Using Proof of Waste for Account Registration

[Shentist]

just charge the spammers. the delegates need the fees and maybe we need in the future machine accounts.

i would set up different ways to register

1. pay 5 BTS to register your account
2. take your time and make some chapta or twitter, facebook registration

two simple solutions

[Riverhead]

A reminder of the dangers of PoW in a client. Clearly not really the same thing but to the law the distinction may not be clear or important.


http://www.wired.com/2014/09/mit-students-face-aggressive-subpoena-demanding-source-code-bitcoin-mining-tool/

[TurkeyLeg]

For the record - I am not technically savvy regarding most of this stuff...but...I created my E-Trade account in about 10 minutes, it cost me nothing, and it is was very easy to link my fiat checking account and deposit funds...no registration required...similar experience with PayPal...the most time consuming part was verifying my checking account with PayPal and even that was fairly user friendly...I understand there are some technical requirements of the blockchain to ensure security and efficiency...however, we need to keep in mind that account registration needs to be as simple and painless as possible...and as similar to various fiat account creations as possible...if we are interested in attracting the outside world...which we better be.

[gamey]

The format of the address is not the problem, or at least i don't believe so.  People don't look at the # on the checkbook and say "oh my that is ugly!"

It is all a matter of framing it into a concept people already understand.  "Address" works, but it is a tad abstract.

I think maybe 'account address' since we can't use 'account number'.  Then put some dashes in it.  Every 5 characters for those who need to relay it or type it in manually.   That will make it less ugly and far more usable in the cases where the usability is being questioned.

^^^^ With this you really avoid the problem.  Then once in the client they can register an account if they want.

FYI, it's called "Reed-Solomon" error correction. But unfortunately it only addresses the issue of correcting errors in manually inputting the "ugly hash". My solution avoids the ugly hash entirely.

I wasn't suggesting reed-solomon.  I was suggesting putting dashes in addresses and use the same bitcoin checksum system that is already being used.  The dashes aren't what make it reed-solomon.  Correction is nice, but just having a checksum tell you that the address isn't valid it is almost as useful.

Why do "almost as useful" if you can just use RS? And what is the point in the end if the user has to manually enter a nasty hash address or use a QR code? The whole point of this discussion is to avoid that.

It is called cutnpaste.  Is RS even compatible with the BTC address styles ?  I thought it was a NXT thing only.

Ok, I get you would prefer having a multi-stage process instead of someone just cutnpasting an "ugly" address.  (To me the whole idea of calling it ugly is LOL)  So we're on different pages.

The whole point of this discussion was about using POW to avoid having to fund accounts to have them registered and what could be done to improve on that.  You've chosen your own little subset.  ok !

Would RS allow us to continue having the same address styles as BTC?  If not then please go back to your drawing board.

[bobmaloney]

How about requiring a SQRL ID for registration?

It seems to solve many of these issues while helping to jump start SQRL, which walks the user through basic account registration and security setup in a fairly simple way.

[cass]

Proof of Disuse
Proof of Use

[cass]

Proof of destruction
Proof of hoarding
Proof of rejection
Proof of extravagance

[alphaBar]

The format of the address is not the problem, or at least i don't believe so.  People don't look at the # on the checkbook and say "oh my that is ugly!"

It is all a matter of framing it into a concept people already understand.  "Address" works, but it is a tad abstract.

I think maybe 'account address' since we can't use 'account number'.  Then put some dashes in it.  Every 5 characters for those who need to relay it or type it in manually.   That will make it less ugly and far more usable in the cases where the usability is being questioned.

^^^^ With this you really avoid the problem.  Then once in the client they can register an account if they want.

FYI, it's called "Reed-Solomon" error correction. But unfortunately it only addresses the issue of correcting errors in manually inputting the "ugly hash". My solution avoids the ugly hash entirely.

I wasn't suggesting reed-solomon.  I was suggesting putting dashes in addresses and use the same bitcoin checksum system that is already being used.  The dashes aren't what make it reed-solomon.  Correction is nice, but just having a checksum tell you that the address isn't valid it is almost as useful.

Why do "almost as useful" if you can just use RS? And what is the point in the end if the user has to manually enter a nasty hash address or use a QR code? The whole point of this discussion is to avoid that.

[gamey]

The format of the address is not the problem, or at least i don't believe so.  People don't look at the # on the checkbook and say "oh my that is ugly!"

It is all a matter of framing it into a concept people already understand.  "Address" works, but it is a tad abstract.

I think maybe 'account address' since we can't use 'account number'.  Then put some dashes in it.  Every 5 characters for those who need to relay it or type it in manually.   That will make it less ugly and far more usable in the cases where the usability is being questioned.

