NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[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  

[wesleyh]

ok, that sounds better ...

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

You mean bitcoin:293, bitcoin:3434 and bitcion:211 right? which is what this asset exchange now is going to show if non-unique is implemented as is.

[wesleyh]

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*.

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

we don't have asset exchange at this stage either.

[CIYAM]

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).

[wesleyh]

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.

I wonder how ethereum is going to do that?

If you allow non-unique names you do not help brand names keep their identity. Everyone can own their identity. And microsoft will own microsoft:3487

[CIYAM]

If you allow non-unique names you do not help brand names keep their identity. Everyone can own their identity. And microsoft will own microsoft:3487

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".

[Eadeqa]

ok, that sounds better ...

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

You mean bitcoin:293, bitcoin:3434 and bitcion:211 right? which is what this asset exchange now is going to show if non-unique is implemented as is.

What if you show nothing? If the user adds coinbase ID as trusted party, then you show him "bitcoin" (by coinbase) as available asset. If the user adds both "coinbase" and "bitstamp" then you show them both versions as "bitcoins" as the users is interested in buying bitcoins from his trusted sources, regardless if it's coinbase or bitstamp.  
 

[wesleyh]

ok, that sounds better ...

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

You mean bitcoin:293, bitcoin:3434 and bitcion:211 right? which is what this asset exchange now is going to show if non-unique is implemented as is.

What if you show nothing? If the user adds coinbase ID as trusted party, then you show him "bitcoin" (by coinbase) as available asset. If the user adds both "coinbase" and "bitstamp" then you show them both versions as "bitcoins" as the users is interested in buying bitcoins from his trusted sources, regardless if it's coinbase or bitstamp.  
 

What do you mean by "adding coinbase id" as trusted party?

[Eadeqa]

ok, that sounds better ...

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

You mean bitcoin:293, bitcoin:3434 and bitcion:211 right? which is what this asset exchange now is going to show if non-unique is implemented as is.

What if you show nothing? If the user adds coinbase ID as trusted party, then you show him "bitcoin" (by coinbase) as available asset. If the user adds both "coinbase" and "bitstamp" then you show them both versions as "bitcoins" as the users is interested in buying bitcoins from his trusted sources, regardless if it's coinbase or bitstamp.  
 

What do you mean by "adding coinbase id" as trusted party?

Yes, but this should be done server side not client side. The user would be required to add an account ID to a field called "Trusted".  He will be able to buy assets only from the issuers that he himself added to that field. It will be a field (like alias) where the user can add all the IDs he trusts (transactions fees apply per trust).

The client then display only assets that the user added to his trust field.

There is no third party (service provider)  involved here. The user will go to coinbase website and find their ID. He will go bitstamp web page and find their ID.