Show Posts - LocoMB
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Latest Stable Nxt Client: Nxt 1.12.1 Upgrade before block 2870000 is mandatory!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - LocoMB

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38
Few points:
2. Replacing jean-luc, are you real ? There is not a single person on this community including myself which can replace him even for 1M$/Year.

Apart from everything else, there seems to me to be a general issue: 
The difference between a 'company' as in run by a small group of people and a protocol as Bitcoin, where boatloads of developers are working on the specifications of the protocol.

Bitcoin may have forks, as we see with core vs. classic, or the past XT vs. regular, but NXT has clones.
I think that is a very fundamental difference, and for NXT to grow means growing into that direction.

NXT is (just) an API, Bitcoin is a protocol - and the first step to getting to being a protocol is try to attract more developers.

Example: A protocol is language agnostic, so there should be no reason why there should not be an NXT implementation in C++ or c.
But obviously, it is currently not really imaginable to have one, so there is still a long way for NXT to grow from API to Protocol...

Nxt Helpdesk / Re: possible weird bug in asset exchange
« on: April 04, 2016, 05:06:37 am »

<errrm>  it wasn't a bug after all - I had an open sell order I had forgotten about that had been there for almost a year. API is working just fine, sorry about the bother..

Nxt Projects / Re: [NXT3D] The NXT Community 3D Virtual World
« on: April 03, 2016, 05:33:53 pm »

Thank you all and @++

Hi OutSL! Thank you very much for your work, I will hopefully soon be able to get some decorations in place too!  :D

Nxt Helpdesk / possible weird bug in asset exchange
« on: April 03, 2016, 04:25:02 pm »

. haha .. looks like a noob mistake .. I'll check never mind

Nxt General Discussion / Re: social contract
« on: April 03, 2016, 10:20:14 am »
The problem with all of this is that "a promise is only good as long as it remains unbroken".

Once the door has been opened once, who is to say it will not be opened again?

The trust that it won't be opened is based on the fact that is hasn't been opened.

This means that you cannot base the trust that it won't be opened again on that fact anymore.

So what do you base that trust on then? I cannot think of one single basis of trust that could be used for that and for that reason I believe it should not be done.

This sums it up perfectly.

Also, I would like to clarify in respect to the term 'majority' - how can that be defined? Vertainly not the loudest voices.

The term 'majority' is equivalent to some kind of 'vote' or consensus, which is exactly what crypto is all about.

In Bitcoin, this is a vote for a protocol, nothing more, so there can be two protocols calling themselves Bitcoin and the other an altcoin, but the point is: The majority, consensus, voting takes place on a protocol level.

So this term 'majority' in the context of the term 'social contract' is a very slippery slope that goes to those two wolves and one sheep voting about what is for diner.

Protocol based consensus is exactly not this kind of consensus by skullduggery, and that is the main difference.

In fact, it did not take long in this whole discussion for the word 'expropriation' to be thrown around by someone.

That is the very antithesis of a contract, and hence Damelon is spot on there.

Nxt Projects / Re: [NXT3D] The NXT Community 3D Virtual World
« on: March 29, 2016, 05:43:34 pm »

indeed! But I will come in and say hello as soon as I can!

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« on: February 26, 2016, 12:00:41 pm »

perverting cause and effect is indeed delusional. and that is what is being done when claiming that the AE is going down because assets do not want to remian in an envirnoment that can fundametnally change its very base at a whim for the sake of progress.

I have my posts from before this went ballistic where I predicted exactly that.

ORA / Re: [ANN] ORA :: NXT 'monetary system' currency
« on: February 26, 2016, 05:41:00 am »

Hi. Indeed. But finding such a venue could be very good!

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:08:54 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.

I strongly recommend to rethink that.

what you are saying is that you are willing to risk the destruction of the value of the NXT AE ecosystem.

Rejecting any form of compromise whatsoever means that no one will ever trust you again.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« on: February 20, 2016, 09:23:04 pm »
the 100 fNXT TX fee for fNXT has been pulled out of thin air as a 'really high number' without any further justification other than being a 'really high number' in order to rectify a distortion introduced by this split functionality.

it is an artificial price fix that that is supposed to balance an imbalance, which is set to collapse  as soon as external parameters shift and the 'really high number' becomes unsuitable for its task either by being too high or being too low.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« on: February 20, 2016, 05:44:05 pm »

There is a name for this, when one group has no rights and another can simple dictate to the other group what will happen

Is that really what you want NXT to be?


in which case, NXT will be no better than Bitshares and Wall Street and any deceased and forgotten banana republic that clutters the history books.

the very antithesis of what Bitcoin and all cryptocurrencues are supposed to be.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« on: February 20, 2016, 05:19:15 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.

forget about english- that is not an issue- but it is a huge issue that you recklessly throw baseless fantasies around and arrogate yourself to hold these as truths.

of course that 'SOME' is completely undefined, that is just a fantasy of yours!

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

Of course there will be some market reajustment after fork.


I took these from your rather short text:

 ... 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.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« 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.

Hi  :D
take a look on this , is in C++ and pay you for your appli usages !!! like nxt but is you how get the fees each time instead of the block forger...
Yes sure :) I know maidsafe.  But their focus is mostly distributed storage, right?
not only! them system is like NXT... have multiple parts when grouped that give a powerful thing... see here
with this you can build your own appli like this ones:
and be paid for every usage of your appli by the network... in your case an asset exchange  ;)

here is a nice view from the SIAcoin side:


consider this- as it seems, MAID is not really running yet, and MAIDsafe coin is a token that will be exchanged when SAFE is running, which it is not...

Core Development Discussion / Re: Nxt 2.0 design
« on: February 19, 2016, 07:32:23 pm »
Transaction fees for transfering fNXT will be at least 100 NXT. It will not be a convenient token for everyday transactions. Why should NXT be marginalized?
What a shame that the community always wanted lower transaction fees and instead they get multiplied by 100  :(
Also a shame, that even though POS is way more efficient than POW, we will need to pay more fees for a transaction on the energy efficient cryptocoin.
I understand that most POW coins offer inflation subsidized transactions to lower the transaction cost, maybe that should be an option for your fnxt also.

as I wrote above, setting fix TX fees is like fixing the price of bread- it only works in tiny economies.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 38