Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Proposal for simplifying account registration  (Read 791 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Proposal for simplifying account registration
« on: November 07, 2014, 07:13:43 AM »

This was buried in some debate about personal issues in this thread, so I'm repasting here for feedback:

Problem

Creating a new account requires use of an ugly Bitcoin-style hash address to receive funds. This is not intuitive for most users. In other words, you must have BTS in your wallet in order to register a new account, but you cannot receive BTS easily without already having an account (chicken and egg problem).

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

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2014, 07:16:48 AM »
How will you prevent someone from flooding the network with such floating accounts ?

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2014, 07:20:36 AM »
How will you prevent someone from flooding the network with such floating accounts ?

Same mechanism as now. The free floating accounts cost the same as regular account registrations. The only difference is that they can be "linked" to a set of private keys when they are claimed by the client, upon which they become regular accounts.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1283
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2014, 07:29:01 AM »
You can just register another account after you use the faucet to get your first account.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2014, 07:39:04 AM »
You can just register another account after you use the faucet to get your first account.

Yes but you must still send the funds from the faucet to an "ugly hash address". My proposal avoids this.

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2014, 07:40:25 AM »
The simplest is lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account is not transferrable and private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2014, 07:46:08 AM »
The simplest is lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account is not transferrable and private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

Not following you. Who registers the "lent account" and how does one "claim" it without funds?

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2014, 07:56:37 AM »
The simplest is lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account is not transferrable and private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

Not following you. Who registers the "lent account" and how does one "claim" it without funds?

Once new user downloaded the wallet and entered the password, it's a new user, the code detected this and give free new account name, it means it does not require a fee to register an account name, but there is a information message about registering an account name without a fee, it is limited access, it can only accept bts, to make it full access it need to pay a fee.

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2014, 08:00:19 AM »
The simplest is lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account is not transferrable and private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

Not following you. Who registers the "lent account" and how does one "claim" it without funds?

Once new user downloaded the wallet and entered the password, it's a new user, the code detected this and give free new account name, it means it does not require a fee to register an account name, but there is a information message about registering an account name without a fee, it is limited access, it can only accept bts, to make it full access it need to pay a fee.

Who creates and records the "limited access" account and decides the code and how is it provided to the user? This must be recorded on the blockchain, which requires a fee.

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2014, 08:13:54 AM »
The simplest is lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account is not transferrable and private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

Not following you. Who registers the "lent account" and how does one "claim" it without funds?

Once new user downloaded the wallet and entered the password, it's a new user, the code detected this and give free new account name, it means it does not require a fee to register an account name, but there is a information message about registering an account name without a fee, it is limited access, it can only accept bts, to make it full access it need to pay a fee.

Who creates and records the "limited access" account and decides the code and how is it provided to the user? This must be recorded on the blockchain, which requires a fee.

It need hard fork for new lend limited account name.
The fee are coming from delegates commission, like another allocated % for this kind of lend account for new users.

« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 08:19:10 AM by joele »

Offline alphaBar

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2014, 08:24:44 AM »
The simplest is lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account is not transferrable and private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

Not following you. Who registers the "lent account" and how does one "claim" it without funds?

Once new user downloaded the wallet and entered the password, it's a new user, the code detected this and give free new account name, it means it does not require a fee to register an account name, but there is a information message about registering an account name without a fee, it is limited access, it can only accept bts, to make it full access it need to pay a fee.

Who creates and records the "limited access" account and decides the code and how is it provided to the user? This must be recorded on the blockchain, which requires a fee.

It need hard fork for new lend limited account name.
The fee are coming from delegates commission, like another allocated % for this kind of lend account for new users.

Doesn't prevent spam account registration. One could drain the lend account with no cost.

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2014, 08:41:13 AM »
The simplest is lend one account name for new registered user.
This lend account is not transferrable and private key is not viewable unless you pay a fee.

Not following you. Who registers the "lent account" and how does one "claim" it without funds?

Once new user downloaded the wallet and entered the password, it's a new user, the code detected this and give free new account name, it means it does not require a fee to register an account name, but there is a information message about registering an account name without a fee, it is limited access, it can only accept bts, to make it full access it need to pay a fee.

Who creates and records the "limited access" account and decides the code and how is it provided to the user? This must be recorded on the blockchain, which requires a fee.

It need hard fork for new lend limited account name.
The fee are coming from delegates commission, like another allocated % for this kind of lend account for new users.

Doesn't prevent spam account registration. One could drain the lend account with no cost.

Yes, there is always a bad actors, but this lend account name is not beneficial to them, because its function is only to accept bts, it's not included in the backup and private key is not viewable.
But still there are bad actors that might sabotage this, just like they might sabotage the blockchain.

The solution for easy new account solved this, the spam is different story. :)

julian1

  • Guest
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2014, 10:38:46 AM »
How about - create a web-wallet on-ramp.

The user registration fee can be paid from dilution or simply absorbed by the delegate.

Spurious account registration can be controlled by having the server track session-cookies, ETags, ip addresses, captchas etc.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2014, 01:36:51 PM »
IMO, if you are not able to figure out using a bitcoin-style address, you should not be storing your money on your own computer or holding your own private key. I think using the public hash for your first transaction to a local wallet is a good barrier to entry to ensure that the people who actually use the full nodes are at least technically capable enough to understand things like back-ups, passwords, don't install toolbars etc.

Most complete noobs should only start out using a blockchain.info type of setup that also allows them to buy easily. Then they can register their name at the same time as they make their first buy.

Offline joele

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Proposal for simplifying account registration
« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2014, 02:32:01 PM »
IMO, if you are not able to figure out using a bitcoin-style address, you should not be storing your money on your own computer or holding your own private key. I think using the public hash for your first transaction to a local wallet is a good barrier to entry to ensure that the people who actually use the full nodes are at least technically capable enough to understand things like back-ups, passwords, don't install toolbars etc.

Most complete noobs should only start out using a blockchain.info type of setup that also allows them to buy easily. Then they can register their name at the same time as they make their first buy.

I think the purpose of the topic is to make bitshares wallet user friendly for ordinary users/noobs.

 

Google+