Author Topic: New accounts last 24h:  (Read 34054 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
your identity is the private account key. which you cannot transfer, and a name is just that. a name. I would never sell a name I'm actively using for trades, however, I like the freedom of choice.

I would say your identity in this system is your account ID. The following are my thoughts regarding identity, accounts, names, and keys.

Your identity should definitely not be your private key, as you should be able to update those for security reasons. Even the owner key held in cold storage may need be to changed from time to time. For example, if the owner private key was derived from both a brain key stored on paper in your home AND a memorable passphrase only you knew in your head, then even if the the brain key was compromised (say you suspected the paper backup was accessed during a home invasion) you would have a very reasonable amount of time to change the key before the thief could brute force the passphrase even if they had supercomputers at their disposal (assuming the passphrase wasn't ridiculously simple and was also not used anywhere else). The more paranoid could also just normally assume the brain key was compromised and regularly change the owner private key frequently enough to avoid having even a moderately large cluster of modern computers able to likely brute force the passphrase in time. The user would either use a backed up brain key and the passphrase to derive the existing private owner key which could be used to sign a transaction offline or would use their fallback permission system (a quorum of pre-selected friends and family signing a proposed transaction) to officially change the account's owner key to something else (derived using a new random brain key and newly chosen unique passphrase). Your identity (account ID) would still be preserved through this process.

It also problematic if your name is your identity. What about someone who changes their name and wants to change their account name correspondingly to reflect their new name. Clients could notice this change on the blockchain and know that an account they had in their address book was formerly known as the old name but is now known as the new name. The blockchain protocol could require some set period of time (like 2 weeks) before an account name that was transferred or revoked could be activated or reused by another account in order to reduce the likelihood of the edge case where a user who recently heard about someone's account name (but has not yet added the user to their address book) sends unsolicited funds to that account name but it ends up going to the new user rather than the intended old user. This problem can become even less of an issue if some of the least significant digits of the account ID are provided along with the name to be used as a check to make sure funds are really being sent to the intended recipient.

Finally, as I mentioned before, I think it should be possible for a user to have an account without a name. In that case, the user still has an identity (it's part of the account). They just don't associate that identity to a public human readable name (perhaps for privacy reasons). Setting a random account name as a substitute for this seems pointless and only seems to bloat the blockchain and prevent the separation of account registration fees from name registration fees (meaning without the separation we wouldn't be able to have moderate fees for non-premium names, to prevent spam and some squatting, while still letting users create accounts for very cheap fees). Sharing the unique account ID is a perfectly fine way to share your contact information with someone so that they can add you to the address book (it is less cumbersome than addresses), especially if the clients generate and verify a dictionary word checksum derived from the account ID that should be shared along with the ID (or even reversibly convert the account ID + checksum into a sequence of dictionary words which are much easier for humans to read and remember than a long number). Of course, when computers directly share the account ID (via web links or communicated via NFC or Bluetooth between mobile devices) users would not need to even be concerned with the underlying details of the account ID. In such cases, where a recipient is referred to in the user's GUI client using an ID (in some form) of an account without a name, the recipient would need to first be added into the user's address book and be given a local name (and other local information like a picture) that helps that user identify that recipient in the future. Also, even for an account with a name that is added into the address book, the GUI client should still allow the user to specify a preferred local name (and other local information like a picture) for convenience. There should be clear separation in all parts of the GUI that use a name to refer to an account between a local name (which could have full Unicode support) and account's global name registered on the blockchain.

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
Why did you make name registration free in the first place?



I made lots of posts in the past saying they should increase the basic registration fee to avoid this, obviously with the names being sell-able now, even more so.


I think they should at least raise the cost of registering a name to $0.1-$0.25.
It seems one of our key selling points is easy account names, but at less than $0.001 per name, you can take out 5 million names with $5000 and significantly damage that selling point on our blockchain.


My advice now with any premium names is to make sure you rather start out too high than too low if you're going with a fixed pricing system.


We don't know what the optimal price is, so I would start with very high prices that decrease every month till we get to an optimal price.

(Also a handful of names might be extremely valuable and we want to make sure we maximise that.)

Edit: Just so it's in the record, another trend I predicted which was scoffed at, is that we'll the see the .com extension becoming the most popular BTS variant of premium names. It will be interesting to see in a year or two if that ends up being the case. 
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 12:01:40 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline logxing

Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.


please elaborate? I don't see how this is going to be a disaster. worst case: no one register premium accounts > we can vote to make them cheaper
best case: a lot of fees are generated

Transferable account name will ruin the Identity system in BTS.
Yes you can clear all connection info about the name when it was be transferred. But you cannot clear the  INFO store in people's brain, or in 3rd party's database.
This will be a big chaos ID world. And you will see many many claim about "Human error".

In the other hand, many quality names were hold by only a few people, very few. if account name = domain name, this can cause permanent damage to the domain name market. Many people have no chance or motive to invest in Domains.

