Topic: Price speculation (Read 4426856 times)

ThomasVeil · « **Reply #25660 on:** November 16, 2015, 11:52:23 pm »

I think the account leasing time is too short. It makes it a hassle to re-lease it repeatedly (while for many people barely even the transaction fee will be made up with the rewards).
Not sure why the limit exists anyways - since one can always stop the leasing by transacting the coins to a new address. I think the allowed maximum lease period should be 6 months.

crackers · « **Reply #25661 on:** November 17, 2015, 12:12:40 am »

Today's xpool.ca multipool payout is 2.3k+ NXT, 76+ BTCD, 8+ FIBRE, 492+ BITS, 14+ DASH, 94+ VTC, 740+ VRC, 3.32+ LTC & 1.79+ BTC

Additionally 4.1+ DASH was found and sent to X11 miners and 800+ VTC was found and sent to Lyra2REv2 miners since last payouts

Cheers!

qqNxt · « **Reply #25662 on:** November 17, 2015, 01:06:01 am »

Quote from: ThomasVeil on November 16, 2015, 11:52:23 pm

I think the account leasing time is too short. It makes it a hassle to re-lease it repeatedly (while for many people barely even the transaction fee will be made up with the rewards).
Not sure why the limit exists anyways - since one can always stop the leasing by transacting the coins to a new address. I think the allowed maximum lease period should be 6 months.

Agreed

abctc · « **Reply #25663 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:16:57 am »

Quote from: Cassius on November 16, 2015, 07:46:10 pm

I like this. 0.1% to a maximum of 1 NXT for regular transactions. Would make micro tx viable.

- the idea is interesting, but allows cheap blockchain DDoS-ing.
Should be:
0.1% from 0.1 NXT to a maximum of 1 NXT (for regular transactions).

achim · « **Reply #25664 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:44:53 am »

Quote from: abctc on November 17, 2015, 07:16:57 am

cheap blockchain DDoS-ing.

Such low fees are indeed dangerous. 0.1 NXT is worth 0.006 USD atm.

For just 600 dollars one could spam the blockchain with 100k transactions. This would cause a serious unconfirmed tx queue and bloat. It's not acceptable imo.
I don't see the problem with 1 Nxt or 2 Nxt fees, it's just 6 cents and 12 cents respectively.

CryptKeeper · « **Reply #25665 on:** November 17, 2015, 08:01:19 am »

Quote from: achim on November 17, 2015, 07:44:53 am

Quote from: abctc on November 17, 2015, 07:16:57 am
cheap blockchain DDoS-ing.

Such low fees are indeed dangerous. 0.1 NXT is worth 0.006 USD atm.

For just 600 dollars one could spam the blockchain with 100k transactions. This would cause a serious unconfirmed tx queue and bloat. It's not acceptable imo.
I don't see the problem with 1 Nxt or 2 Nxt fees, it's just 6 cents and 12 cents respectively.

I can do a tx in bitcoin with zero fees (I do this regularly) if my coins are old enough or the tx amount is big enough. There is no point for higher tx fees in Nxt, other that there must be some to prevent spam, but I don't see much difference between 1 NXT or 0.5 NXT as base fee.

You are calculating your example with 0.1 NXT but this amount is beyond dispute.

bcdev · « **Reply #25666 on:** November 17, 2015, 10:16:21 am »

It would be possible to achieve almost negligible fees [suitable for micro transactions - sub-penny payments] and very high TPS with NXT equivalent of the Lightning Network. https://lightning.network/

achim · « **Reply #25667 on:** November 17, 2015, 01:33:45 pm »

Quote from: CryptKeeper on November 17, 2015, 08:01:19 am

Quote from: achim on November 17, 2015, 07:44:53 am
Quote from: abctc on November 17, 2015, 07:16:57 am
cheap blockchain DDoS-ing.

Such low fees are indeed dangerous. 0.1 NXT is worth 0.006 USD atm.

For just 600 dollars one could spam the blockchain with 100k transactions. This would cause a serious unconfirmed tx queue and bloat. It's not acceptable imo.
I don't see the problem with 1 Nxt or 2 Nxt fees, it's just 6 cents and 12 cents respectively.

I can do a tx in bitcoin with zero fees (I do this regularly) if my coins are old enough or the tx amount is big enough. There is no point for higher tx fees in Nxt, other that there must be some to prevent spam, but I don't see much difference between 1 NXT or 0.5 NXT as base fee.

You are calculating your example with 0.1 NXT but this amount is beyond dispute.

I know 0.1 is not an option, I was just referring to abctc's suggestion above.
What you say is correct for bitcoin, but you cannot delay bitcoin transactions of other participants this way. If there are too many transactions, miners include the ones with more fees and leave out the ones with zero fee. You could generate as many zero fee tx as you wanted, they would just not (or very slowly) be included in blocks.
We don't have this in Nxt as there's a fixed minimum fee.

