NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information

[alxx77]

Hm, AE should not be focused on helping average users not to do stupid things (what would allowing unique names suppose to do), it should be focused on being efficient tool for asset ownership transfer.

Educating users should be left to service providers.

[CIYAM]

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.

Yes - that is exactly along the lines of what I had in mind.

[cc001]

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 sues this asset without good reason other than to scam, the service provider can in fact "blacklist" the asset (and the alias), solving the issue.

This isn't in existence (such service providers) and "blacklists" are *never a good way to go*.

Please stop trying to push for this "unique name" and let other methods be developed as we progress.

Note that if every 2nd generation platform does the same thing (allow unique names) then you'll never be able to trust "the same name" on any 2 platforms (so all such *brands* have become *useless*).

+1 FullAck with CIYAM

[wesleyh]

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.

I only mentioned service provider because this is not integrated in the core. This is similar to my idea also.

If it's at all possible, maybe even show only assets that your FRIENDS trust. (This would make nxt like a social network tho).

[Eadeqa]

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.

Yes - that is exactly along the lines of what I had in mind.

Also, the user should be able to delete an account from that list (again transaction fees apply pre addition and removal).

[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.

I only mentioned service provider because this is not integrated in the core. This is similar to my idea also.

If it's at all possible, maybe even show only assets that your FRIENDS trust. (This would make nxt like a social network tho).

what's "friends" here? We don't have "friend" field in NRS server.

[wesleyh]

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.

Yes - that is exactly along the lines of what I had in mind.

Also, the user should be able to delete an account from that list (again transaction fees apply pre addition and removal).

I like this idea. What happens with new accounts tho, they don't have anyone in their list. Do you show all assets or none? If none, how are they supposed to find the id's to add?

[wesleyh]

what's "friends" here? He don't have "friend" field in NRS server.

There's no trusted field either, we are talking conceptual here.

[CIYAM]

I like this idea. What happens with new accounts tho, they don't have anyone in their list. Do you show all assets or none? If none, how are they supposed to find the id's to add?

People could list their accounts and let users trust who they want (such as perhaps forum members here or elsewhere).

[Eadeqa]

what's "friends" here? He don't have "friend" field in NRS server.

There's no trusted field either, we are talking conceptual here.

Ok, so we are talking about adding a "friend" field too. That's fine. I thought you had something specific from client side.

It needs to be on server side and on blockchain, so the user trust list isn't destroyed on a new hard drive/installation.

[wesleyh]

I like this idea. What happens with new accounts tho, they don't have anyone in their list. Do you show all assets or none? If none, how are they supposed to find the id's to add?

People could list their accounts and let users trust who they want (such as perhaps forum members here or elsewhere).

Hey ciyam, you see what happens when you push an idea / prototype? Discussion. Which results in new ideas. Good!

[wesleyh]

what's "friends" here? He don't have "friend" field in NRS server.

There's no trusted field either, we are talking conceptual here.

Ok, so we are talking about adding a "friend" field too. That's fine. I thought you had something specific from client side.

It needs to be on server and on blockchain, so the user trust list isn't destroyed on a new harddrive/installation.

Except it should probably be encrypted, because I do not want the whole blockchain to know who I am friends with. Anyway, CFB talked about this, not sure if he decided against it or not.

[CIYAM]

Hey ciyam, you see what happens when you push an idea / prototype? Discussion. Which results in new ideas. Good!

There is already a great invention for trust called GPG - maybe if we can help make *that* more user friendly we could integrate its usage *with* the Nxt platform.

I think the idea of "personal" aliases (unique attributes belonging to a user) could be helpful for that (one of those could be GPG fingerprint).

[wesleyh]

Hey ciyam, you see what happens when you push an idea / prototype? Discussion. Which results in new ideas. Good!

There is already a great invention for trust called GPG - maybe if we can help make *that* more user friendly we could integrate its usage *with* the Nxt platform.

I think the idea of "personal" aliases (unique attributes belonging to a user) could be helpful for that (one of those could be GPG fingerprint).

I like idea of non-squattable alias: @234343343 (@ + your account id). Only account can register this special alias.

[Eadeqa]

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.

Yes - that is exactly along the lines of what I had in mind.

Also, the user should be able to delete an account from that list (again transaction fees apply pre addition and removal).

I like this idea. What happens with new accounts tho, they don't have anyone in their list. Do you show all assets or none? If none, how are they supposed to find the id's to add?

They go to coinbase website and find their ID. They go to bitstamp website and find their ID. The asset issuer will  advertise on their webpages, forums, social network. Your client will tell them that they need to add trusted issuer before assets are displayed.  

The point would be to cut down scammers completely from the picture

The user adds  asset issuer to the trust list (some research) and he is responsible.

The asset issuer does the advertisement on the internet (websites, forums, social network etc).

[CIYAM]

I like idea of non-squattable alias: @234343343 (@ + your account id). Only account can register this special alias.

I propose we *extend* that to something like:

@234343343.email
@234343343.website
@234343343.gpg_fingerprint

etc.

[wesleyh]

I like idea of non-squattable alias: @234343343 (@ + your account id). Only account can register this special alias.

I propose we *extend* that to something like:

@234343343.email
@234343343.website
@234343343.gpg_fingerprint

etc.

You can just use json format in alias

{"email": ..., "avatar": ..., "gpg_fingerprint": ... }

[CIYAM]

You can just use json format in alias

{"email": ..., "avatar": ..., "gpg_fingerprint": ... }

Problem is length limit - you won't be able to extend that (pretty sure each Alias is also limited to 1000 characters).

[ChuckOne]

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.

I do not see a problem with that. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Just let us trade aliases and the market will decide.

If you want to create an asset and you need a goooood name, you can buy it for the price it is worth to you. Simple. Works with domain names these days.

Nevertheless, I agree: the alias should be included in the asset exchange table. What alias do you choose right now? An account could have more than one alias.

[ChuckOne]

Hey ciyam, you see what happens when you push an idea / prototype? Discussion. Which results in new ideas. Good!

There is already a great invention for trust called GPG - maybe if we can help make *that* more user friendly we could integrate its usage *with* the Nxt platform.

I think the idea of "personal" aliases (unique attributes belonging to a user) could be helpful for that (one of those could be GPG fingerprint).

I like idea of non-squattable alias: @234343343 (@ + your account id). Only account can register this special alias.

How am I going to remember that one?