I'd say don't worry about the account address !  Worry about all the steps required in the other systems to get rid of the ugly hash.  All this to just to get to the point you already were if we had used a simple 'account address'.

^^^^ With this you really avoid the problem.  Then once in the client they can register an account if they want.

FYI, it's called "Reed-Solomon" error correction. But unfortunately it only addresses the issue of correcting errors in manually inputting the "ugly hash". My solution avoids the ugly hash entirely.

I wasn't suggesting reed-solomon.  I was suggesting putting dashes in addresses and use the same bitcoin checksum system that is already being used.  The dashes aren't what make it reed-solomon.  Correction is nice, but just having a checksum tell you that the address isn't valid it is almost as useful.

[alphaBar]

The format of the address is not the problem, or at least i don't believe so.  People don't look at the # on the checkbook and say "oh my that is ugly!"

It is all a matter of framing it into a concept people already understand.  "Address" works, but it is a tad abstract.

I think maybe 'account address' since we can't use 'account number'.  Then put some dashes in it.  Every 5 characters for those who need to relay it or type it in manually.   That will make it less ugly and far more usable in the cases where the usability is being questioned.

^^^^ With this you really avoid the problem.  Then once in the client they can register an account if they want.

FYI, it's called "Reed-Solomon" error correction. But unfortunately it only addresses the issue of correcting errors in manually inputting the "ugly hash". My solution avoids the ugly hash entirely.

[gamey]

The format of the address is not the problem, or at least i don't believe so.  People don't look at the # on the checkbook and say "oh my that is ugly!"

It is all a matter of framing it into a concept people already understand.  "Address" works, but it is a tad abstract.

I think maybe 'account address' since we can't use 'account number'.  Then put some dashes in it.  Every 5 characters for those who need to relay it or type it in manually.   That will make it less ugly and far more usable in the cases where the usability is being questioned.

^^^^ With this you really avoid the problem.  Then once in the client they can register an account if they want.

[alphaBar]

I think I have a solution:

We create a transaction type that involves registering a "free-floating" account name and a password hash. This "free floating" name could then be "claimed" by any wallet by simply broadcasting a transaction that proves they are in possession of the password. This way, faucets and exchanges could pay for account registrations using the regular security mechanisms (captcha) and broadcast those names as free-floating registered accounts. Then a user would simply launch their client, enter the password they have chosen, and link the registered account name to their private keys. Here is a step-by-step illustration:

1) User launches their client which says "visit any of the following sites to register your account: BTSfaucet.com, BTSregister.com, Bter.com, etc. etc.
2) User visits one of those sites (possibly in a web view, or in their own browser)
3) The site has a captcha or requires email verification or whatever else to prevent spam. After passing the challenge, the site asks the user to select a username and a password (at least 10 characters - no need to be super-secure here). The site broadcasts a "free floating" account registration (including fee) and redirects the user back to their client ("Done! Now just open your client to claim your username").
4) The user returns to their client and enters the new username and password to generate a new transaction claiming the username (ie, linking the username to the private keys of that particular client).

The “chicken and egg” problem is not due to a lack of funds. Plenty of faucets and exchanges would pay for the .01 BTS necessary to register accounts. The real problem is the use of the “ugly hash” to receive that first transaction My solution solves this issue directly, without making payment-free registration (which is not necessary).

This is way too complicated, and ignores the problem completely, relying on third party services for funding.  Stop at #1, you didn't read the original problem.

The problem is having to use an "ugly hash address" to register an account. My solution avoids this entirely and requires the same number of steps as is currently done (though easier). You simply register your account with the faucet and claim it in your wallet. Two steps and done, all with no ugly hash address.

[sschechter]

I think I have a solution:

We create a transaction type that involves registering a "free-floating" account name and a password hash. This "free floating" name could then be "claimed" by any wallet by simply broadcasting a transaction that proves they are in possession of the password. This way, faucets and exchanges could pay for account registrations using the regular security mechanisms (captcha) and broadcast those names as free-floating registered accounts. Then a user would simply launch their client, enter the password they have chosen, and link the registered account name to their private keys. Here is a step-by-step illustration:

1) User launches their client which says "visit any of the following sites to register your account: BTSfaucet.com, BTSregister.com, Bter.com, etc. etc.
2) User visits one of those sites (possibly in a web view, or in their own browser)
3) The site has a captcha or requires email verification or whatever else to prevent spam. After passing the challenge, the site asks the user to select a username and a password (at least 10 characters - no need to be super-secure here). The site broadcasts a "free floating" account registration (including fee) and redirects the user back to their client ("Done! Now just open your client to claim your username").
4) The user returns to their client and enters the new username and password to generate a new transaction claiming the username (ie, linking the username to the private keys of that particular client).

