either our arguments non unique asset names are right in which they apply equally well to 0.1 fee asset issuance. or they arnt in which case we have other problems to worry about.

again i want to reiterate that im not arguing that there wont be a legitimate cost to this. it will have a cost. just not one that outweighs the benefits.

why on earth shouldn't a little girl be able to incorporate a lemonade stand for all of the exact same reasons that incorporating anything else benefits everyone else? maybe she has entrepreneurial aspirations and ideas but no assets. maybe she has the assets and the idea but wishes to defer to the wisdom of the market to determine whether its a good idea or not.

the image is scammie sure, but it will also have positive assets. We will also have the image of openness and accessibility to everyone. the opportunity for someone to build him self up from almost nothing. someone with almost NO assets to his name can bootstrap his way to success. its easy to think of ourselves in isolation in the west (or i guess the east in your case) but there are a lot of people out there with a lot of potential to whom 1000 nxt may as well be a million. again if the advantage was great enough than i would say "yea ok cut those people out" but it just isnt. its a tiny advantage we are talking about here. fewer assets listed in the exchange, but so what you can filter and you will have to consult outside sources anyway before you make a purchase whether there are 2 microsofts or 10,000 microsofts.

think of the poor little girl who wants to incorporate her lemonade stand. she literally has 1 dollar worth of assets. or the poor african who wants to buy a shovel and doesn't even have enough to do that. sure if the advantages are great enough than im willing to say screw um. but it just isnt anymore, the advantages are VERY minor at this point.

why not? whats the cost? sure i recognize that there is a cost but its minor compared to the benefit.

think about it harder ciyam please. see my last comment if you missed it. you are telling little girls that they can not incorporate their dreams of opening a lemonade stand. which is worth it if necessary to stop scams but it isn't anymore. with these recent changes the advantages to barrier to entry no longer outweigh the costs.

I really strongly think this is not right.

People are going to have to do research anyway before they buy and once they do it will be totally obvious which one is the legit one, it will be the one that they already own some of. alternatively inorder for them to feel safe buying with out doing research the asset will have to be well established. In this scenario the barrier to entry cost would actually be relatively insignificant compared to the costs associated with artificially generating that credibility through having huge amounts of fees payed to miners through the buying and selling of your asset.

im really quite certain that, considering the recent change to the conditions, the benefits gained from having a vibrant ecosystem of tokens would outweigh the cost of potential scammers, especially since people will need to take basic precautions against scammers anyway no matter what the issue fee.

since we are doing non-unique names we may as well lower the price of issuing an asset down to the same price as any other transaction. (0.1nxt as it stand now i think right)

can anyone think of a good reason not to?

I just wanted to say that i don't think the metric here for measuring confidence should be volume. I think it should be total fees payed in the transaction of. That's a much more reliable vote of confidence.

thank god you are still alive. not just for your own sake either. if you had died than the government would have ceased the opportunity to ban bitcoin saying "sorry we had to ban it but its only for your own safety, you have to understand, bitcoin burns people alive".

i wish i could be so confident. i dont buy any doges as a matter of principal but im afraid that thing may have a great deal more staying power than it deserves.

so does it actually look like a perfectly normal txt file?

guys we fell behind doge coin again on http://cryptmarketcap.com/ this can not stand. i dont care if nxt ever goes more than a penny higher than dogecoin just for christ sake don't let it fall behind that damned doge again.

if we are going to do real dac's than my contention would be that we probably need to get parallel chains sorted out first. these things would be real block hogs. no room for any significant number of them on any 1 chain.

Its funny this argument along the lines of "what is joe sixpack going to do when he wants to buy microsoft stock, how is it going to be so easy for him that he doesnt even have to reference a simple website". Like there is some sort of built in assumption that people are supposed to be able to buy an asset with out doing ANY research on it first.

Yep. and with something SUPER well established (like anything like microsoft shares would quickly become) than the client can literally just filter everything else out so that you dont even see it unless you go into your options menu and uncheck some option.

So frustrating that some of these other guys cant see what an elegant solution this is to an age old problem.

no because this will only need to be done during the bootstrapping phase of the asset. once it gets established people will just be able to search microsofit in their client and hit buy. this really is a much better solution than "unique-names" (a bad description since we have unique names with both proposals)

- sorry, how do you think the real Microsoft would promote their asset? They need to say: go and buy asset "Microsoft" with the bigest volume ?
[/quote]

dude are you kidding. A - the stock market isnt for everyone, its for people who have SOME idea what they are doing. B - the client could sort by volume or fees payed on transfers automatically. Or what ciyam said. Or a million other things i could probably think of in rapid succession. The only way someone could suffer from such a lack of imagination is if their argument depended on it.

thankyou sebastien

No this would be the furthest thing from simple. People would be squatting all over the place, not just on the first option but they would intentionally target every other option available to you and you would have to bargain with a monopolist inorder to get your domain. The solution we have worked out is a very good one. It is not complicated, atleast not in practice. With this idea assets do have unique names. of course i mean how else could you tell the network what you are buying and selling. we just have an additional field, call it a label, that people can sort through. The earliest people to become involved in an asset will need to be cautious and check an outside source to make sure that the "true name" is accurate, but later comers will not because the client will be able to automatically sort by volume or fees payed or something which gives them strong anecdotal evidence for which asset is the real deal and early adopters aren't going to be newbies anyway.

this is a very good solution that will not be complicated in practice.