NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 207.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:32:42 AM

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)

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:32:08 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:31:22 AM

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.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:30:34 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:28:37 AM

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.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:31:22 AM

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

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:30:34 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:28:37 AM

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.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Eadeqa on March 22, 2014, 04:27:21 AM

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 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.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:28:37 AM

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

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: Eadeqa on March 22, 2014, 04:29:36 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:25:59 AM

Quote from: ChuckOne on March 22, 2014, 04:24:17 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:08:18 AM

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.

There is already another field. It's called account ID

Unique, AND brandable, account id is not.

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:25:59 AM

Quote from: ChuckOne on March 22, 2014, 04:24:17 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:08:18 AM

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.

There is already another field. It's called account ID

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:27:36 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:25:59 AM

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.

Exactly - I know you are wanting.

And this is what JL has already said *no* to by changing Asset names to be non-unique.

Actually no, I've asked him about this change, he is considering it but doesn't have a lot of time at the moment.

Again, asset names (prefixes) are non-unique.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:25:59 AM

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.

Exactly - I know you are wanting.

And this is what JL has already said *no* to by changing Asset names to be non-unique.

Eadeqa

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 500

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 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 let users do his own research and force them to add trusted account to his list? No third party involved.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:26:26 AM

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:21:13 AM

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

Because blacklists (and whitelists) will inevitably be politicized.

Trust is one of the most "difficult problems to solve" (as Mike Hearn if you don't believe me) and instead we seem to just "throw up ideas" and think we have a "good solution".

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

There will be more than 1 service provider, feel free to choose whichever you want. Blacklist reason should be clearly stated so that it cannot be "politicized". Service provider should have no incentive to do this anyway.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: wesleyh on March 22, 2014, 04:21:13 AM

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

Because blacklists (and whitelists) will inevitably be politicized.

Trust is one of the most "difficult problems to solve" (as Mike Hearn if you don't believe me) and instead we seem to just "throw up ideas" and think we have a "good solution".

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: ChuckOne on March 22, 2014, 04:24:17 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:08:18 AM

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.

ChuckOne

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

☕ NXT-4BTE-8Y4K-CDS2-6TB82

Quote from: CIYAM on March 22, 2014, 04:08:18 AM

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.

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: alxx77 on March 22, 2014, 04:21:58 AM

Please some test NXT on acct 6200446314635151074

***

Concerning asset naming, it is clear that most important thing will be rating of the issuer... exactly same as it is on Ebay... everybody can name its asset TabletPC but you MUST check seller's rating before buying anything, or you could end up in a problem...

And there is no way around that...

Rating can be gamed.

alxx77

member

Activity: 95

Merit: 10

Please some test NXT on acct 6200446314635151074

***

Concerning asset naming, it is clear that most important thing will be rating of the issuer... exactly same as it is on Ebay... everybody can name its asset TabletPC but you MUST check seller's rating before buying anything, or you could end up in a problem...

And there is no way around that...

wesleyh

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

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

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*).

I'm not pushing, I'm showing a proposal. Btw, you can't stop clients from doing this (though if the people do not want this feature, I will remove it). I want more discussion on this topic since we didn't have a lot when non-unique names were decided. People need to be able to brand their assets.

Also, users can decide whether or not to use a service provider. Yes, service providers don't exist today, since asset exchange isn't yet launched..

Why are blacklists never a way to go? You'd rather let the known, proven scammer stay in the asset exchange?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ?? on ??

Do you mean I should forget about selling these for 1M NXT some day?!?!? Cry

Yup - it isn't going to be "possible" to fight that battle - is it (which is why we shouldn't do it again with Assets or tie Assets to those).

Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 207. (Read 2761645 times)