Exactly - also as I stated their website can make it very easy for you to put the "scary number" onto your clipboard.

What you are doing is now "trolling" to make this go in yet another circle.

That really isn't helpful at all.

So as I said (let's try it again) - have a link to your HTTPS website (so say https://microsoft.com/nxt).

On the page is the "asset id" which you can click on to put on the clipboard.

Now you go to the Asset Exchange and "paste" in that asset id - "viola" the asset named Microsoft shows up and you keep that one.

So you see - it doesn't matter *how many* Microsoft listings there are - and the user has been "forced to do the right thing" from the very start.

They could simply create something on their (HTTPS) web page which "puts the mystical number" on to your clipboard (just like a Bitcoin address).

You then "paste" in that number and: "viola" the *right* Microsoft is now selected!

And they will be "doubly" as cautious if they see "two names" instead of one.

Again an Asset is not like an email account or like a twitter account - so that is a very bad analogy.

Here then is my "compromise" solution:

Asset names are just Alias names - so anyone who didn't already get their alias - tough luck.

Let's just piss of every single business and individual rather than "try something different" because "we would rather help those who squatted on the aliases".

So fine then - let's help them *more*.

Keep it simple for *scammers* is what you are actually saying - I think JL changed it because of this exact point.

An Asset is not a Twitter account - people are likely to end up buying fake shares (rather than reading a wrong tweet) - will you be refunding anyone who gets scammed?

How do you propose that decision should be made?

Auction it?

Vote on it?

We've pretty much already come to the conclusion that "you can't change this" once you've launched it (in which case the "market decision" might be a Nxt "clone").

Sorry - I hadn't noticed that post - looks like something that we should think about.

Of course that is how you'd expect a UI should work.

True - the question is whether or not we can do any better than just using the block sig. for x + 1440 (current thinking).

Unique suffixes give us:

Software:Microsoft (scam)

I am the one *trying to prevent this*. Why are you *against that*?

If Joe sees "two confusingly same named Assets" he *does not waste his money*.

In your system - he can easily get tricked.

In either system some sort of "proper check" needs to occur - but my approach can make it "obvious" there is a problem whereas your approach *hides that*.

Being *easily readable* BUT A SCAM is just what a scammer wants!

True not adding randomness - but if they have to check "all tickets" then provided the information is *different per ticket* then it will take "more effort" to do this checking.

If you add in hash rounds the amount of time required to do all the checking might just end up being *not worth the effort* (as you do need to forge within 1 minute).

There *will be a readable* name - the choice is one of two:

Microsoft (a fake but readable name)

or

Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345

Uh oh? What it this - seems I need to find out more.

Which method is "helping" the end user to get *scammed* and which is not?

Another thing that springs to mind wrt randomness would be looking at "the past" (so say the payload hash of the block at height x - 1440).

Other things to "add entropy" might be the account's public key and their balance at whatever point in time and one could even require "hash iterations" or the like so that "trying to calculate" ticket values for all possible accounts in order to try and game might be more costly that the time it takes to forge a block.

The whole broken idea of DNS names was something from the 1980's.

It is now getting closer to 2020 and we *need to do things differently* and in a *decentralised manner* rather than just "it was good enough back then".

The aliases is basically .bit and look how well that went.

If a user gets *confused* by duplicate names *then that is good* as they are unlikely to just "click one at random" and "buy shares".

The AT approach I described would do no such thing (it would be effectively *outside* of AE).

The feature that makes this possible is the Asset Transfer one (you can play with it on testnet).

So right now you do "do a swap" with someone *but* you'd need to trust them to uphold "their end of the agreement". The difference with using AT to do this is you can "take out the trust" (in fact the AT acts as an "escrow").

Remember also that ATs are not going to be *cheap* (and their fuel is NXT) so the more that they are used then the more NXT will be worth.

There would be no reason to encrypt your trust list unless you wanted to keep it outside of Nxt (in which case just use GPG).

GPG also gives you "levels" of trust which is another thing to consider (e.g. "someone I've met in person" would have a higher trust level than someone I'd only met via forum or chat).

Because .bit is *a failure due to the squatting*.

Perhaps some might think it is "cool" to have a .bit domain that no-one uses but I don't think that any "major corporation" in the world has one nor probably ever will.

Again - in many countries it is *illegal* to squat names (such as Australia) - the world isn't just the US.