The “chicken and egg” problem is not due to a lack of funds. Plenty of faucets and exchanges would pay for the .01 BTS necessary to register accounts. The real problem is the use of the “ugly hash” to receive that first transaction My solution solves this issue directly, without making payment-free registration (which is not necessary).

This is way too complicated, and ignores the problem completely, relying on third party services for funding.  Stop at #1, you didn't read the original problem.

[gamey]

So why do we need account registration to begin with ?  Does everyone think TITAN names are wonderful?  If BTSX takes off the namespace will be so full people will forever be sending funds to the wrong people.  There are numerous scenarios where a name can be misspelled resulting in lost funds.  If you say a name, you're far more likely to get it wrong than listing off characters. 

Put dashes in there !  Thats what NXT did.  Credit cards, MS product registration codes.. they all have things that break up the address. 

I just don't get the account names.  It has just opened a whole big security hole with squatters that are using the failure of human memory as a vector for attack.  It sounds wonderful at first.. but really really think about all the implications before insisting on  them.  Sure it is nice to be away from your computer and be able to write down your address.. but what are the other use cases that give much value ?

There is a lot I agree with here. I think we put too much emphasis on the globally-recognized, human-memorable (sometimes...) TITAN names. I still think they should exist as an easy way for people to share their online identity with others in the context of a real world meeting (perhaps specifically in a situation where use of modern technology such as smartphones is not possible or inconvenient). But for basically every other situation I think people should use the globally unique hash and for their convenience people should use local aliases for their contacts.

What are your thoughts on my comments in the posts here and here?

I don't disagree.  I would have to think through all the edge cases etc of your idea. 

I would like to migrate from the importance of account names and really really try to migrate towards something that is compatible with a standard bitcoind api.  I don't get all the repercussions involved and I'm sure they're quite challenging or I assume it would have been done.

Account names are something that should be important after people become active users.  They shouldn't be an issue preventing adoption. 

[joele]

Why not lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account cannot transfer or private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

[arhag]

So why do we need account registration to begin with ?  Does everyone think TITAN names are wonderful?  If BTSX takes off the namespace will be so full people will forever be sending funds to the wrong people.  There are numerous scenarios where a name can be misspelled resulting in lost funds.  If you say a name, you're far more likely to get it wrong than listing off characters. 

Put dashes in there !  Thats what NXT did.  Credit cards, MS product registration codes.. they all have things that break up the address. 

I just don't get the account names.  It has just opened a whole big security hole with squatters that are using the failure of human memory as a vector for attack.  It sounds wonderful at first.. but really really think about all the implications before insisting on  them.  Sure it is nice to be away from your computer and be able to write down your address.. but what are the other use cases that give much value ?

There is a lot I agree with here. I think we put too much emphasis on the globally-recognized, human-memorable (sometimes...) TITAN names. I still think they should exist as an easy way for people to share their online identity with others in the context of a real world meeting (perhaps specifically in a situation where use of modern technology such as smartphones is not possible or inconvenient). But for basically every other situation I think people should use the globally unique hash and for their convenience people should use local aliases for their contacts.

What are your thoughts on my comments in the posts here and here?

[gamey]

So why do we need account registration to begin with ?  Does everyone think TITAN names are wonderful?  If BTSX takes off the namespace will be so full people will forever be sending funds to the wrong people.  There are numerous scenarios where a name can be misspelled resulting in lost funds.  If you say a name, you're far more likely to get it wrong than listing off characters. 

Put dashes in there !  Thats what NXT did.  Credit cards, MS product registration codes.. they all have things that break up the address. 

I just don't get the account names.  It has just opened a whole big security hole with squatters that are using the failure of human memory as a vector for attack.  It sounds wonderful at first.. but really really think about all the implications before insisting on  them.  Sure it is nice to be away from your computer and be able to write down your address.. but what are the other use cases that give much value ?

[alphaBar]

...you can't interact like I would expect from a reasonable/educated/intelligent person. 

get some meds.

lol

[mira]

Thanks sschechter - your mockup helped me to understand the OP

[gamey]

All I ask in exchange for my idea is a public shaming of everyone who has accused me of trying to sabotage BTS.

Yea, one below average idea and you've redeemed all your over the top hostile negativity.  Yea, you got it buddy.

It's a great idea, solves the problem completely. But I would expect nothing different from you - accusing me of hostile negativity while constantly disparaging me and my work.

One thing I've learned is it better really really be something if I am going to interact with you because you've shown time and time again that you can't interact like I would expect from a reasonable/educated/intelligent person. 

I'm not sure how it solve the problem.   How many steps are in the current solution and how many steps are in your solution? 

