NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[wesleyh]

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).

Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.

For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.

Regarding squatting, we should also rise the price for aliases. Another thing, I would like to see is trading aliases. So, the price will handle that "useless tokens" and eventually make them useful again.

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

[CIYAM]

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

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."

[wesleyh]

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

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."

There will be more than 1 service provider, feel free to choose whichever you want. Blacklist reason should be clearly stated so that it cannot be "politicized". Service provider should have no incentive to do this anyway.

[Eadeqa]

\Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he uses this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

That's relying on centralized third party? What if govt charges that third-party service provider because they didn't black list pot sellers, for example?

Why not let users do his own research and force them to add trusted account to his list?  No third party involved.

[CIYAM]

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

Exactly - I know you are wanting.

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

[wesleyh]

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

Exactly - I know you are wanting.

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

Actually no, I've asked him about this change, he is considering it but doesn't have a lot of time at the moment.

Again, asset names (prefixes) are non-unique.

[Eadeqa]

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).

Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.

For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.

Regarding squatting, we should also rise the price for aliases. Another thing, I would like to see is trading aliases. So, the price will handle that "useless tokens" and eventually make them useful again.

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

There is already another field. It's called account ID

[wesleyh]

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).

Well, there is more to consider. Humans and machines need to uniquely identify an asset.

For machines, a cryptic number is okay. They simply do not care.
For humans, that numbers are not. They need readable and catchy names.

Regarding squatting, we should also rise the price for aliases. Another thing, I would like to see is trading aliases. So, the price will handle that "useless tokens" and eventually make them useful again.

Well I don't actually want to use aliases, it's a hack. I  want another field in the asset exchange table format, which is unique. The alias solution now is a middleground, a prototype.

There is already another field. It's called account ID

Unique, AND brandable, account id is not.

[CIYAM]

Actually no, I've asked him about this change, he is considering it but doesn't have a lot of time at the moment.

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?

[wesleyh]

\Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he uses this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

That's relying on centralized third party? What if govt charges that third-party service provider because they didn't black list pot sellers, for example?

Why not users do his own research and force them to add trusted account to his list?  No third party involved.

Again, there can be more than 1 third party, we would even have a service that shows you the assets your friends trust only.

[wesleyh]

Actually no, I've asked him about this change, he is considering it but doesn't have a lot of time at the moment.

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

Thank you for reminding him. Instead of letting this discussion play out.

[CIYAM]

Thank you for reminding him. Instead of letting this discussion play out.

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

[wesleyh]

Actually no, I've asked him about this change, he is considering it but doesn't have a lot of time at the moment.

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?

I'm not pushing, I'm having a conversation. Non-unique asset names were pushed through the door rather fast, without proper discussion, or vote.

Asset names are still non-unique. I'm not changing that. I'm simply adding a brandable suffix.

[wesleyh]

Thank you for reminding him. Instead of letting this discussion play out.

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

Nope, I simply want the community to see it, and try it, before deciding on it. As there is no way back.

Again, if the people here do not want this I can simply remove it again. It's a prototype, which I assume you are familiar with.

[CIYAM]

Asset names are still non-unique. I'm not changing that. I'm simply adding a brandable suffix.

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)

[Eadeqa]

\Service providers will rate all assets traded, if someone uses ciyam.ciyam and it is verified that this is in fact not you, and he uses this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

That's relying on centralized third party? What if govt charges that third-party service provider because they didn't black list pot sellers, for example?

Why not users do his own research and force them to add trusted account to his list?  No third party involved.

Again, there can be more than 1 third party, we would even have a service that shows you the assets your friends trust only.

ok, that sounds better ...

You don''t need unique ID for that, though.  The asset named "bitoin" can be issued  by coinbase and  bitstamp. No one person should have ownership of the word "bitcoin"

[wesleyh]

Asset names are still non-unique. I'm not changing that. I'm simply adding a brandable suffix.

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)

Service providers or users can easily add the alias to their blacklist / ignore list.

[CIYAM]

Nope, I simply want the community to see it, and try it, before deciding on it. As there is no way back.

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.

[allwelder]

Is AT just a feature of a truing complete scheme that you have in mind?

AT is basically an Nxt account that is a "computer program" (which was created with a "Turing complete" instruction set).

I say *basically* because it most likely won't have "all the same abilities" as any "normal" account (and can't use the *real* Nxt API as it is "sandboxed" to using the Nxt AT API).

I think Ethereum's focus on "contracts" is somewhat limited which is why I created the "lottery" use case.

could have plain text(not technical explanation) about the difference between AT and CCT?

[allwelder]

allwelder: smoking is bad, but poeple still smoke

got it