So the price of XCP has gone up about 10x relative to the USD since the asset issuance fee was set at 5 XCP, and it seems to have found a floor at the current level. Consequently, I’d like to reduce the fee to 0.5 XCP, for the time being, starting in a couple of days. Of course, this fee change would be temporary too, as the long-term plan is certainly to switch to a proof-of-stake voting method for setting the fee as soon as is reasonable. Right now, the fee is simply much larger than it has to be in order to prevent spam issuances, and the current high fees are discouraging people from issuing assets as readily as they might. And at 0.5 XCP, even if the price fell substantially, we’d still be OK. The stakes are still low, and we need to do what we can to support adoption of the protocol.
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1303#msg1303 date=1395065603]
So the price of XCP has gone up about 10x relative to the USD since the asset issuance fee was set at 5 XCP, and it seems to have found a floor at the current level. Consequently, I’d like to reduce the fee to 0.5 XCP, for the time being, starting in a couple of days. Of course, this fee change would be temporary too, as the long-term plan is certainly to switch to a proof-of-stake voting method for setting the fee as soon as is reasonable. Right now, the fee is simply much larger than it has to be in order to prevent spam issuances, and the current high fees are discouraging people from issuing assets as readily as they might. And at 0.5 XCP, even if the price fell substantially, we’d still be OK. The stakes are still low, and we need to do what we can to support adoption of the protocol.
[/quote]
[size=2]This is a great middle ground for companies that want to launch on Counterparty, but won’t require immense protocol changes to execute.[/size]
[font=Verdana][size=2]+1,000 XCPs![/size][/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]We also can commit to monitor spam issuances going forward and its impact on the community. This is great news![/size][/font]
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1303#msg1303 date=1395065603]
So the price of XCP has gone up about 10x relative to the USD since the asset issuance fee was set at 5 XCP, and it seems to have found a floor at the current level. Consequently, I’d like to reduce the fee to 0.5 XCP, for the time being, starting in a couple of days. Of course, this fee change would be temporary too, as the long-term plan is certainly to switch to a proof-of-stake voting method for setting the fee as soon as is reasonable. Right now, the fee is simply much larger than it has to be in order to prevent spam issuances, and the current high fees are discouraging people from issuing assets as readily as they might. And at 0.5 XCP, even if the price fell substantially, we’d still be OK. The stakes are still low, and we need to do what we can to support adoption of the protocol.
[/quote]
+1.
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1303#msg1303 date=1395065603]
So the price of XCP has gone up about 10x relative to the USD since the asset issuance fee was set at 5 XCP, and it seems to have found a floor at the current level. Consequently, I’d like to reduce the fee to 0.5 XCP, for the time being, starting in a couple of days. Of course, this fee change would be temporary too, as the long-term plan is certainly to switch to a proof-of-stake voting method for setting the fee as soon as is reasonable. Right now, the fee is simply much larger than it has to be in order to prevent spam issuances, and the current high fees are discouraging people from issuing assets as readily as they might. And at 0.5 XCP, even if the price fell substantially, we’d still be OK. The stakes are still low, and we need to do what we can to support adoption of the protocol.
[/quote]
We BitcoinTangible Trust are grateful do the developers who have taken time to make this change.
+1
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1303#msg1303 date=1395065603]
So the price of XCP has gone up about 10x relative to the USD since the asset issuance fee was set at 5 XCP, and it seems to have found a floor at the current level. Consequently, I’d like to reduce the fee to 0.5 XCP, for the time being, starting in a couple of days. Of course, this fee change would be temporary too, as the long-term plan is certainly to switch to a proof-of-stake voting method for setting the fee as soon as is reasonable. Right now, the fee is simply much larger than it has to be in order to prevent spam issuances, and the current high fees are discouraging people from issuing assets as readily as they might. And at 0.5 XCP, even if the price fell substantially, we’d still be OK. The stakes are still low, and we need to do what we can to support adoption of the protocol.
[/quote]
To confirm this change will be effective from a certain block x? ie assets issued prior to block x still cost 5 XCP?