It is obvious how highly you think of your own thoughts given how you handled yourself the other night when telling Toast that his point about giving up 150k is invalid.  Grow up or get some meds.

[sschechter]

I like the idea but I don't like the name.  No need to invent another gimmicky term when that term implies that what you're doing is stupid.  Convincing people that Proof of Waste is a good idea is not much different than convincing people Proof Im an Asshole is a good idea.  Proof of Anything is a crypto fad, as well as FUD....can we stop saying that already? DPOS is still innovative and legit though 

They say a picture is worth a thousand words....that must be true when you're picture has a thousand words right?

I created a simple mockup illustrating (low hanging fruit) what I think the app is currently lacking - a friendly, help centric based user experience.



......damn 32 replies since I started this post

[alphaBar]

All I ask in exchange for my idea is a public shaming of everyone who has accused me of trying to sabotage BTS.

Yea, one below average idea and you've redeemed all your over the top hostile negativity.  Yea, you got it buddy.

It's a great idea, solves the problem completely. But I would expect nothing different from you - accusing me of hostile negativity while constantly disparaging me and my work.

[luckybit]

One of the biggest hurdles we face is getting new accounts registered without spamming the network.   The cost to register an account is about $0.01 and to grab new users we require going through 3rd party centralized services to help people register their account.  This harms the whole experience.

I would like to propose we allow new accounts to be registered in exchange for a "proof of waste" of $0.01.   A CPU burning 100W for 1 hour at $0.10/KWH would do the trick.

From a user experience point of view it would be "slow" compared to using a centralized service would could verify your email in 5 minutes... but the centralized services would cost the network more than $0.01 per user to operate.  This would then have to be paid for via delegate pay. 

A solid user acquisition plan would easily handle the registration for the user and $0.01 trx fee is likely nothing compared to the value of signing up a user.  So perhaps the entire the POW registration has no effective value.   

Why didn't you think of this sooner. This makes perfect sense and seems to be what you originally planned for Keyhotee.

A better suggestion, how difficult would it be to use storage space instead of the CPU fee? A cost in storage space or ram might be just as good but I suppose either way can work.

[gamey]

All I ask in exchange for my idea is a public shaming of everyone who has accused me of trying to sabotage BTS.

Yea, one below average idea and you've redeemed all your over the top hostile negativity.  Yea, you got it buddy.

[alphaBar]

All I ask in exchange for my idea is a public shaming of everyone who has accused me of trying to sabotage BTS.

[mira]

My conclusion is that users will almost always be brought in via a helper service and that this thread was mostly to get the idea out of my head and discarded as well as spur ideas on how to make it easier for people to get into BTS.

I was wondering about this on a smaller/niche level - musicians/digital artisans as helper services, offering a particular track/item for a small donation w/entry of account name, and .01 BTS is sent to register your account.

Didn't notice this comment by BM, but I think my solution (above) actually solves the issue without circumventing the "helper service", which I agree is the most logical entry point. In fact I think the BTS website could require account registration with a built-in faucet before downloading the client. This way users will simply launch their client and enter their user/pass to get started.

that does sound so much simpler (for the user)

[roadscape]

I posted a brief blockchain analysis of account spam:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11092.0

[alphaBar]

My conclusion is that users will almost always be brought in via a helper service and that this thread was mostly to get the idea out of my head and discarded as well as spur ideas on how to make it easier for people to get into BTS.

I was wondering about this on a smaller/niche level - musicians/digital artisans as helper services, offering a particular track/item for a small donation w/entry of account name, and .01 BTS is sent to register your account.

Didn't notice this comment by BM, but I think my solution (above) actually solves the issue without circumventing the "helper service", which I agree is the most logical entry point. In fact I think the BTS website could require account registration with a built-in faucet before downloading the client. This way users will simply launch their client and enter their user/pass to get started.

[mira]

My conclusion is that users will almost always be brought in via a helper service and that this thread was mostly to get the idea out of my head and discarded as well as spur ideas on how to make it easier for people to get into BTS.

I was wondering about this on a smaller/niche level - musicians/digital artisans as helper services, offering a particular track/item for a small donation w/entry of account name, and .01 BTS is sent to register your account. 

