New accounts last 24h:

[fav]

The cool thing is: If it wasn't for SVK and his live site would anyone would have noticed? I can't overstate the value bitsharesblocks.com has added to the community.

 

[Riverhead]

The cool thing is: If it wasn't for SVK and his live site would anyone would have noticed? I can't overstate the value bitsharesblocks.com has added to the community.

[hadrian]

...
I would make the rules: 8+ names AND a number are free ...

This is worth considering as a pragmatic stopgap measure until 2.0

[merivercap]

The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?

Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.

Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.

Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?

The entire protocol is still under review and no rule is set in stone is it?  Nothing is set in stone just as if there was a bug that requires fixing.  The protocol is being tweaked and updated all the time.   I think it's safe to assume that the first major solidifying of the protocol will happen when the community migrates to the hard fork.  After that delegates can still offer changes to the system under DPOS so the idea that 'rules have changed' doesn't make sense.  It's like saying Bitcoin's change of block sizes goes against the spirit of blockchains?  Do you really believe that?

I'm all for self-interest and I think your actions highlight an obvious flaw in the name distribution system.  I think someone should tip you some BTS.   Anyways it seems the names are grandfathered in?

I would make the rules: 8+ names AND a number are free ...

[NameNarwhal]

Are you happy with this solution @NameNarwhal? You keep what you've registered, but after today people have to go through the BitShares Faucet?

I agree with you when you say:

Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?

Hopefully you'll be around the forum some more?

As much as I would have loved to complete my wish list (of nearly a million names), I completely understand the concerns, and this solution is fair.

I'll be around!

[hadrian]

In fact, for the next few days: if you had an account prior to June 8th, if there is name I have which you would like to own, let me know your name and I'll arrange to give you the private key of the name you want.

I just had a funny idea...
Wouldn't it be ironic if every single member of the BitShares community took you up on this offer and asked for one name each!?
This isn't a serious proposal, and isn't intended to upset you NameNarwhal, but the idea occurred to me, and I can't stop smiling about it!
Ha hahahah aha hahahah ahha hahhahah aha haaaaa!

[Ander]

I guess...congrats NameNarwhal for being the one and only name squatter who will get grandfathered into the new system!

Please do something with them. 

[hadrian]

Are you happy with this solution @NameNarwhal? You keep what you've registered, but after today people have to go through the BitShares Faucet?

I agree with you when you say:

Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?

Hopefully you'll be around the forum some more?

[Shentist]

The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?

Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.

Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.

Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?

this is free market so we will watch what you can accomplish! Nice one Our "userbase" quadruppeled within a day :DD

[vikram]

The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?

Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.

Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.

Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?

it's updated just fine

"Update: All account names registered on or after 2015-06-17 will be migrated if and only if they were registered using the BitShares Faucet."

I've edited it again to say "names registered after 2015-06-17" so as not to take away Narwhal's existing names.

[fav]

The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?

Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.

Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.

Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?

it's updated just fine

"Update: All account names registered after 2015-06-17 will be migrated if and only if they were registered using the BitShares Faucet."

edit: wait a second, that includes today? I'm absolutely against it. please update to 18th
edit2: ahh, was updated again. everything fine

[NameNarwhal]

The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?

Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.

Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.

Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?

[vikram]

Hello, I am the Name Narwhal. It is me who bought a bunch of BTS so that I could register a few accounts.

No, this is not a spam attack, and yes, I am actually interested in these names (and a bunch more). Every single name was chosen to meet "more than 8 characters, or contains no vowels or at least 1 number" - names where it's been announced that they will make it into the new genesis block. I actually spent a lot of time putting together the list of names I'd like (and then finding a way to get the bitshares client to support having more than a couple names).

I believe the BitShares system is the perfect base for a de-centralized DNS system. And I hope to contribute to that process - I have lots of experience with domain names and I'd like to support the community in making the BitShares namespace become more valuable. I'm clearly setting myself up to be interested in having that happen - I'm making an investment into BitShares.

The source for Graphene indicates that it may eventually become possible to use BitShares names as collateral. Think about it - if someone is running a business using a BitShares DNS name (or a future DNS-like system), that name is going to become valuable collateral. And if the system allows them to use it as collateral, the price of BitShares will start to become supported (indirectly) from assets outside of the BitShares system. I think that's extremely powerful and will be very good for BitShares community.