[quote author=Global_trade_repo link=topic=186.msg1321#msg1321 date=1395098021]
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1303#msg1303 date=1395065603]
So the price of XCP has gone up about 10x relative to the USD since the asset issuance fee was set at 5 XCP, and it seems to have found a floor at the current level. Consequently, I’d like to reduce the fee to 0.5 XCP, for the time being, starting in a couple of days. Of course, this fee change would be temporary too, as the long-term plan is certainly to switch to a proof-of-stake voting method for setting the fee as soon as is reasonable. Right now, the fee is simply much larger than it has to be in order to prevent spam issuances, and the current high fees are discouraging people from issuing assets as readily as they might. And at 0.5 XCP, even if the price fell substantially, we’d still be OK. The stakes are still low, and we need to do what we can to support adoption of the protocol.
[/quote]
To confirm this change will be effective from a certain block x? ie assets issued prior to block x still cost 5 XCP?
[/quote]
Yes.
I’m not thrilled about this idea. 5xcp at current prices is $25, the new price to reserve a name is $2.50, so it went from being about 2.5x the cost of a domain to 0.25x.
Was anyone actually complaining about this, for anyone issuing an asset that should be worth something .5xcp is just as much of a barrier (you must acquire XCP) as 5
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1333#msg1333 date=1395146729]
I’m not thrilled about this idea. 5xcp at current prices is $25, the new price to reserve a name is $2.50, so it went from being about 2.5x the cost of a domain to 0.25x.
Was anyone actually complaining about this, for anyone issuing an asset that should be worth something .5xcp is just as much of a barrier (you must acquire XCP) as 5
[/quote]
The fee is for spam protection, unlike the cost of domain name, and so only has to be correct by order-of-magnitude. And yes, people were complaining.
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1334#msg1334 date=1395147221]
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1333#msg1333 date=1395146729]
I’m not thrilled about this idea. 5xcp at current prices is $25, the new price to reserve a name is $2.50, so it went from being about 2.5x the cost of a domain to 0.25x.
Was anyone actually complaining about this, for anyone issuing an asset that should be worth something .5xcp is just as much of a barrier (you must acquire XCP) as 5
[/quote]
The fee is for spam protection, unlike the cost of domain name, and so only has to be correct by order-of-magnitude. And yes, people were complaining.
[/quote]
So if I put 1btc into XCP right now, I can squat more than 1000 asset names compared to 100 before. Frankly, I like 100. Are people complaining because they want to buy a bunch of names or because they can’t afford 5XCP but can afford .5XCP? I’m really not seeing why this is a good idea.
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1336#msg1336 date=1395147991]
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1334#msg1334 date=1395147221]
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1333#msg1333 date=1395146729]
I’m not thrilled about this idea. 5xcp at current prices is $25, the new price to reserve a name is $2.50, so it went from being about 2.5x the cost of a domain to 0.25x.
Was anyone actually complaining about this, for anyone issuing an asset that should be worth something .5xcp is just as much of a barrier (you must acquire XCP) as 5
[/quote]
The fee is for spam protection, unlike the cost of domain name, and so only has to be correct by order-of-magnitude. And yes, people were complaining.
[/quote]
So if I put 1btc into XCP right now, I can squat more than 1000 asset names compared to 100 before. Frankly, I like 100. Are people complaining because they want to buy a bunch of names or because they can’t afford 5XCP but can afford .5XCP? I’m really not seeing why this is a good idea.
[/quote]
100 and 1000 are the same here. (Why does the spammer only have 1 BTC?) People are complaining because 1) it raises the learning curve (now it’s an impulse buy) and 2) it’s expensive for small, experimental projects, with very low overhead, building off of Counterparty that need to issue, say, a couple dozen legitimate assets.
Asset names are going to be squatted on, but that’s OK because there are a lot of them (256^8).
Thats actually my point, the attacker might have much more or much less than that but the point is, return on investment given the potential for success of XCP is enormous and since asset names can be sold it’s in everyones individual best interest to buy as many obvious names as possible. I can see the argument for doing this at a later point but unless this is another way of having your investors monetize (by squatting names and selling them to people who have more use for them) it doesn’t make sense.
Yes, there are a lot of asset names but many fewer good ones than bad ones.