Jacinto · « **Reply #25668 on:** November 17, 2015, 02:22:03 pm »

Speaking of which, where is ChuckOne? What did I miss during these long dark months?

farl4bit · « **Reply #25669 on:** November 17, 2015, 03:19:46 pm »

Quote from: ThomasVeil on November 16, 2015, 11:52:23 pm

I think the account leasing time is too short. It makes it a hassle to re-lease it repeatedly (while for many people barely even the transaction fee will be made up with the rewards).
Not sure why the limit exists anyways - since one can always stop the leasing by transacting the coins to a new address. I think the allowed maximum lease period should be 6 months.

Agree

Jean-Luc · « **Reply #25670 on:** November 17, 2015, 05:41:03 pm »

In case anyone did not pay attention:

1. There will be changes in fees and permanent message size limit in 1.7. They will take effect in the 1.7 hard fork, in very early January 2016.

2. These changes will break any application that has hardcoded fees of 1 NXT, or uses permanent messages exceeding 160 bytes.

3. THESE CHANGES HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED ALREADY, AND ALL API USERS CAN, AND ABSOLUTELY MUST START UPDATING THEIR CODE NOW. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL 1.7 STABLE IS RELEASED, AND THEN COMPLAIN THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ENOUGH NOTICE. START UPDATING TO 1.6.2, USE SERVER-SIDE FEE CALCULATION, AND EITHER SWITCH TO PRUNABLE MESSAGES, OR MAKE SURE PERMANENT MESSAGE SIZE DOES NOT EXCEED 160 BYTES.

4. To repeat. Do not wait until 1.7.1 stable, and then blame the developers for not giving sufficient advance notice once it is suddenly released and the hard fork is right around the corner. THIS IS THE ADVANCE NOTICE.

Technical questions about the transition should be discussed here: https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/adapting-client-side-code-to-the-fee-changes-planned-for-1-7/

jl777 · « **Reply #25671 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:13:46 pm »

Quote from: Jean-Luc on November 17, 2015, 05:41:03 pm

In case anyone did not pay attention:

1. There will be changes in fees and permanent message size limit in 1.7. They will take effect in the 1.7 hard fork, in very early January 2016.

2. These changes will break any application that has hardcoded fees of 1 NXT, or uses permanent messages exceeding 160 bytes.

3. THESE CHANGES HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED ALREADY, AND ALL API USERS CAN, AND ABSOLUTELY MUST START UPDATING THEIR CODE NOW. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL 1.7 STABLE IS RELEASED, AND THEN COMPLAIN THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN ENOUGH NOTICE. START UPDATING TO 1.6.2, USE SERVER-SIDE FEE CALCULATION, AND EITHER SWITCH TO PRUNABLE MESSAGES, OR MAKE SURE PERMANENT MESSAGE SIZE DOES NOT EXCEED 160 BYTES.

4. To repeat. Do not wait until 1.7.1 stable, and then blame the developers for not giving sufficient advance notice once it is suddenly released and the hard fork is right around the corner. THIS IS THE ADVANCE NOTICE.

Technical questions about the transition should be discussed here: https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/adapting-client-side-code-to-the-fee-changes-planned-for-1-7/

In the past it wasnt clear what the exact limits are. Until the exact parameters are known, it is not easy for someone like me to make changes to meet such unknown parameters.

Now it seems that 32 bytes are free, and you can pay for only 4 more base fees to get to 160 bytes. But why is there a limit to the size if the overage is being paid for?

My limited intellect cannot fathom a reason why it makes sense to reject a 161 byte permanent message and an extra base fee. Since some of the MGW messages exceeds 160 bytes (not many), this means it will need to be changed to make sure it never exceeds 160 bytes, instead of just paying the extra fee for the rare cases over 160 bytes

James

landomata · « **Reply #25672 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:22:11 pm »

Please let us know your opinions our 1st generation implementation of dynamic board membership...this model can be extended to other assets as well.

https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/nxtty-will-it-be-the-new-whatsapp-what-affects-will-it-have-on-the-blockchain/msg200840/?topicseen#msg200840

Jean-Luc · « **Reply #25673 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:24:27 pm »

Quote from: jl777 on November 17, 2015, 07:13:46 pm

In the past it wasnt clear what the exact limits are. Until the exact parameters are known, it is not easy for someone like me to make changes to meet such unknown parameters.

It has been said multiple times that you should switch to using prunable messages.

Utrew · « **Reply #25674 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:38:46 pm »

Anyone got a few nxt?