That's what I'm worried about.

that's like saying domain transfers create chaos in the real world. which is not the case apparently.

btw, account name = domain name was removed from the current proposal (see website). so that's not set in stone

edit:I started a consolidated Q&A post here: https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/138017 - I'd love to see some questions asked for the collection.

Domain transfers is OK. But Identity is different. Identity is more personal and intuitive.
Especially in BTS, we use account to receive fund, and we can do more important things in the future .
A digit-Identity, just like your identification paper, should not be transferable. That's why it called "Identity".

I think auction of a unregistered account name is better way. Once name is used, It should not be transferred to another people anymore.

your identity is the private account key. which you cannot transfer, and a name is just that. a name. I would never sell a name I'm actively using for trades, however, I like the freedom of choice.

Obviously your identity is NOT ONLY the private account key, BUT ALSO how the other people remember your.
Private key just a part of identity: You DONE something. The other part is: other people done something to YOU.
BTS Account:logxing

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.


please elaborate? I don't see how this is going to be a disaster. worst case: no one register premium accounts > we can vote to make them cheaper
best case: a lot of fees are generated

Transferable account name will ruin the Identity system in BTS.
Yes you can clear all connection info about the name when it was be transferred. But you cannot clear the  INFO store in people's brain, or in 3rd party's database.
This will be a big chaos ID world. And you will see many many claim about "Human error".

In the other hand, many quality names were hold by only a few people, very few. if account name = domain name, this can cause permanent damage to the domain name market. Many people have no chance or motive to invest in Domains.

That's what I'm worried about.

that's like saying domain transfers create chaos in the real world. which is not the case apparently.

btw, account name = domain name was removed from the current proposal (see website). so that's not set in stone

edit:I started a consolidated Q&A post here: https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/138017 - I'd love to see some questions asked for the collection.

Domain transfers is OK. But Identity is different. Identity is more personal and intuitive.
Especially in BTS, we use account to receive fund, and we can do more important things in the future .
A digit-Identity, just like your identification paper, should not be transferable. That's why it called "Identity".

I think auction of a unregistered account name is better way. Once name is used, It should not be transferred to another people anymore.

your identity is the private account key. which you cannot transfer, and a name is just that. a name. I would never sell a name I'm actively using for trades, however, I like the freedom of choice.

Offline logxing

Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.


please elaborate? I don't see how this is going to be a disaster. worst case: no one register premium accounts > we can vote to make them cheaper
best case: a lot of fees are generated

Transferable account name will ruin the Identity system in BTS.
Yes you can clear all connection info about the name when it was be transferred. But you cannot clear the  INFO store in people's brain, or in 3rd party's database.
This will be a big chaos ID world. And you will see many many claim about "Human error".

In the other hand, many quality names were hold by only a few people, very few. if account name = domain name, this can cause permanent damage to the domain name market. Many people have no chance or motive to invest in Domains.

That's what I'm worried about.

that's like saying domain transfers create chaos in the real world. which is not the case apparently.

btw, account name = domain name was removed from the current proposal (see website). so that's not set in stone

edit:I started a consolidated Q&A post here: https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/138017 - I'd love to see some questions asked for the collection.

Domain transfers is OK. But Identity is different. Identity is more personal and intuitive.
Especially in BTS, we use account to receive fund, and we can do more important things in the future .
A digit-Identity, just like your identification paper, should not be transferable. That's why it called "Identity".

I think auction of a unregistered account name is better way. Once name is used, It should not be transferred to another people anymore.
BTS Account:logxing

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.


please elaborate? I don't see how this is going to be a disaster. worst case: no one register premium accounts > we can vote to make them cheaper
best case: a lot of fees are generated

Transferable account name will ruin the Identity system in BTS.
Yes you can clear all connection info about the name when it was be transferred. But you cannot clear the  INFO store in people's brain, or in 3rd party's database.
This will be a big chaos ID world. And you will see many many claim about "Human error".

In the other hand, many quality names were hold by only a few people, very few. if account name = domain name, this can cause permanent damage to the domain name market. Many people have no chance or motive to invest in Domains.

That's what I'm worried about.

that's like saying domain transfers create chaos in the real world. which is not the case apparently.

btw, account name = domain name was removed from the current proposal (see website). so that's not set in stone

edit:I started a consolidated Q&A post here: https://voat.co/v/smartcoin/comments/138017 - I'd love to see some questions asked for the collection.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 09:20:36 am by fav »

Offline logxing

Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.


please elaborate? I don't see how this is going to be a disaster. worst case: no one register premium accounts > we can vote to make them cheaper
best case: a lot of fees are generated

Transferable account name will ruin the Identity system in BTS.
Yes you can clear all connection info about the name when it was be transferred. But you cannot clear the  INFO store in people's brain, or in 3rd party's database.
This will be a big chaos ID world. And you will see many many claim about "Human error".

