In that case I would like the Asset Name *removed altogether* as otherwise I can bet someone will create an Asset called CIYAM and rip people off with it because of the name.

I'm not sure why you are in support of letting people do such squatting and scamming - it will never go down well "in the real business world".

I am not working on TF at all - but I do think that CfB is going to proceed with it as originally planned.

Meaning every account can have an alias called say @email that is there email address (rather than a *global* Alias called @email).

12345@email = 12345@domain.com
88888@email = 88888@domain.com

Make sense?

I was pretty sure we can have aliases that are "private to an account" (unless I am mistaken) so everyone can have an alias called @Asset_Id.

The only real difference is whether or not an Alias Name has to be "unique" and whether users are going to get "tricked" or "confused" because they didn't check other things (or their client didn't show it the "right" way).

As I said provided that Asset Name doesn't need to be unique then I don't mind if it remains.

We already have aliases that *belong* to accounts don't we?

So we can put the name of the Asset into such an alias that belongs to the Asset issuer.

e.g. @Asset_Id = "ABC Asset"

The idea being that the Asset Name is no longer unique - you just choose which one you want to pay attention to according to the Issuer (so it doesn't matter if you get duplicate names as long as you know the issuers accounts of the ones you are interested in).

I would expect an Issuer would be making some sort of announcement where they can tell everyone the Issuer account id for their new Asset.

Agreed - that's why I would want the Asset Name to be non-unique (it would *force* the clients to do something better as their users will complain about the duplicate Asset Names).

Rather confusing command syntax might be the problem - try a "false" rather than a "true" by the looks of it.

As long as duplicate names are permitted then I would be fine with that.

This has probably already been discussed but I think we need to get rid of the "Asset Name" so we don't end up with a second lot of name squatting.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to just tie an Alias to the Asset Id same as we can tied an Alias to an Account Id?

No - but you can Transfer them.

Welcome - now who went and stole the CIYAM alias on Testnet?  

We are talking TestNXT here...

Thanks James - and I have sent you 10K.

If someone could send me some TestNXT I'd appreciate it: 15092019138248535173

http://nxtra.org/nxt-client/ is looking *great* anyone getting down about the price should just have a play with it in order to cheer up.

1. Yes the constant 250 is trivially changed (although how much bigger we make that is something we'll need to consider).

2. TF helps not just because you can send more directly but because it is expected those nodes would be running on high bandwidth connections.

3. There is no real solution to the latency problem in the internet apart from centralisation. TF helps us by basically acting as a compromise - we trade off some decentralisation in order to get higher throughput.

BTW parallel chains allows you to multiply the TPM by the number of chains you are supporting so more high powered TF nodes could become "super nodes".

Basically BCNext is "big brother" - the question that was constantly being considered in "Nineteen Eighty Four" was whether "big brother really exists"?

Maybe - but I wouldn't "put too much stake" into that - we are our "own community" and will need to make "our own decisions".

Thanks for the offer - for now you can send BTC to the Nxt AT project on CIYAM Open (1NxtATuH7ny5pc8wzbz45LaTdbwvyCWcCe) or wait until I get NXT addresses added into CIYAM Open (any funds sent to the project will be used to get *relevant tasks* completed).

Well - let me "return" to this topic now (after a hiatus and a far bit of "work behind the scenes").

The problem with Mastercoin from *day 1* was the "promises of getting very rich" (stupid to do that) and also the complete "disregard" for using Bitcoin much like SD did and the misunderstanding that Bitcoin was really not the TCP/IP they were looking for (NXT arguably *is*).

It was for those reasons that I *did not* invest in Mastercoin but *did* eventually invest in Nxt (after the software was released).

In answer to the TPS (you should use TPM anyway) the 250 constant *is just that* (can be easily changed).

I think we can ramp up to at least 10 TPS right now (and therefore be faster than BTC). After TF is done I expect 100 TPS would not be a big problem - as for 1000 TPS that will probably take a lot longer (so marketing people shouldn't be *flogging* that as something that will be delivered in April - it won't).