[alphaBar]

I think I have a solution:

We create a transaction type that involves registering a "free-floating" account name and a password hash. This "free floating" name could then be "claimed" by any wallet by simply broadcasting a transaction that proves they are in possession of the password. This way, faucets and exchanges could pay for account registrations using the regular security mechanisms (captcha) and broadcast those names as free-floating registered accounts. Then a user would simply launch their client, enter the password they have chosen, and link the registered account name to their private keys. Here is a step-by-step illustration:

1) User launches their client which says "visit any of the following sites to register your account: BTSfaucet.com, BTSregister.com, Bter.com, etc. etc.
2) User visits one of those sites (possibly in a web view, or in their own browser)
3) The site has a captcha or requires email verification or whatever else to prevent spam. After passing the challenge, the site asks the user to select a username and a password (at least 10 characters - no need to be super-secure here). The site broadcasts a "free floating" account registration (including fee) and redirects the user back to their client ("Done! Now just open your client to claim your username").
4) The user returns to their client and enters the new username and password to generate a new transaction claiming the username (ie, linking the username to the private keys of that particular client).

The “chicken and egg” problem is not due to a lack of funds. Plenty of faucets and exchanges would pay for the .01 BTS necessary to register accounts. The real problem is the use of the “ugly hash” to receive that first transaction My solution solves this issue directly, without making payment-free registration (which is not necessary).

"Free-floating" accounts would be ineligible to receive funds until claimed.

[gamey]

I'm a bit concerned with the amount of effort being made to make it super easy to register. Yes, mass adoption is great, but this is a great product that people will jump through a few hoops to join. How easy is it to get an E*Trade account?

The mass adoption of bitUSD and the consumer side of things (vs the trader) is a different story with different front ends. The consumer user of bitUSD shouldn't even need to know about, let alone understand, the underlying mechanisms.

How many card carrying customers of Visa and Mastercard have even the slightest idea how the back end works?

I completely disagree with your first paragraph and agree with the others.  I'm not sure how much effort would be put into this compared to most things.  It is the most critical area for adoption, especially if you want people to pay for things with it.  Since we don't have a 2nd wallet option yet, I assume we're still talking about the existing wallet... it is hard to discuss something that doesn't exist.

No one is suggesting that anyone understand the backend.  Just that they don't need to register an account and I argue that an address is not that different from an account number.  It sucks we can't call it an account number, because it has letters too.

If we're talking about a helper service then they can pay the 1 cent AFAIK and have other sources of info like IP address etc to remove spamming.

[alphaBar]

I think I have a solution:

We create a transaction type that involves registering a "free-floating" account name and a password hash. This "free floating" name could then be "claimed" by any wallet by simply broadcasting a transaction that proves they are in possession of the password. This way, faucets and exchanges could pay for account registrations using the regular security mechanisms (captcha) and broadcast those names as free-floating registered accounts. Then a user would simply launch their client, enter the password they have chosen, and link the registered account name to their private keys. Here is a step-by-step illustration:

1) User launches their client which says "visit any of the following sites to register your account: BTSfaucet.com, BTSregister.com, Bter.com, etc. etc.
2) User visits one of those sites (possibly in a web view, or in their own browser)
3) The site has a captcha or requires email verification or whatever else to prevent spam. After passing the challenge, the site asks the user to select a username and a password (at least 10 characters - no need to be super-secure here). The site broadcasts a "free floating" account registration (including fee) and redirects the user back to their client ("Done! Now just open your client to claim your username").
4) The user returns to their client and enters the new username and password to generate a new transaction claiming the username (ie, linking the username to the private keys of that particular client).

The “chicken and egg” problem is not due to a lack of funds. Plenty of faucets and exchanges would pay for the .01 BTS necessary to register accounts. The real problem is the use of the “ugly hash” to receive that first transaction My solution solves this issue directly, without making payment-free registration (which is not necessary).

[House]

I'm a bit concerned with the amount of effort being made to make it super easy to register. Yes, mass adoption is great, but this is a great product that people will jump through a few hoops to join. How easy is it to get an E*Trade account?

The mass adoption of bitUSD and the consumer side of things (vs the trader) is a different story with different front ends. The consumer user of bitUSD shouldn't even need to know about, let alone understand, the underlying mechanisms.

How many card carrying customers of Visa and Mastercard have even the slightest idea how the back end works?

Good point... I think that charging $5 to register an account will end the "spam" and give them greater value.  Delegates and services that facilitate brining on legitimate new users can pay that "fee" on behalf of the user and then get reimbursed by delegates.   It would end "spam" "self-registration" but otherwise be the same cost to the DAC....

Would it it be reasonable to 'gift' back part of that so as not to look too greedy? Just asking

[bytemaster]

I'm a bit concerned with the amount of effort being made to make it super easy to register. Yes, mass adoption is great, but this is a great product that people will jump through a few hoops to join. How easy is it to get an E*Trade account?

The mass adoption of bitUSD and the consumer side of things (vs the trader) is a different story with different front ends. The consumer user of bitUSD shouldn't even need to know about, let alone understand, the underlying mechanisms.

How many card carrying customers of Visa and Mastercard have even the slightest idea how the back end works?