Please send to NXT-4Q5S-DR36-7J82-C7X9S

(Want to buy nxt via supernet, deposited btc, received superbtc, but need nxt to be able to place an order to buy nxt ...

)

blackyblack1 · « **Reply #25675 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:39:24 pm »

Quote from: jl777 on November 17, 2015, 07:13:46 pm

My limited intellect cannot fathom a reason why it makes sense to reject a 161 byte permanent message and an extra base fee. Since some of the MGW messages exceeds 160 bytes (not many), this means it will need to be changed to make sure it never exceeds 160 bytes, instead of just paying the extra fee for the rare cases over 160 bytes

James

It was discussed before: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10294.msg200570#msg200570

Jean-Luc · « **Reply #25676 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:47:03 pm »

Quote from: blackyblack1 on November 17, 2015, 07:39:24 pm

Quote from: jl777 on November 17, 2015, 07:13:46 pm
My limited intellect cannot fathom a reason why it makes sense to reject a 161 byte permanent message and an extra base fee. Since some of the MGW messages exceeds 160 bytes (not many), this means it will need to be changed to make sure it never exceeds 160 bytes, instead of just paying the extra fee for the rare cases over 160 bytes

James
It was discussed before: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10294.msg200570#msg200570

Indeed, and that discussion is now closed. I also explained, that I don't want to change the limit multiple times, because setting it to a higher value now and lowering it again in the future will again break applications at that future time. It is better to break them once only, and then never touch it again.

It was also discussed that there is no rational reason why the MGW can't switch to prunable messages.

And I already posted a long list of my previous warnings, going back more than 6 months, that such a change in fees and size limits is coming, and the direction should be a switch to prunable:

https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/new-fees-and-size-limits-in-1-7/msg200470/#msg200470

Brangdon · « **Reply #25677 on:** November 17, 2015, 07:51:15 pm »

Quote from: ThomasVeil on November 16, 2015, 11:52:23 pm

I think the account leasing time is too short. It makes it a hassle to re-lease it repeatedly (while for many people barely even the transaction fee will be made up with the rewards).
Not sure why the limit exists anyways - since one can always stop the leasing by transacting the coins to a new address. I think the allowed maximum lease period should be 6 months.

The limit is in case some account somehow manages to accumulate so many leases that it forges all the blocks, and then rejects any transaction that would take power away from it. Because leases expire automatically, without needing a transaction, the account will lose its power regardless.

jl777 · « **Reply #25678 on:** November 17, 2015, 08:02:00 pm »

Quote from: Jean-Luc on November 17, 2015, 07:47:03 pm

Quote from: blackyblack1 on November 17, 2015, 07:39:24 pm
Quote from: jl777 on November 17, 2015, 07:13:46 pm
My limited intellect cannot fathom a reason why it makes sense to reject a 161 byte permanent message and an extra base fee. Since some of the MGW messages exceeds 160 bytes (not many), this means it will need to be changed to make sure it never exceeds 160 bytes, instead of just paying the extra fee for the rare cases over 160 bytes

James
It was discussed before: https://nxtforum.org/index.php?topic=10294.msg200570#msg200570
Indeed, and that discussion is now closed. I also explained, that I don't want to change the limit multiple times, because setting it to a higher value now and lowering it again in the future will again break applications at that future time. It is better to break them once only, and then never touch it again.

It was also discussed that there is no rational reason why the MGW can't switch to prunable messages.

And I already posted a long list of my previous warnings, going back more than 6 months, that such a change in fees and size limits is coming, and the direction should be a switch to prunable:

https://nxtforum.org/core-development-discussion/new-fees-and-size-limits-in-1-7/msg200470/#msg200470

So you are the expert on MGW codebase now instead of me? Or are you saying that my business judgement to not trust end user funds to a prunable message system that is unrproven in the field, is irrational?

Until now it was not clear to me that tx with message over arbitrary 160 byte limit will be rejected, regardless of fees paid. this breaks a small percentage of MGW tx, so instead of paying a few dollars worth of NXT to cover these cases, we are forced to make code changes and a new test cycle that costs thousands of dollars.

I much prefer to pay a few hundred NXT to cover these small percentage of cases, but you are forcing a change to MGW with 160 byte hardcap and all the costs and time spent on this. Remember the bitcoin OP_RETURN change to 40 bytes that broke counterparty because the core devs didnt like such use cases? this reminds me of that.

One the one hand you dont want to discourage use of aliases, on the other hand you go out of your way to discourage use of MGW.

Will you just start calling me names again?

James

bidji29 · « **Reply #25679 on:** November 17, 2015, 08:15:11 pm »

You two guys need counseling...

News:

Author Topic: Price speculation (Read 4426856 times)