If it helps detect when there are significant forks in progress and especially if your node is on a minority fork, do you think that is good or bad?

If any of these node providers sees this: fix it!

Send to whom?

That is a good idea, and technically it wouldn't be centralized, it would be a perfect example of "Free Market". It would seem centralized if there weren't a lot of competition in what is essentially a virgin market though, but if it is a profitable enterprise, I would guess competition in the market would be eventual.

Think of all the free market opportunities like this that the AE will create!!!!

Hi Brian. Thanks for posting your concerns in detail. I found it easier to digest than trying to follow the back-and-forth nature of discussion here.

I agree that the fee thing needs to be sorted out with an eye towards future price appreciation. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a simple solution. Charging fees based on bandwidth usage or size of transaction seemed like an elegant solution when I first heard about it. However, as nxt intends to compete with a variety of financial systems, each with complicated fee structures of their own, I'm concerned that some great nxt services will be "priced out" of the market, while other services will be unnecessarily cheap.

When thinking of nxt as bitcoin in the future, I think the analogy breaks down when talking about fees. Specifically, the future of bitcoin assumes much lower price volatility. Therefore, denominating fees in bitcoin instead of fiat isn't a big deal. For us, we expect high volatility for the near term. Denominating fees in terms of fiat (or gold or any other asset with lower volatility) might make sense in the near term.

With regards to charging fees for placing an order in the asset exchange, I think that there is room for the nxt AE to improve upon the way markets currently work. If you follow nanexllc on twitter (his work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, amongst other publications), you will learn that high frequency trading firms have been abusing the stock markets in the United States. They take profit, and justify this profit by claiming to increase liquidity and lower the bid-ask spread. However, in reality, the displayed liquidity (order book) can rarely be accessed by real trades, and orders often disappear before a counterparty can fill them. I know that setting walls is a strategy for day trading. However, for a wall to be effective, it has to be large. This implies that the fee would be tiny in comparison to the size of the wall.

Additionally, Nanex's recent studies show that the bid-ask spread has not tightened over the life of the current regulation (Reg NMS). Based on these issues in current stock markets, I am suspicious of HFT terrorizing our infant network, and I think that charging fees for placing an order prevents both spam and these predatory trading practices. We aren't designing the AE for the profit of algorithmic day traders.

I am not sure I understand what you mean by tagging. To me It would seem be more practical to implement if there were a set of "check the one that applies" categories that would actively limit the types of listings that could be used. Flexibility could be achieved by having a comprehensive set of categories to choose from, that could be added to if needed; and by allowing more detailed descriptions of the asset in the description field during the assets registration.

This is why I suggested adding a unique identifier/GUID to a NXT style blockchain.  A transaction would have to specify which blockchain it belongs to.

I did, although I don´t think that they will be able to add it in the beginning.

Ah, I understand what you are saying. Yes, we are talking about the same thing. So the issuer can only chose from existing categories (or be placed in Misc. if he doesn't) such as "currency"?

So the asset would look something like:

[fakeCoin asset]

Looking deeper, I still think we should have <tags> for search purposes. For example, if Google releases a line of products on the AE (each one with the google tag), then when I type in "google" into your client's search bar, I would find all assets with the google tag. This enables us to search by company, product line, etc. This would be too limiting if we only allowed pre-defined categories.

So the asset may look something like this:

[fakeCoin asset]

Simplifying:

[fakeCoin asset]

In this case, your client would just look for "pre-defined" categories (same as the previous example) and place the asset under those categories. So the asset in this example would be placed under the "currency" category in your client, and ignore the other tags for this purpose.

Understandably, if the search function will take a lot of work to implement, we can define the standard now (so issuers can place these tags on their assets) and enable the search functionality in the future. But I think implementing the pre-defined list of categories should be achievable in the short-term.

Pandaisftw