, either the system throughput has to be artificially restricted to 1 transaction per non-prunable chain block, or a floor on the fee must be set. Again setting a minimum fee, equivalent to the average number of transactions one could fit in a childchain block, is the preferred solution.

To exchange fNXT to NXT, or to some other prunable chain token, without paying any fees, a user would just start packaging ChildchainBlocks for that chain, collecting the NXT fees in them, and paying the equivalent (market rate) amount of fNXT to the forger of the block. This works if you either need small quantities, or can afford to wait sufficient time to accumulate the needed amount. If you need a large amount fast, you need to execute a transaction (transfer or trade) on the forging chain, but as this is a non-prunable transaction, the fee must be high.

Can the fNXT fees be calculated dynamically based on transactional volume of the last X blocks multiplied by some minimum floor base? This should be more free market model than arbitrary hard-coded fees.

Example.

Last 100 blocks have on average 1 tx per block.
Minimum base = 0.1
fee is 1 * 0.1 = 0.1

Last 100 blocks have on average 100 tx per block, because spam or busy from legit use.
fee grows to 100 * 0.1 = 10 then goes back lower as use of fNXT space goes down.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2016, 07:41:24 am by lurker10 »
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #732 on: February 21, 2016, 07:40:16 am »

Backwards compatibility is also important. Look at nxtreporting. when it came out I was hoping for a nxtreporting app for mobile coming out as a natural next step to control your NXT account + assets situation, instead they got pissed off and abandoned the project. Same for SAE.
They made their decisions for business reasons. Backwards compatibility may be a nice excuse, but when we are talking about changes that take a few hours to make, it is naive to think this would cause a project to be abandoned.

Quote
You issue a NXT2.0 asset, with 1000000000 tokens, priced 1NXT each. fNXT will be shared according to the distribution of the asset.
Nxt 2.0 is developed as a continuation of Nxt, and all Nxt stakeholders should have a right of a proportional stake in it, without having to pay again or go through an ICO. But if some desire not to use this right and remain on 1.7 after the 2.0 launch, my keepZombie account property proposal can be considered, to make sure we are not just printing money and allowing the same account to continue existing on both blockchains. Or some equivalent mechanism of burning 1.0 NXT to obtain 2.0 NXT+fNXT instead.

Quote
NXT1.x lives as it is with the improvements that everyone wants, like MS/DGS usability, and no changes to the APIs, at least the existing ones.
We are fully committed to improving the 1.7 series until the 2.0 gets released. After that, it is on its own of course.

Quote
NXT1.x development will be maybe technically supervised by coinomat, james and maybe make it open source.
It is open source. It is GPLv2. Anyone is free to fork it, provided they comply with the license.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #733 on: February 21, 2016, 07:46:42 am »

Can the fNXT fees be calculated dynamically based on transactional volume of the last X blocks multiplied by some minimum floor base? This should be more free market model than arbitrary hard-coded fees.
If there is sufficient transactional volume, and competition between child chains for inclusion in a block, market forces would come into play and fees would naturally raise above the minimum. Until then, hardcoded fees are the simplest solution. The architecture of 2.0 is already complex enough, and I don't think adding a dynamic fee calculation is worth the complication. The exchange of fNXT to NXT and other child chain tokens however should be left to free market forces, and that matters more than the fees.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #734 on: February 21, 2016, 07:46:57 am »

I am really happy to be part of Nxt. The Nxt 2.0 design really shows the true nature of the Nxt community. We have the balls to change and innovate, this is a structure which set us apart from most crypto's. I am convinced this will end up really good for Nxt/fNxt. Looking forward to these changes!!  (Even as a asset issuer!) :)

Absolutely!
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #735 on: February 21, 2016, 07:51:11 am »


there seems to be a simple solution to mitigate the risk of destroying the asset ecosystem:

make assets be traded in fNXT.

when it boils down to this, such a compromise can not be neglected without losing credibility.
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

lurker10

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +168/-33
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #736 on: February 21, 2016, 07:54:17 am »

Can the fNXT fees be calculated dynamically based on transactional volume of the last X blocks multiplied by some minimum floor base? This should be more free market model than arbitrary hard-coded fees.
If there is sufficient transactional volume, and competition between child chains for inclusion in a block, market forces would come into play and fees would naturally raise above the minimum. Until then, hardcoded fees are the simplest solution. The architecture of 2.0 is already complex enough, and I don't think adding a dynamic fee calculation is worth the complication. The exchange of fNXT to NXT and other child chain tokens however should be left to free market forces, and that matters more than the fees.

Okay, I see your point that the exchange rate of fNXT to NXT is more important, but I think the community will want to have a vote on the minimum hard coded fNXT fee same as the community did two polls on the fees for some txs before the 1.7 fork. Can you promise to respect and commit to the results of such voting? I sense many fear the devs have too much power, it's in everybody's interest to conduct setting of this fee through voting, I think.
Logged
Run a node - win a prize! "Lucky node" project jar: NXT-8F28-EDVE-LPPX-HY4E7

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #737 on: February 21, 2016, 08:00:50 am »

Okay, I see your point that the exchange rate of fNXT to NXT is more important, but I think the community will want to have a vote on the minimum hard coded fNXT fee same as the community did two polls on the fees for some txs before the 1.7 fork. Can you promise to respect and commit to the results of such voting?
No. It is an important part of the design that transactions on the fNXT chain should be discouraged and reduced to a minimum. The discussions so far in this thread have shown that a large part of the community does not really understand the 2.0 design and the reasoning behind it, and continues to not understand it even when explained repeatedly. Not everything should be decided by voting.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #738 on: February 21, 2016, 08:02:54 am »


Jean-Luc .. could you please address this:


there seems to be a simple solution to mitigate the risk of destroying the asset ecosystem:

make assets be traded in fNXT.

when it boils down to this, such a compromise can not be neglected without losing credibility.
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« Reply #739 on: February 21, 2016, 08:06:05 am »

there seems to be a simple solution to mitigate the risk of destroying the asset ecosystem:

make assets be traded in fNXT.
This would require storing the ask/bid orders on the fNXT chain as non-prunable transactions, and those make the bulk of our transaction volume. And making the AE transaction types different from the other child chain transactions, another compromise I cannot do.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322
Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 51
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly