Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 206. (Read 2761645 times)

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 05:00:02 AM

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?

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:46:09 AM

Quote from: Eadeqa on March 22, 2014, 04:44:07 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:57:41 AM

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.

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

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).

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:17:02 AM

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).

cc001

full member

Activity: 164

Merit: 100

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:14:42 AM

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

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:46:09 AM

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.

alxx77

member

Activity: 95

Merit: 10

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.

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: Eadeqa on March 22, 2014, 04:44:07 AM

Quote from: Eadeqa on March 22, 2014, 04:44:07 AM

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.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

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

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:41:46 AM

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.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

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".

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:40:56 AM

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

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

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

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:37:59 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:33:20 AM

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.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250