I have a way to - without overly bloating the blockchain - allow people to use their bitshares names for DNS and much more. And I look forward to discussing those ideas with all of you.

No, I don't intend to demand $2000 for the crappiest of names. In fact, for the next few days: if you had an account prior to June 8th, if there is name I have which you would like to own, let me know your name and I'll arrange to give you the private key of the name you want.
 
So, if the social consensus allows, I'm going to keep spending my BTS buying some more names I'd like to own when BitShares 2.0 is released.

NameNarwhal,
    The protocol currently allows this, but the BTS 1.0 fees are too low for the cost to the network.   We do not intend to revoke the accounts you have already registered.   We are updating the migration rules to indicate that only names registered by the faucet will be migrated without a prefix.

Updated: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration

[bytemaster]

Hello, I am the Name Narwhal. It is me who bought a bunch of BTS so that I could register a few accounts.

No, this is not a spam attack, and yes, I am actually interested in these names (and a bunch more). Every single name was chosen to meet "more than 8 characters, or contains no vowels or at least 1 number" - names where it's been announced that they will make it into the new genesis block. I actually spent a lot of time putting together the list of names I'd like (and then finding a way to get the bitshares client to support having more than a couple names).

I believe the BitShares system is the perfect base for a de-centralized DNS system. And I hope to contribute to that process - I have lots of experience with domain names and I'd like to support the community in making the BitShares namespace become more valuable. I'm clearly setting myself up to be interested in having that happen - I'm making an investment into BitShares.

The source for Graphene indicates that it may eventually become possible to use BitShares names as collateral. Think about it - if someone is running a business using a BitShares DNS name (or a future DNS-like system), that name is going to become valuable collateral. And if the system allows them to use it as collateral, the price of BitShares will start to become supported (indirectly) from assets outside of the BitShares system. I think that's extremely powerful and will be very good for BitShares community.

I have a way to - without overly bloating the blockchain - allow people to use their bitshares names for DNS and much more. And I look forward to discussing those ideas with all of you.

No, I don't intend to demand $2000 for the crappiest of names. In fact, for the next few days: if you had an account prior to June 8th, if there is name I have which you would like to own, let me know your name and I'll arrange to give you the private key of the name you want.
 
So, if the social consensus allows, I'm going to keep spending my BTS buying some more names I'd like to own when BitShares 2.0 is released.

NameNarwhal,
    The protocol currently allows this, but the BTS 1.0 fees are too low for the cost to the network.   We do not intend to revoke the accounts you have already registered.   We are updating the migration rules to indicate that only names registered by the faucet will be migrated without a prefix.

[fav]

Hello, I am the Name Narwhal. It is me who bought a bunch of BTS so that I could register a few accounts.

No, this is not a spam attack, and yes, I am actually interested in these names (and a bunch more). Every single name was chosen to meet "more than 8 characters, or contains no vowels or at least 1 number" - names where it's been announced that they will make it into the new genesis block. I actually spent a lot of time putting together the list of names I'd like (and then finding a way to get the bitshares client to support having more than a couple names).

I believe the BitShares system is the perfect base for a de-centralized DNS system. And I hope to contribute to that process - I have lots of experience with domain names and I'd like to support the community in making the BitShares namespace become more valuable. I'm clearly setting myself up to be interested in having that happen - I'm making an investment into BitShares.

The source for Graphene indicates that it may eventually become possible to use BitShares names as collateral. Think about it - if someone is running a business using a BitShares DNS name (or a future DNS-like system), that name is going to become valuable collateral. And if the system allows them to use it as collateral, the price of BitShares will start to become supported (indirectly) from assets outside of the BitShares system. I think that's extremely powerful and will be very good for BitShares community.

I have a way to - without overly bloating the blockchain - allow people to use their bitshares names for DNS and much more. And I look forward to discussing those ideas with all of you.

No, I don't intend to demand $2000 for the crappiest of names. In fact, for the next few days: if you had an account prior to June 8th, if there is name I have which you would like to own, let me know your name and I'll arrange to give you the private key of the name you want.
 
So, if the social consensus allows, I'm going to keep spending my BTS buying some more names I'd like to own when BitShares 2.0 is released.

 no one can stop you do this in 2.0

However, this is why we shouldn't change the rules. @bytemaster: how about you announce that after today only accounts registered through the faucet migrate?