Ian worries about someone squatting "CIYAM", well, it's a world of cryptoanarchy and laws don't work here, live with it.
No *I do not* (don't put words into my mouth please). I worry someone uses "my name" to rip people off (and this *will* happen - and you know it but don't care). |
|
|
|
I have - can't offer a better solution, leave it as is.
So you *want* to see the Asset Exchange launch crash NXT and cause us all to be labelled as scammers? (I guess so) |
|
|
|
Check if there are any javascript errors (right click page, inspect element, console).
Strange - got a timeout error trying to repeat (so will check in a couple of minutes). It seems to work for me. Do you have any firefox extensions running that maybe change the page?
Is this on win, lin, or mac? Do other forms work like sending money, bidding, etc? How about creating a poll?
Testing on Windows XP - am using the NoScript extension (but clearly I let your site execute scripts). BTW - I created a Poll successfully. |
|
|
|
What about using reputation system and showing a scoring value next to the Asset?
Easily cheated as well - just don't have unique Asset Names - rather simple actually. If you only see 1 Asset Name then far more likely it is "genuine" - if you see >1 then you *know* you need to investigate more. |
|
|
|
Yeah, I think now "no names" is too radical and ignores user friendliness.
True although that is why I had suggested using account owned aliases for this which would allow *renames* as a side feature. |
|
|
|
Does it happen with any message? I'll check out that ff version.
Tried sending you this: Just a test message to see if working now... same error (am guessing I'll need to log out and back in to fix - but will stay logged in if that is helpful) |
|
|
|
What could be a solution?
At the very minimum *no unique Asset Name* and always display with name and an id (whether asset id or issuer). If a user sees this: CIYAM 12345 CIYAM 88888 they are *going to think twice* before buying and selling as they will be *confused* (and so they should be). If they only see this: CIYAM 12345 then we have a big problem (which is what we have *right now*). (personally I think your idea of *no names* is even better but am not going to try and battle that one) |
|
|
|
Please PM me the message that you tried to send. Which browser are you on?
Damn - lost the message text - anyway am on FF 27.0.1 - now I see in the Messages area a message saying it is from "undefined" with Invalid Date. (can give you my passphrase over Skype if you like) |
|
|
|
I think having no unique names for Assets and instead relying on unique Asset IDs & #Accounts is far better than the current system.
To make it clear what I am talking about please login into testnet ( http://nxtra.org/nxt-client-trustless) and take a look at the Asset called "CIYAM". My account is 15092019138248535173 and you are able to look at my account and list my Assets you'll see that I have 50% of CIYAM Assets *but* I never created them (the "evil doer" did and sent 50% to me). I think that would fool *most* people into thinking that I must have either created CIYAM or at least *endorse* it. Seriously if we launch AE like this not only will NXT *crash* in price but we'll look like fucking idiots (or outright scammers). |
|
|
|
Guys - please check out the Asset "CIYAM" on testnet ( http://nxtra.org/nxt-client-trustless/) - then check my testnet id 15092019138248535173. Anyone who doesn't pay close attention to details might think that I issued the CIYAM Asset (I did not) and end up being ripped off by buying off someone thinking that I had endorsed it. Also @Wesley I am unable to send messages on testnet now, error is: Could not verify transaction bytes (server side). |
|
|
|
Is this ok? Doesn't look right to me (talking about the design here)
Looks okay to me but I am no designer (I hired Enej to redo CIYAM Open for me as my self-designed version looked like shit). |
|
|
|
OK, a setting it is. But don't complain if you accidentally press it!! especially with password in sessionstorage.
Great! And no complaints guaranteed.  |
|
|
|
Except maybe ENTER to submit. Gotta be careful that people don't press it accidentally.. I like to force the user to move the mouse and click the submit button instead.
Oh - please allow that (even if it has to be via a setting) - I *hate* using a mouse on a computer! I am using the same FF version I mentioned in the message - I already killed the window as it was stuck for minutes. |
|
|
|
Still sends the pw to the server though, would need an API available but websockets are a good idea or something like that might be a good idea.
Yup - something to mull over and discuss with JL I think. BTW - I tried "Add Contact" (to an unused address) and now I am just stuck on that dialog (Submitting button disabled and nothing responds). Also I have sent you several "messages" about other things. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah, thanks, need to make an exception for forging, as far as I know this DOES require you send your password to the server.. (Because it needs to be able to sign the generated block).
Hmm... I wonder if we could do anything to improve that situation (maybe via a websocket?). If we are going to have "trustless" then it would be best if it *was trustless* (i.e. no exception). |
|
|
|
I can't forge - just get: "secretPhrase" not specified error. |
|
|
|
I'm afraid we can't, I do not control such things. I add new features but Jean-Luc decides what to include into production. Ask him.
Makes you wonder what the point of this topic is then - but okay I will just email him instead. |
|
|
|
Well, the reality is that we do have name and removing it is not worth the reward, IMHO. For 100 ppl saying that we don't need name u can find 100 ppl saying that we do need it. So, let's leave it as is.
Then can we just make it *not unique* as I don't want a trickster creating CIYAM Asset. Clear enough? (otherwise I am going to suggest that *you are responsible* for anyone getting scammed by this) |
|
|
|
So we have "name" in both the cases?
Yes - *now the user sees that there is a problem* (they would not see this problem if the only thing called CIYAM was created by a trickster). Of course they are now going to "check which one is right" rather than just randomly pick one - don't you think? So put simply - Asset Name is *not* unique and always display the Issuer account id next to it (in every client). I think that this reduces the incentive to even bother "trying" to confuse people and of course makes squatting impossible. |
|
|
|
People need names, they name everything they work with.
The *software* will find the name and display it. You will see this: CIYAM 12345 CIYAM 88888 Now - user just selects the one that *matches* the account they were told (or read about in the IPO announcement) and work with that one from then on. Got it? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
