elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
Full exchange modularity singapore
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Latest Nxt Client: Nxt 1.11.15

Author Topic: Full exchange modularity  (Read 2864 times)

Jetboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +19/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Full exchange modularity
« on: February 04, 2016, 12:09:53 pm »

There are currently three functional domains in NXT which serves as (main) markets:

* Asset Exchange
* MS Currency Exchange
* Marketplace

The functional domains seek to emulate current established market norms for

* Stocks and commodities
* Currency
* Classifieds / web store

As of writing, the out of the box exchange methodologies, at least in the GUI, _appear_ to be:

* Buy assets with NXT, sell assets for NXT
* Buy currency X with NXT, sell currency X for NXT
* Buy product X with NXT, sell product X with NXT

Please keep in mind that I see this from a GUI point of view, the situation could be different from an API point of view, in which case the proposal would be moot or subject to modification.

While it's nice and OK to emulate classic markets in user applications, it appears redundant and restrictive to have pairing constraints and/or additional code in the core to support a variety of market places.

For a complicated, innovative platform like NXT, it seems to me that the obvious solution to current and future problems is to have a single market/swap engine where the particpants set up buy/sell/swap pairs themselves, or maybe even composites where each tradeable entity can be listed with multiple swap opportunities and ratios.

It should be up the user application to create the market, while the core is focused on market features, integrity and security. In datamodelling terms, we need a single market with all-to-all relations.

This modularity, which is excellent for service innovators and participants, comes with a price: NXT as a currency could see less popularity, at least temporarily, which again means it's swap ratio to Bitcoin, altcoins and fiats would disfavour the investors. There are several ways to mitigate a "crash", which we can discuss in this thread.

More specifically, once NXT is "just another token", we may have to reorient ourselves as to what NXT is. For sure, it is and could/should continue to be the lifeblood of the economy in the sense that all transactions require an NXT fee. Significant increase in transactions would definately mitigate a "price crash". There is also an "alternative" way to view NXT-currency which is the burnish bush message from messiah BCNext through his prophet CfB:

Your holding of NXT is your privilege to secure the ecosystem itself.

Why is this a privilege? Because stakeholders are protectors of integrity and security of the blockchain upon which we all rely. This is: Power.

As such, my current thinking is that full modularity, and what could be in effect an undermining of NXT as a currency, may not be a big problem for current stakeholders at all.

The main problem now is that we are emulating constraints from centralised systems, this inheriting their old and no longer efficient models for progress.



Logged

Cassius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +207/-18
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2459
  • Rather be a pirate than join the navy
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2016, 12:17:02 pm »

TL;DR you're talking about putting asset-to-asset, currency-to-currency, asset-to-currency, basically anything-to-anything in the core, to be defined by the user?

Logged
I head up content for BitScan, crypto business hub.

Jetboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +19/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2016, 12:22:24 pm »

TL;DR you're talking about putting asset-to-asset, currency-to-currency, asset-to-currency, basically anything-to-anything in the core, to be defined by the user?

Yes. The user (client or person) can set up any pairing.
Logged

grewalsatinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +89/-3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2016, 12:34:39 pm »

TL;DR you're talking about putting asset-to-asset, currency-to-currency, asset-to-currency, basically anything-to-anything in the core, to be defined by the user?

Yes. The user (client or person) can set up any pairing.

What does Quack do ?
Logged
NXT-QK5L-7YM9-YPVF-55GL5 - Twitter: https://twitter.com/satindergrewal

Jetboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +19/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2016, 12:46:41 pm »


What does Quack do ?

Something that maybe should be built into the core. Thanks for the tip, btw. I'll sure take a closer look!
Logged

Jetboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +19/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2016, 03:42:16 pm »

All honours to Quack and blacky but modular trading could allow for leaner blockchain because a single token-token exchange could happen in one transaction with an event type and definition to support it.

Making a number of assumptions about things I do not know anything about and grab numbers out of thin air: You would rather have one event at 128 bytes instead of two at 96 each).

Again, I'm not a coder and I haven't seen documentation I can easily understand.

I will easily change my mind with new information about how NXT actually works, but from the uninformed perspective (with a number of assumptions taken out of thin air), modular token exchange could make great engineering sense. I will be most happy to be explained why it woudn't.
Logged

LocoMB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +101/-37
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 751
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2016, 06:28:22 am »


in light of all the discussions about far away and fundamental changes to Nxt2.0, I would very much like to keep this topic alive.

this seems like a rather small change to me considering what else is discussed, but something that is sourly needed in order to vitalize the asset exchange and the utility of it as a crowdfunding platform.

would it not be worth it to put some work into it in order to gain some more activity soon, and not a year or longer from now?

what if some organisations were interested and prepared in making use of the AE if they were given the opportunity with such a direct trading mechanism?

can Nxt afford to not offer such a use case?

I think not.

What do the devs think about this?
Logged
TOX
90E54E5B5213290EE616D425CADC473038CFABFA53C913271AA8559D1937DC4AF3A354A9E4E5

Jean-Luc

  • Core Dev
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +816/-81
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1610
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2016, 12:39:11 pm »

The 2.0 design is the right way to implement trading using tokens other than NXT. Attempting to do it on 1.0 using asset to asset trading is a dead end, waste of development time, and not portable to 2.0.
Logged
GPG key fingerprint: 263A 9EB0 29CF C77A 3D06  FD13 811D 6940 E1E4 240C
NXT-X4LF-9A4G-WN9Z-2R322

Jetboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: +19/-2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2016, 02:09:38 pm »

The 2.0 design is the right way to implement trading using tokens other than NXT. Attempting to do it on 1.0 using asset to asset trading is a dead end, waste of development time, and not portable to 2.0.

First of all, this wasn't all about asset/asset - But any/any, where any is a container with one or more asset, ms coin or commodity entity in it. It's weird and crazy but the wild is weird and crazy and people need weird and crazy things. I see NXT more as a multipurpose platform that can be used for a variety of applications which will never reveal NXT [to its users] as it's backend for services and transactions.

Secondly, I agree this is mostly a non-issue with the proposed 2.0, either because the proposal solves practical problems by itself or modularity could be implemented in the same go.

Thirdly, I side with Loco thinking one year is a looong time on this scene and freezing the platform could repel potential investors (i.e users). This thread is not the right space to discuss this but we can't be both passive and open for business.

Logged

blackyblack1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: +165/-82
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Full exchange modularity
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2016, 06:36:59 pm »

There is hardly a chance we will have many sidechains representing popular assets. Hence we will unlikely have most popular asset-asset trading pairs. Well it is not so bad actually since asset-coin trading looks more logical than asset-asset with a tons of illiquid markets.
Logged
 

elective-stereophonic
elective-stereophonic
assembly
assembly