Still catching up to the thread...
The controversy is in whether or not the listed asset names should be unique to one issuer, or if whoever issued an asset could call it what ever they want.
And the controversy has been answered in that it is no different to a Bitcoin address.
Do you just send money to 1MSFT first bits?
Of course not - you'd do your "due diligence" by going to a company's "official website" (in HTTPS) and find where they have the Bitcoin address for you to "copy and paste".
If you guys think it is a good idea that we should spend days and days discussing everything like this in circles then fine - but please understand that the "real work" that needs to be done (which depends upon things like this) just gets *delayed* and *delayed* (probably *exactly* what Ethereum and others would be *very keen* to see happening).
this really is a much better solution than "unique-names" (a bad description since we have unique names with both proposals)
Yes - with this approach you will end up seeing the name Microsoft rather than Microsoft2014 or whatever.
Yep. and with something SUPER well established (like anything like microsoft shares would quickly become) than the client can literally just filter everything else out so that you dont even see it unless you go into your options menu and uncheck some option.
So frustrating that some of these other guys cant see what an elegant solution this is to an age old problem.
This solution is *not* foolproof enough for you to simply dismiss any other solutions. It's a little... arrogant to say things like "others can't see the solution" and are somehow "disturbing 'real work' by posting in this thread" - but anyways, consider this:
There are two categories of companies that will be affected differently by the AE:
1) Existing companies
The URL method works *great* for existing, established companies with *trustworthy* websites (note: they bought these websites... literally the same system as unique suffixes) to verify their identity.
2) New companies
This is where this system is less than perfect. Say I make a startup company, books.net, and say, "hey everyone, this is my *real* NXT asset issuing ID, add me!". And then a scammer comes along and makes the website "book.com" and says, "hey everyone, this is my "real" NXT asset issuing ID, add me!". How do you know which is which? In this case, the user will have to do their due diligence, and research both websites to determine which is the correct one. Or what if hackers manage to break into the server and change the address? No one would notice unless looking really closely, because account #'s are not in human readable format.
Additionally, new companies will not have to worry about squatting of unique suffixes, as they can register their unique name before announcing their company. So over time, the % of companies being squatted diminishes to a near-zero value. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree the that # of future companies that will exists is
>> than the # of companies that exist today.
So now let's discuss unique suffixes:
1) Existing companies:
They will likely be squatted, this is a fact. However, they can get around this by telling users to add them (using the URL method mentioned above) to the user's trust list. The user can name this new "trustline" on his list in any way he wants. Even if Microsoft's real unique suffix was Microsoft123, when the user adds Microsoft to his list, he can simply type in "Microsoft" as the name, and have a little checkbox to override the original name, and ignore any other "Microsoft" not on his trust list. We can even show a little "verified" icon next to Microsoft to indicate that the user can validated this particular issuer. This is the exact same method CIYAM and others are pushing. So things are on even footing right now.
2) New companies
New companies can register their unique suffix without being squatted. Of course, users will still have to do their due diligence to check whether or not this is a fake, but as mentioned earlier, the # of future companies if infinitely larger than the companies that exist today. So overtime, squatting becomes a non-issue. In fact, it is only in this "bootstrapping" phase, that we need to heavily rely on URL identification. This is in addition all the possible service providers that can provide authentication for assets in the future.
Lastly, these unique suffixes, even if they may be fake, are in *human readable* format. I suppose sometimes we forget in NXTworld that most people can't remember entire brainwallets ie. popularity and demand for wallet.dat files. Tell me, which one is easier to tell is a scam: 123123312333 vs 123123123333 or Microsoft123 vs Microsoft? In the first case, someone might not even realize that something is wrong, and think that they have "checked the source" sufficiently and trust it. In the second case, it is 100% clear that there are two Microsofts. The user will then do his DD and figure out Microsoft123 is the real deal, and rename it to Microsoft on his trust list and ignore all others.
In conclusion, unique suffixes can do everything CIYAM and others want random account numbers to do. There is no difference in this matter besides the human readable aspect. Without verification, users will be scammed by both fake 123123312333 vs 123123123333 and Microsoft123 vs Microsoft (however, the latter one is easier to spot). With verification, users will figure out the correct issuer, regardless of the original name.
What unique suffixes *will* allow, is that in the future (maybe a decade, or perhaps a century - when squatting issues go away), NXT AE can operate independently - or at least minimally - of external URLs for verification. As time goes on, the ratio of fake original names vs. real original names will only shrink smaller and smaller towards zero. By then, established companies (if they are still being squatted), will have the volume, branding, and presence in the NXT ecosystem, that everyone will know they are the real issuer anyways.
Honestly, we should just provide users both options (how are you going to stop something like this?) and see how it turns out.
For some reason, people seem to always doubt what I say. (Which is good actually, trust no one, right?) If you want, check my post history - most of what I've said has been true. In fact, who was the one that proposed a working solution for non-unique asset names?
Pandaisftw
EDIT: Also thought of another point while in the shower:
What if the asset issuer do not have or need an external website? How will the issuer the issuing establish or validate his brand then?
