The point is that no-one uses .bit because of all the name squatting - you want no-one to use Nxt then just follow in their footsteps.

We are supposed to be appealing to "business" (at least that is how we have tried to *brand* ourselves).

So if the first thing we do is prevent any business from being able to use their own name without extortion it is *hardly going to be appealing*.

Very good - this could really help things out.

It's all fine to say "let the market decide" but you do know that in many countries "it is illegal to squat on domain names" (countries like say Australia).

Also look at .bit - how well has that done?

Basically the squatting has pretty much ruined any impetus it had at all.

Problem is length limit - you won't be able to extend that (pretty sure each Alias is also limited to 1000 characters).

I propose we *extend* that to something like:

@234343343.email
@234343343.website
@234343343.gpg_fingerprint

etc.

There is already a great invention for trust called GPG - maybe if we can help make *that* more user friendly we could integrate its usage *with* the Nxt platform.

I think the idea of "personal" aliases (unique attributes belonging to a user) could be helpful for that (one of those could be GPG fingerprint).

People could list their accounts and let users trust who they want (such as perhaps forum members here or elsewhere).

Yes - that is exactly along the lines of what I had in mind.

The user will have to find out *which* is the right one (same as they would have to find out whether or not it is *fake* in your system) - then they simply "hide the others".

In your version the "right one" isn't even "called Microsoft".

So let me see how this plays out.

Nxt decides to support squatters and scammers.

Ethereum (or another) decides to instead "help existing brand names keep their identity".

Hmm... not hard to see who is going win that won (re-branding is not some trivially cheap exercise and it is *not* something that Microsoft is going to do).

Exactly - there is no way back - duplicates are *unlikely* to occur as the concerned party can always "list also".

With unique names - any scammers that *get away with things* are going to make users *very angry*.

Every "known" brand in the world is *not going to use Nxt* if they see their name has been squatted (you are kidding if you think they will *rebrand* for Nxt).

Also - we don't *have* service providers at this stage.

They are not if you consider the name the two parts (which is *exactly* how you've even show it will be displayed).

You are now trying to allow these:

Software:Microsoft
Hardware:Microsoft

(both being scams) rather than just:

Microsoft

(so this new idea is *even worse* than the original way)

Because this all just an effort to "try and undo" his decision.

And I've reminded him that this is simply a "back-door" to get unique Asset names again.

Am wondering again if there is some reason why again you are "so determine" to push this?

Exactly - I know you are wanting.

And this is what JL has already said *no* to by changing Asset names to be non-unique.

Because blacklists (and whitelists) will inevitably be politicized.

Trust is one of the most "difficult problems to solve" (as Mike Hearn if you don't believe me) and instead we seem to just "throw up ideas" and think we have a "good solution".

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

It will have to be non-unique as JL has already agreed and made the changes that Asset naming is to be "non-unique".

Trying to "get around it" by saying it is a secondary name is allowing listings such as:

Software:Microsoft
Hardware:Microsoft

where Microsoft is a squatted alias (thus we are now allowing "multiple" scam listings rather than even just the one).

Yup - it isn't going to be "possible" to fight that battle - is it (which is why we shouldn't do it again with Assets or tie Assets to those).

This isn't in existence (such service providers) and "blacklists" are *never a good way to go*.

Please stop trying to push for this "unique name" and let other methods be developed as we progress.

Note that if every 2nd generation platform does the same thing (allow unique names) then you'll never be able to trust "the same name" on any 2 platforms (so all such *brands* have become *useless*).

Once again - this is just not going to work - in the distopian world that this would be creating every single "well known name" is a *scam* and "every unknown name" is something you will have to then look up in order to work out if it is not a scam.

Understand that by *simply not having unique names* the motivation *to scam* has been greatly reduced.

If I see someone creating an Asset called CIYAM - then I create an Asset called CIYAM. Basically if the users get "scared off" all that has happened is that *both* issuers have thrown away 1K NXT (but at least confused Joe didn't bother buying shares in either).

There is simply no "good way to get unique names" (and in fact I think the "aliases" should have been non-unique also as now they are basically "useless tokens" a bit like all those "first bits" addresses that were obtained for 1 satoshi each years ago).

In many countries they have IP *rights* to names so the more Nxt tries to favour this "squatting" and "scamming" the more likely it is going to be *targeted* by authorities.

Other ways of trying to work out trust will be implemented down the track - but if you *allow unique* now then you won't be able to "take it away from the squatters later" (they'll fight you tooth and nail about it).