In the other hand, many quality names were hold by only a few people, very few. if account name = domain name, this can cause permanent damage to the domain name market. Many people have no chance or motive to invest in Domains.

That's what I'm worried about.
BTS Account:logxing

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.


please elaborate? I don't see how this is going to be a disaster. worst case: no one register premium accounts > we can vote to make them cheaper
best case: a lot of fees are generated

Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
ALERT!!! ALERT!!!

Do we need anti-automation measures in place on the faucet?

I'm not familiar with it's operation, but it looks to me that there's nothing to stop a certain uni-tusked aquatic creature from hammering the shit out of the faucet with some botty-bots!

don't think so. you have to auth with social networks, so it's probably too hard to set up.

Offline hadrian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: hadrian
ALERT!!! ALERT!!!

Do we need anti-automation measures in place on the faucet?

I'm not familiar with it's operation, but it looks to me that there's nothing to stop a certain uni-tusked aquatic creature from hammering the shit out of the faucet with some botty-bots!


Edit: no worries after fav's comment below
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 08:58:07 am by hadrian »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline logxing

Account name and domain name(DNS) are very different things.
Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.

And quality names were hold by only a few people, that is a very bad thing.
Current method do not consider more economic model and will lose it's value.
BTS Account:logxing

Offline NameNarwhal

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
My understanding is that after 17th June, names of 8 characters or more need to be registered via the faucet to avoid the prefix. Up to and including this date 8 character names will be fine, even if the faucet wasn't used.

I haven't seen this June 17th date, but let's assume that's correct, then it should go something like this ...

All 8 char names reg'd before June 8th will migrate as-is.
All 8 char names reg'd after June 8th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere before June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd at the faucet after June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere else after June 17th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.

Is that correct?

As it now says here: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration

  • All names registered before June 8 + all non-premium names registered before June 18 + all non-premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated exactly
  • All premium names registered before June 18 + all premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated but prefixed
  • All names registered outside of faucet on and after June 18 : will not be migrated

Define "premium names"
Less than 8 characters, no numbers.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair

Not Premium:
Has no vowels
Has one or more numbers
Is 9 or more characters

Premium:
The rest
« Last Edit: June 18, 2015, 04:06:09 am by NameNarwhal »

Offline Riverhead

My understanding is that after 17th June, names of 8 characters or more need to be registered via the faucet to avoid the prefix. Up to and including this date 8 character names will be fine, even if the faucet wasn't used.

I haven't seen this June 17th date, but let's assume that's correct, then it should go something like this ...

All 8 char names reg'd before June 8th will migrate as-is.
All 8 char names reg'd after June 8th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere before June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd at the faucet after June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere else after June 17th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.

Is that correct?

As it now says here: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration

  • All names registered before June 8 + all non-premium names registered before June 18 + all non-premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated exactly
  • All premium names registered before June 18 + all premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated but prefixed
  • All names registered outside of faucet on and after June 18 : will not be migrated

Define "premium names"
Less than 8 characters, no numbers.

Sent from my Timex Sinclair


Offline cgafeng

My understanding is that after 17th June, names of 8 characters or more need to be registered via the faucet to avoid the prefix. Up to and including this date 8 character names will be fine, even if the faucet wasn't used.

I haven't seen this June 17th date, but let's assume that's correct, then it should go something like this ...

All 8 char names reg'd before June 8th will migrate as-is.
All 8 char names reg'd after June 8th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere before June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd at the faucet after June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere else after June 17th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.

Is that correct?

As it now says here: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration

  • All names registered before June 8 + all non-premium names registered before June 18 + all non-premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated exactly
  • All premium names registered before June 18 + all premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated but prefixed
  • All names registered outside of faucet on and after June 18 : will not be migrated

Define "premium names"
BTC:1EYwcZ9cYVj6C9LMLafdcjK9wicVMDV376

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
My understanding is that after 17th June, names of 8 characters or more need to be registered via the faucet to avoid the prefix. Up to and including this date 8 character names will be fine, even if the faucet wasn't used.

I haven't seen this June 17th date, but let's assume that's correct, then it should go something like this ...

All 8 char names reg'd before June 8th will migrate as-is.
All 8 char names reg'd after June 8th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere before June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd at the faucet after June 17th will migrate as-is.
All 9+ char names reg'd anywhere else after June 17th up to 2.O will be prefixed at migration.

Is that correct?

As it now says here: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration

  • All names registered before June 8 + all non-premium names registered before June 18 + all non-premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated exactly
  • All premium names registered before June 18 + all premium names registered using faucet : will be migrated but prefixed
  • All names registered outside of faucet on and after June 18 : will not be migrated

Update: All account names registered on or after 2015-06-18 (US Eastern time) will be migrated if and only if they were registered using the BitShares Faucet.