Good point... I think that charging $5 to register an account will end the "spam" and give them greater value.  Delegates and services that facilitate brining on legitimate new users can pay that "fee" on behalf of the user and then get reimbursed by delegates.   It would end "spam" "self-registration" but otherwise be the same cost to the DAC....

[gamey]

Uhh we need it as easy as possible when you are aiming for people to adopt this for everyday use.  People hire fulltime employees just to optimize webpages and bounce rates.  The more difficult you make getting an account, the more likely people are to bounce before buying funds.

Honestly I don't think people need usernames etc when doing this sort of mass adoption.  It was a neat feature for crypto geeks, but as time goes on it is less appealing to me from an investor's perspective.

Yeah, the drawbacks seem to be way more than the value it adds. Can usernames be made optional? If a user could send BTS to an ugly hash address and THEN register, that would be ideal. Whatever the system, it has to be dead simple or conversion will massively suck.

You can send funds to an ugly hash address.   But the goal is to eliminate that from the user experience.   We also want to eliminate delays.

My conclusion is that users will almost always be brought in via a helper service and that this thread was mostly to get the idea out of my head and discarded as well as spur ideas on how to make it easier for people to get into BTS.

So I guess the trick would be incentivising helper services in some way.

People have to send an address regardless.  I don't think that sending to a name is much different, it just puts the registration step in there.  People have been dealing with bank account numbers since they got their first bank account.  The idea of an address is nothing conceptually new.  Now it might be too long for people to easily write down or whatever, but otherwise it is like a bank account #, but with alpha characters too.

[Riverhead]

I'm a bit concerned with the amount of effort being made to make it super easy to register. Yes, mass adoption is great, but this is a great product that people will jump through a few hoops to join. How easy is it to get an E*Trade account?

The mass adoption of bitUSD and the consumer side of things (vs the trader) is a different story with different front ends. The consumer user of bitUSD shouldn't even need to know about, let alone understand, the underlying mechanisms.

How many card carrying customers of Visa and Mastercard have even the slightest idea how the back end works?

[jckj]

Recover keyhotee will be btTer. This was loTs of bTser's opinion u've ignored.

[Method-X]

Or if they have BTS on the exchanges, they can just withdraw the money to their BTS Active key directly (have BTER and BTC38 enabled this functionality yet btw?).

Ahh I understand now. This isn't a problem at all. Even non-tech users will put up with sending funds to an active key one time to get set up. I'm surprised Bter doesn't already allow this...

[arhag]

So I guess the trick would be incentivising helper services in some way.

There is no trick, we just need to pay for it with delegate pay. It will provide fantastic return on investment by making it really easy to get new users into the BitShares system. Plus it can provide valuable statistics like an estimate of how many unique users have at least tried out BitShares.

[Method-X]

Uhh we need it as easy as possible when you are aiming for people to adopt this for everyday use.  People hire fulltime employees just to optimize webpages and bounce rates.  The more difficult you make getting an account, the more likely people are to bounce before buying funds.

Honestly I don't think people need usernames etc when doing this sort of mass adoption.  It was a neat feature for crypto geeks, but as time goes on it is less appealing to me from an investor's perspective.

Yeah, the drawbacks seem to be way more than the value it adds. Can usernames be made optional? If a user could send BTS to an ugly hash address and THEN register, that would be ideal. Whatever the system, it has to be dead simple or conversion will massively suck.

You can send funds to an ugly hash address.   But the goal is to eliminate that from the user experience.   We also want to eliminate delays.

My conclusion is that users will almost always be brought in via a helper service and that this thread was mostly to get the idea out of my head and discarded as well as spur ideas on how to make it easier for people to get into BTS.

So I guess the trick would be incentivising helper services in some way.

[jckj]

Account number and applicable of the system decided the sucess of your ideas and our bts. So first make all the system include bts easy using ,stable and safe for users. At begaining for the system market plan the system should be free will be better   until the system and or bts have more than 100M accounts. Have my opinion clearly to  you for you ideas? i hope bts team should run quickly for an well user interface, easy application, faster, more satable and safe bts system.

[arhag]

My problem with using POW is that I expect 90%+ users will be interfacing with the blockchain through mobile devices. If a viable solution cannot be found, I propose TITAN be removed as default. It seems to prevent adoption rather than promote it...

Can usernames be made optional? If a user could send BTS to an ugly hash address and THEN register, that would be ideal. Whatever the system, it has to be dead simple or conversion will massively suck.

TITAN isn't the problem in this case.  It is already possible to send money to the BTS Active key and still get all of the privacy benefits of TITAN (or more specifically stealth addresses).