[font=verdana]If you’re concerned good ideas aren’t going to be able to afford to get onto the platform, set up a thread that says “pitch your asset business and get stakeholders from the community” Just create one User Created Asset that accepts XCP and gives back your BusinessToken, sell the dividend paying business token for XCP and use the XCP to pay for the assets. [/font]
But beyond that, if you’re starting up a business running 20+ assets, you need all the assets up front and you can’t afford to pay for them, how exactly are you going to be running a business with 20+ assets?
I don’t get it, this seems like it can only yield “every good name will be taken” in the same way Namecoin did, and in my opinion never recovered from. Price fixing does not work, and even making it consensus driven isn’t going to do more than ameliorate the pain.
What about modulating the cost based on the number of characters? The shorter an asset name, the more expensive, the longer = less expensive.
My concern is "all the good names" which is to say, simple, obvious or short ones will be sucked up before people who actually would use them for relevant purposes understand whats going on. Putting a system in place where really long (10 character+) asset names could have the reduced cost for use in testing and because there are many more variations available at that character length, while leaving more expensive "easier" names to people who are willing to pay for the convenience.
Incidentally, where does the XCP from this go - burned or to dev?
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1341#msg1341 date=1395149771]
What about modulating the cost based on the number of characters? The shorter an asset name, the more expensive, the longer = less expensive.
My concern is “all the good names” which is to say, simple, obvious or short ones will be sucked up before people who actually would use them for relevant purposes understand whats going on. Putting a system in place where really long (10 character+) asset names could have the reduced cost for use in testing and because there are many more variations available at that character length, while leaving more expensive “easier” names to people who are willing to pay for the convenience.
Incidentally, where does the XCP from this go - burned or to dev?
[/quote]
If you were going to do something like that, you would modulate the cost by the frequency of the word, not by its length. The description space of an asset will also lessen the advantage of getting a “good name”, and Counterwallet will make it trivially easy to check out a user-created asset’s profile, where that description will be provided.
The problem is that the if you are issuing, say, one digital asset which is meant to represent one physical asset, then you are currently taking a loss if that asset is not worth at least 5XCP. As XCP becomes more valuable, the barrier to entry will be raised for small businesses of the sort described above. For one relevant instance, see this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5749145#msg5749145.
Proof-of-stake voting for fees is by design the fairest way to determine asset issuance fees.
[quote author=cityglut link=topic=186.msg1343#msg1343 date=1395151434]
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1341#msg1341 date=1395149771]
What about modulating the cost based on the number of characters? The shorter an asset name, the more expensive, the longer = less expensive.
My concern is “all the good names” which is to say, simple, obvious or short ones will be sucked up before people who actually would use them for relevant purposes understand whats going on. Putting a system in place where really long (10 character+) asset names could have the reduced cost for use in testing and because there are many more variations available at that character length, while leaving more expensive “easier” names to people who are willing to pay for the convenience.
Incidentally, where does the XCP from this go - burned or to dev?
[/quote]
If you were going to do something like that, you would modulate the cost by the frequency of the word, not by its length. The description space of an asset will also lessen the advantage of getting a “good name”, and Counterwallet will make it trivially easy to check out a user-created asset’s profile, where that description will be provided.
The problem is that the if you are issuing, say, one digital asset which is meant to represent one physical asset, then you are currently taking a loss if that asset is not worth at least 5XCP. As XCP becomes more valuable, the barrier to entry will be raised for small businesses of the sort described above. For one relevant instance, see this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5749145#msg5749145.
Proof-of-stake voting for fees is by design the fairest way to determine asset issuance fees.
[/quote]
The post you linked is wrong, it assumes they need to pay the 5XCP fee PER TOKEN when as I understand it, this is a one-time fee and you can even do multiple issuances without paying another fee
Do you not realize the post you linked is factually incorrect to the system you yourself created? Or are you suggesting that because someone misunderstood the way the system works, we need to modify the reality to correct the perception?
Under what circumstances would a logical use-case be to issue 1 token a single time for an asset that is worth less than $50? That seems like the logical use-case where every single individual token has its own asset name, but not in the system you built. I can see doing this for a house or a car or property, or whatever.
