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.
+ 1440 !! I wonder, why it isn't obvious for all...
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?
Finally, the idea of unique alias tied to asset name is a bad idea. It clear that this solution is problematic, this problematic is the same as the unique asset name.
The only method that will be working is to allow free registration of non-unique asset full name (prefix+suffix). The user should not be taken as dumb. Let the user find out what is the good asset. At first it will be difficult to find the good one, but eventually,
when we can sort the asset by volume, it will be easy to find which asset are good and the one that are not good.
Volume is like massive positive Vote.
Anyway, if wesley want to do his client like this. It is his choice in some sense. If this solution is not working well, another client will find another solution or he will adapt his client. As long as in the Nxt core, asset name are non-unique, Nxt is strong I think.