I don't think this POW registration system is necessary. Who is it targeting anyway? The cryptocurrency community? Because regular users aren't going to want to max out their laptop/desktop CPU for at least an hour to register an account. They will want to use their mobile device to register an account in under a minute. So we need to pay for the centralized faucet anyway.

People in the cryptocurrency community who feel paranoid about providing a phone number for SMS verification should be comfortable enough to ask for a small BTS donation to their BTS Active key on the forums like they currently do. Or if they have BTS on the exchanges, they can just withdraw the money to their BTS Active key directly (have BTER and BTC38 enabled this functionality yet btw?).

[bytemaster]

Uhh we need it as easy as possible when you are aiming for people to adopt this for everyday use.  People hire fulltime employees just to optimize webpages and bounce rates.  The more difficult you make getting an account, the more likely people are to bounce before buying funds.

Honestly I don't think people need usernames etc when doing this sort of mass adoption.  It was a neat feature for crypto geeks, but as time goes on it is less appealing to me from an investor's perspective.

Yeah, the drawbacks seem to be way more than the value it adds. Can usernames be made optional? If a user could send BTS to an ugly hash address and THEN register, that would be ideal. Whatever the system, it has to be dead simple or conversion will massively suck.

You can send funds to an ugly hash address.   But the goal is to eliminate that from the user experience.   We also want to eliminate delays.

My conclusion is that users will almost always be brought in via a helper service and that this thread was mostly to get the idea out of my head and discarded as well as spur ideas on how to make it easier for people to get into BTS.

[Method-X]

Uhh we need it as easy as possible when you are aiming for people to adopt this for everyday use.  People hire fulltime employees just to optimize webpages and bounce rates.  The more difficult you make getting an account, the more likely people are to bounce before buying funds.

Honestly I don't think people need usernames etc when doing this sort of mass adoption.  It was a neat feature for crypto geeks, but as time goes on it is less appealing to me from an investor's perspective.

Yeah, the drawbacks seem to be way more than the value it adds. Can usernames be made optional? If a user could send BTS to an ugly hash address and THEN register, that would be ideal. Whatever the system, it has to be dead simple or conversion will massively suck.

[gamey]

Uhh we need it as easy as possible when you are aiming for people to adopt this for everyday use.  People hire fulltime employees just to optimize webpages and bounce rates.  The more difficult you make getting an account, the more likely people are to bounce before buying funds.

Honestly I don't think people need usernames etc when doing this sort of mass adoption.  It was a neat feature for crypto geeks, but as time goes on it is less appealing to me from an investor's perspective.

[xeroc]

It currently isn't that easy to get an account at a traditional bank. Even Paypal and Coinbase have you jump through a few hoops. I don't think we need to be THAT slick if we're offering a good product.

I like the idea of some sort of challenge/response mechanism; just enough to make it hard to automate spam accounts. Will have to think about how to do that in a decentralized way.

totally agree .. with both

[zerosum]

BS...

also known as proof of smell

[Thom]

I'm totally confused by this thread. Why "waste" anything to register new users? It seems totally counter intuitive since the point of BitShares is to eliminate waste. Fine, so that refers to mining waste but I'm totally confused why people just don't buy their account registration for what you seem to be saying here is only a few pennies anyway.

I feel like I'm missing something fundamental (yet again). Someone care to pls explain?

How could we allow people to register names without going through a central service like a faucet or forum?
And how do we prevent spam accounts?

Exactly what type of users are you targeting to register? Seems like if you have good functional value people will pay to register to get access to that functionality. Make it too easy & you'll get the spammers and nuisance registrations.

I'm still not sure I understand what the problem is you're trying to solve. I was looking the the BTSX account list a few days ago on BitsharesBlocks and noticed tons of names I highly suspect are abandoned and no longer active. Just garbage collect them.

In terms of registered names, well there may be a need for some type of fee, but not necessarily. They don't charge for gmail addresses, it's first come first served. If the account names are like DNS, some form of auction would be appropriate.

[Method-X]

I guess captcha's don't work because the entropy source would be the blockchain and thus someone could hack around it and spam the network ?

If delegates can be trusted to generate captchas, we could do cool things like adjusting captcha difficulty based on velocity of registrations.
But that could be also done with the POW approach.

This is very smart (using delegates to register users).

  This seems like the simplest solution to me. My problem with using POW is that I expect 90%+ users will be interfacing with the blockchain through mobile devices. If a viable solution cannot be found, I propose TITAN be removed as default. It seems to prevent adoption rather than promote it...

[Riverhead]

It currently isn't that easy to get an account at a traditional bank. Even Paypal and Coinbase have you jump through a few hoops. I don't think we need to be THAT slick if we're offering a good product.

