NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[Jerical13]

\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.

There should be accommodation for both scenarios. If people want to conduct trades under there own identifications of trusted sellers, then they should have that sort of functionality available.

This should not exclude the participation of third party service providers though. "Centralized third party" is a misnomer. It could only be considered "centralized if users didn't have other options to fill there needs, or if the network were to favor one service provider over another and not be a platform that allowed for fair competition between third parties. It would be more centralized to try to make the trust variable inherent in the functioning of the AE itself and not give users as many options as possible, including third party providers, or other potential options.

[BrianNowhere]

On the asset name controversy, am I being dense? Wouldn't an asset from a given entity always be issued from a Unique Nxt address, therefore making it very easy to tell who is issuing that asset?

It seems like an easy matter to set up the AE to only show assets from Nxt Addresses you have indicated you trust and to only purchase assets from them and also to clearly be able to show who is issuing that asset.

If Microsoft owns Nxt address 3498343485498 then you should be able to make sure that any time you are buying MSFT that you
are only buying it from Nxt address 3498343485498

I'm not getting why this is such a controversy.

[abctc]

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?

- no.  You propose this choice:

Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345

I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

[CIYAM]

This is a use case that basically clinches it for me.
Thanks for being a beacon of common sense.

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*.

[Sebastien256]

On the asset name controversy, am I being dense? Wouldn't an asset from a given entity always be issued from a Unique Nxt address, therefore making it very easy to tell who is issuing that asset?

It seems like an easy matter to set up the AE to only show assets from Nxt Addresses you have indicated you trust and to only purchase assets from them and also to clearly be able to show who is issuing that asset.

If Microsoft owns Nxt address 3498343485498 then you should be able to make sure that any time you are buying MSFT that you
are only buying it from Nxt address 3498343485498

I'm not getting why this is such a controversy.

+1
Yes that is the point. There is no need to make the asset name or suffix unique. That will only encourage scammer.

[Anon136]

Twitter kind of had the same problem with usernames, and everything is fine.Even some big companies had to add a number or letter to their brand name,because it was already taken, or buy it for not a lot of money,as it isnt such a big problem.Then the name that appears on your profile can be repeated,and people is used to going to the official website or googling to verify which account is the official one of who they want to follow. They follow it,and never see fake ones again.

- agree!  Keep it simple ...  JL, please return the unique names.

No this would be the furthest thing from simple. People would be squatting all over the place, not just on the first option but they would intentionally target every other option available to you and you would have to bargain with a monopolist inorder to get your domain. The solution we have worked out is a very good one. It is not complicated, atleast not in practice. With this idea assets do have unique names. of course i mean how else could you tell the network what you are buying and selling. we just have an additional field, call it a label, that people can sort through. The earliest people to become involved in an asset will need to be cautious and check an outside source to make sure that the "true name" is accurate, but later comers will not because the client will be able to automatically sort by volume or fees payed or something which gives them strong anecdotal evidence for which asset is the real deal and early adopters aren't going to be newbies anyway.

this is a very good solution that will not be complicated in practice.

[Sebastien256]

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?

- no.  You propose this choice:

Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345

I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

Nope you are wrong, it will force user to make the right choice (unique asset id anyway). No one want to get scam and sort by volume solve this issue easilly in the long run.

[Anon136]

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?

- no.  You propose this choice:

Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345

I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

Nope you are wrong, it will force user to make the right choice. No one want to get scam and sort by volume solve this issue easilly in the long run.

thankyou sebastien

[rdanneskjoldr]

Keep it simple ...  JL, please return the unique names.

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?

True that twitter in not an Asset exchange.For that reason people will be even more cautious,as they are dealing with money.

[achimsmile]

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?

- no.  You propose this choice:

Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345

I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

Nope you are wrong, it will force user to make the right choice. No one want to get scam and sort by volume solve this issue easilly in the long run.

thankyou sebastien

Sorting by volume can easily be gamed with only minimal cost imo

[Jerical13]

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*.

what are they doing with domain names since internet is born ?

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

What if Aliases ownership expired after a length of time and went up for bid on expiration?

[abctc]

You propose this choice:
Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345
I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

Nope you are wrong, it will force user to make the right choice (unique asset id anyway). No one want to get scam and sort by volume solve this issue easilly in the long run.

- sorry, how do you think the real Microsoft would promote their asset? They need to say: go and buy asset "Microsoft" with the bigest volume ?

[CIYAM]

True that twitter in not an Asset exchange.For that reason people will be even more cautious,as they are dealing with money.

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

[Sebastien256]

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?

- no.  You propose this choice:

Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345

I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

Nope you are wrong, it will force user to make the right choice. No one want to get scam and sort by volume solve this issue easilly in the long run.

thankyou sebastien

Sorting by volume can easily be gamed with only minimal cost imo

Note that there is still the unique asset id. See Volume as just a pre sorting of the really bad one!

[CIYAM]

They need to say: go and buy asset "Microsoft" with the bigest volume ?

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!

[Anon136]

You propose this choice:
Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345
I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

Nope you are wrong, it will force user to make the right choice (unique asset id anyway). No one want to get scam and sort by volume solve this issue easilly in the long run.

- sorry, how do you think the real Microsoft would promote their asset? They need to say: go and buy asset "Microsoft" with the bigest volume ?
[/quote]

dude are you kidding. A - the stock market isnt for everyone, its for people who have SOME idea what they are doing. B - the client could sort by volume or fees payed on transfers automatically. Or what ciyam said. Or a million other things i could probably think of in rapid succession. The only way someone could suffer from such a lack of imagination is if their argument depended on it.

[abctc]

Sorting by volume can easily be gamed with only minimal cost imo

- agree, especially in the beginning of the trades.

[Sebastien256]

You propose this choice:
Microsoft (a fake ? a true?)
Microsoft (a true? a fake?)
or
Microsoft:12334
Microsoft:12345
I think your decision (non-unique name) is helping the end user to get scammed.

Nope you are wrong, it will force user to make the right choice (unique asset id anyway). No one want to get scam and sort by volume solve this issue easilly in the long run.

- sorry, how do you think the real Microsoft would promote their asset? They need to say: go and buy asset "Microsoft" with the bigest volume ?

promote with asset id,especially in the beggining. The only unique thing that need to be unique.

[CIYAM]

promote with asset id. The only unique thing that need to be unique.

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.

[abctc]

They need to say: go and buy asset "Microsoft" with the bigest volume ?

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!

- so we are returning to the:

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.