So it seems like this problem is because of smart property and the potential use-case where people issue a different coin for each room in their house, or controls a lock on a door?
Those two things are really really at odds, smart property like that should have a name that does not matter because the name is not important and needs to be unique. Assets are the opposite, the name matters a bunch because they are intended to be recognized by people who do not already own them. This contrasts with smart property, where obscurity during use is preferable and the specific token can be highlighted at whatever point the person wants to sell it.
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1344#msg1344 date=1395152775]
[quote author=cityglut link=topic=186.msg1343#msg1343 date=1395151434]
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1341#msg1341 date=1395149771]
What about modulating the cost based on the number of characters? The shorter an asset name, the more expensive, the longer = less expensive.
My concern is “all the good names” which is to say, simple, obvious or short ones will be sucked up before people who actually would use them for relevant purposes understand whats going on. Putting a system in place where really long (10 character+) asset names could have the reduced cost for use in testing and because there are many more variations available at that character length, while leaving more expensive “easier” names to people who are willing to pay for the convenience.
Incidentally, where does the XCP from this go - burned or to dev?
[/quote]
If you were going to do something like that, you would modulate the cost by the frequency of the word, not by its length. The description space of an asset will also lessen the advantage of getting a “good name”, and Counterwallet will make it trivially easy to check out a user-created asset’s profile, where that description will be provided.
The problem is that the if you are issuing, say, one digital asset which is meant to represent one physical asset, then you are currently taking a loss if that asset is not worth at least 5XCP. As XCP becomes more valuable, the barrier to entry will be raised for small businesses of the sort described above. For one relevant instance, see this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=395761.msg5749145#msg5749145.
Proof-of-stake voting for fees is by design the fairest way to determine asset issuance fees.
[/quote]
The post you linked is wrong, it assumes they need to pay the 5XCP fee PER TOKEN when as I understand it, this is a one-time fee and you can even do multiple issuances without paying another fee
Do you not realize the post you linked is factually incorrect to the system you yourself created? Or are you suggesting that because someone misunderstood the way the system works, we need to modify the reality to correct the perception?
[/quote]
It appears you misunderstood what they were saying: they intend to issue one digital asset which corresponds to one physical asset; i.e. two different physical assets cannot correspond to the same digital asset.
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1345#msg1345 date=1395153058]
Under what circumstances would a logical use-case be to issue 1 token a single time for an asset that is worth less than $50? That seems like the logical use-case where every single individual token has its own asset name, but not in the system you built. I can see doing this for a house or a car or property, or whatever.
So it seems like this problem is because of smart property and the potential use-case where people issue a different coin for each room in their house, or controls a lock on a door?
Those two things are really really at odds, smart property like that should have a name that does not matter because the name is not important and needs to be unique. Assets are the opposite, the name matters a bunch because they are intended to be recognized by people who do not already own them. This contrasts with smart property, where obscurity during use is preferable and the specific token can be highlighted at whatever point the person wants to sell it.
[/quote]
Smart property (or really, any individual asset “tag”) is a potential use-case for Counterparty’s asset creation functionality, and so are assets, in the sense to which I think you are referring. The difference is that while low fees will only decrease the usability of the latter somewhat, high fees will make the former use-case untenable.
Have we consider Global_trade_repo’s hierarchy idea in the other thread?
Temporarily lowering the fees so a business can create 1000’s of unorganized asset names may not be a good idea.
For example, it would be much harder to visually group these assets as being from one entity:
MYDIGITA
MYDIGITAL
MYDIGITAI
MYDIGITALL
MYDIGITAS <-- this could be from a different business?
MYDIGITAT
Instead one could just do a one time look up and be sure that MYDIGIT.ASSET1, MYDIGIT.ASSET2, etc…are all from the same issuing entity.
I already expressed my disagreement with this on the talk thread, and I’m going to express it again. A high enough fee was not implemented and the asset market is already cluttered with junk.
This is not ‘encouraging an effective and innovative financial marketplace’.
If there is a (significant) demand for issuable assets that are not single issue then it should be a question of whether it is worth filling this demand by creating a second type asset class, not by polluting the only existent asset market with uncontrollable junk.