I like the idea of some sort of challenge/response mechanism; just enough to make it hard to automate spam accounts. Will have to think about how to do that in a decentralized way.

[alphaBar]

I guess captcha's don't work because the entropy source would be the blockchain and thus someone could hack around it and spam the network ?

If delegates can be trusted to generate captchas, we could do cool things like adjusting captcha difficulty based on velocity of registrations.
But that could be also done with the POW approach.

This is very smart (using delegates to register users).

[gamey]

I guess captcha's don't work because the entropy source would be the blockchain and thus someone could hack around it and spam the network ?

If delegates can be trusted to generate captchas, we could do cool things like adjusting captcha difficulty based on velocity of registrations.
But that could be also done with the POW approach.

The delegates would need a new out of band way to communicate.  A lot of complexity.  If you use information in the blocks in a deterministic manner to create captcha (like would be required AFAIK), then an actor could just read the source of the captcha and plow through them. 

POW was originally created to fight email spam.  So we're not doing anything revolutionary.

[sudo]

use computer  pow  altcoins
 exchange buy  btsx to register

gun  pool (virtual pow of btsx)

[roadscape]

I'm totally confused by this thread. Why "waste" anything to register new users? It seems totally counter intuitive since the point of BitShares is to eliminate waste. Fine, so that refers to mining waste but I'm totally confused why people just don't buy their account registration for what you seem to be saying here is only a few pennies anyway.

I feel like I'm missing something fundamental (yet again). Someone care to pls explain?

How could we allow people to register names without going through a central service like a faucet or forum?
And how do we prevent spam accounts?

[Thom]

I'm totally confused by this thread. Why "waste" anything to register new users? It seems totally counter intuitive since the point of BitShares is to eliminate waste. Fine, so that refers to mining waste but I'm totally confused why people just don't buy their account registration for what you seem to be saying here is only a few pennies anyway.

I feel like I'm missing something fundamental (yet again). Someone care to pls explain?

[roadscape]

I guess captcha's don't work because the entropy source would be the blockchain and thus someone could hack around it and spam the network ?

If delegates can be trusted to generate captchas, we could do cool things like adjusting captcha difficulty based on velocity of registrations.
But that could be also done with the POW approach.

[gamey]

Not sure if this would be sufficient to prevent an attacker with existing idle hardware from bloating the blockchain at no cost...

It is the cost of the power not the existence of hardware.

[gamey]

I guess captcha's don't work because the entropy source would be the blockchain and thus someone could hack around it and spam the network ?

[alphaBar]

Not sure if this would be sufficient to prevent an attacker with existing idle hardware from bloating the blockchain at no cost...

Could be solved by using a currently unused hash function I guess, but using PoW does feel like jumping down a rabbit hole.

[alphaBar]

Not sure if this would be sufficient to prevent an attacker with existing idle hardware from bloating the blockchain at no cost...

[roadscape]

Sounds like a hack though. What if the registration fee was 5 BTSX?

Delegates could set the proof of waste like they set fees.

My edit above:
"Ok, it doesn't solve the centralization. I always thought the DNS bidding system could replace these essentially free names. Is that possible?"

I see what you're saying, though. I can't think of another way for a user to "pay" without having to use any form of currency.

Except for the captcha project. It would have to be more complex (i.e. expensive) than that.
Hmm..

[fluxer555]

I don't like it. I think centralized services are fine, and are worth every penny (literally, in this case). Can't you use AGS funds for this?

You can couple new account services with onramps, and only give them an account with a minimum of $1 BitUSD deposit. That should pay for itself many times over.

[bytemaster]

Sounds like a hack though. What if the registration fee was 5 BTSX?

Delegates could set the proof of waste like they set fees.

[roadscape]

Sounds like a hack though. What if the registration fee was 5 BTSX?

edit:

Ok, it doesn't solve the centralization. I always thought the DNS bidding system could replace these essentially free names. Is that possible?

[bytemaster]

One of the biggest hurdles we face is getting new accounts registered without spamming the network.   The cost to register an account is about $0.01 and to grab new users we require going through 3rd party centralized services to help people register their account.  This harms the whole experience.

I would like to propose we allow new accounts to be registered in exchange for a "proof of waste" of $0.01.   A CPU burning 100W for 1 hour at $0.10/KWH would do the trick.

From a user experience point of view it would be "slow" compared to using a centralized service would could verify your email in 5 minutes... but the centralized services would cost the network more than $0.01 per user to operate.  This would then have to be paid for via delegate pay. 

A solid user acquisition plan would easily handle the registration for the user and $0.01 trx fee is likely nothing compared to the value of signing up a user.  So perhaps the entire the POW registration has no effective value.