Quote from: landomata on January 15, 2014, 10:26:57 AM

Quote from: pandaisftw on January 15, 2014, 09:37:37 AM

Quote from: landomata on January 15, 2014, 09:13:20 AM

Quote from: Damelon on January 15, 2014, 09:06:38 AM

Just want to throw something in the discussion.

Now that AM is here and other functions like voting are coming clients are being made (even the very basic ones), wouldn't it be a good idea to lower fees on that rather quickly?

I feel that adoption of Nxt will be far better served by use than by lower prices of Nxt so people can get thousands and thousands.

The value of anything is determined by it's usefulness anyway.

So, if for instance, if AM would cost 0,01 Nxt for a message, even someone with one Nxt from the faucet would be able to get some actual use out of his Nxt (100 messages for FREE, WOO! Wink

)

Also, we might be seeing transactions go up, although I see that with the current block creation times, that may also create irritation at this moment?

My main point however is to look to fee lowering as a way to throw Nxt more open in the future instead of the market price. The fees are what determine how much use you can get out of one Nxt, thus determining the value of that Nxt?

Good idea of just plain idiocy?

I AGREE 100% ...this must be done on PRIORITY basis....0.01 message fee should be done.

We have to balance low fees vs. people forging. I think it may be too early to decrease the fee. For example, if the fee is 0.01 NXT (= $0.0004) someone would have to forge 2500 min. transactions (which would be thousands of blocks) to make $1.

If traffic increased 10-100x to compensate, of course that will be better. So the question is, will lowering fees right now increase traffic by 10-100x? Otherwise many people will stop forging and the network will be more susceptible to an attack.

its all the same thing....guy send 1 msg == 1 nxt or guy send 100 msg == 1 Nxt....fee amount generated is the same....but utility value increases for the guy who is now using the service on a regular basis.

Yes, that's what I am saying. If, by lowering fees, we see a large increase in transactions, then it will be worth it to lower fees. The question is, will we see that large of an increase right now? If not, then it may be too early to do so.

Quote from: smartwart on January 15, 2014, 10:28:38 AM

Quote from: markus1000 on January 15, 2014, 10:10:20 AM

i still think 1 nxt = 1 vote is the best solution. we dont want to have a situation where people can create new accounts to have a bigger voting power than before.

Please try this point of view: 1NXT = 1Vote vs. 1NXT = 0.5Vote.

For "1Account = 1Vote", if you create a lot of accounts you will get:

1Account = 1Vote is the same as 1NXT = 0.5Vote but in addition 1NXT fee to have a valid account

This helps the economic system because any movement of NXT is good!
Increasing Voting Power leads to increasing NXT flow.
And now you have increased your voting power you have decreased your forging power.
That leads to the next NXT flow ;-)

Another point would be under aspect of Forging Pools and Transparent Forging, but this is for later...

Still, the voting by account has a large problem.

Take for example, stakeholder A with 1mil NXT and stakeholder B with 100 NXT. In order to increase their voting power to the fullest, they both will want to separate their account into many smaller ones with 1 NXT each.

For stakeholder A, initially making a new account will cost him 1/1000000 in fees, or 0.0001% of his holdings. The next account will take 1/999998 of his holdings, and so on.
For stakeholder B, initially making a new account will cost him 1/100 in fees, or 1% of his holdings. The next account will take 1/98 of his holdings, and so on.

So we can see that the small guy ends up paying more, percentage-wise, of his holdings just to maximize his voting power. This is why, imo, 1 NXT = 1 vote is the only fair way.