Memberships and sub.accounts in Bitshares 2.0

[abit]

Looks like a big change, which is confusing. Can we just stop supporting creating names with dot(s) in 2.0?

[bobmaloney]

The concept of "sub account" means that authority and control were based upon TWO different factors which complicated the code and could not be easily enforced.

So there is no longer the concept of "sub account" only account names with "." in them and there is no relationship between the child / parent in the naming scheme.

Does this mean I can register "foo.bar" without owning "bar"?

@bytemaster

Is the case?

Or does the original account owner have to initiate the creation and then sell/trade the "." account?

[bytemaster]

If accounts can be traded, will there be something in rep system to let ppl know when that happens? This will let ppl know that an account with a good rep may longer have the same owner?

Yes. 

[Pheonike]

If accounts can be traded, will there be something in rep system to let ppl know when that happens? This will let ppl know that an account with a good rep may longer have the same owner?

[fav]

The concept of "sub account" means that authority and control were based upon TWO different factors which complicated the code and could not be easily enforced.

So there is no longer the concept of "sub account" only account names with "." in them and there is no relationship between the child / parent in the naming scheme.

Does this mean I can register "foo.bar" without owning "bar"?

that's how I read it

[xeroc]

The concept of "sub account" means that authority and control were based upon TWO different factors which complicated the code and could not be easily enforced.

So there is no longer the concept of "sub account" only account names with "." in them and there is no relationship between the child / parent in the naming scheme.

Does this mean I can register "foo.bar" without owning "bar"?

[bytemaster]

The concept of "sub account" means that authority and control were based upon TWO different factors which complicated the code and could not be easily enforced.

So there is no longer the concept of "sub account" only account names with "." in them and there is no relationship between the child / parent in the naming scheme.

[xeroc]

Does this mean fanboy.bitshares could eventually be owned by somebody like
Preston Byrne and the owner of bitshares would have no ability to revoke it?

I think that is what BM is saying, yes!

Have the sub.accounts (as practiced in 1.0) been abandoned for technical reasons
or is it being traded for the ability to have a transferable DNS-type system?

None of the above. Subaccounts are still available, but they are now
transferable which means that the parent may opt-out any permissions about the
subaccount.

If so, I would argue that, being primarily a financially focused platform - more
importance lay in being able to reliably assume approved relationships between
parent/child accounts - much like domain names in relation to email addresses
(such as fanboy.bitshares and bitshares OR [email protected] and
cryptonomex.com) - than lay in being able to resell or transfer sub.account
style names, which would seem to behave more like TLD's.

Once you transfer owner ship all ties are cut by the protocol. It's like you
start with a plain empty account. If one day there is a reputational system
integrated, you will essentially lose your rep. once you transfer the account.

[bobmaloney]

Because accounts are transferrable and we already have "parent/child" relationships via the owner/active authorities the concept of "subaccounts" has become meaningless.

A sub-account use to mean... "dan.bitshares" was owned by bitshares for ever and always.   Under graphene the control of "dan.bitshares" is transferrable and therefore no relationship between "dan.bitshares" and "bitshares" can be said to exist.

With some clever GUI designs we can show that account "dan.bitshares" has an "owner authority" of "bitshares".   But "dan.bitshares" might also be owned by account "cryptonomex" or perhaps a multi-sig authority.

I'm confused about this.

Does this mean fanboy.bitshares could eventually be owned by somebody like Preston Byrne and the owner of bitshares would have no ability to revoke it?

Have the sub.accounts (as practiced in 1.0) been abandoned for technical reasons or is it being traded for the ability to have a transferable DNS-type system?

If so, I would argue that, being primarily a financially focused platform - more importance lay in being able to reliably assume approved relationships between parent/child accounts - much like domain names in relation to email addresses (such as fanboy.bitshares and bitshares OR [email protected] and cryptonomex.com) - than lay in being able to resell or transfer sub.account style names, which would seem to behave more like TLD's.

[bytemaster]

Because accounts are transferrable and we already have "parent/child" relationships via the owner/active authorities the concept of "subaccounts" has become meaningless.

A sub-account use to mean... "dan.bitshares" was owned by bitshares for ever and always.   Under graphene the control of "dan.bitshares" is transferrable and therefore no relationship between "dan.bitshares" and "bitshares" can be said to exist.

With some clever GUI designs we can show that account "dan.bitshares" has an "owner authority" of "bitshares".   But "dan.bitshares" might also be owned by account "cryptonomex" or perhaps a multi-sig authority.

[mint chocolate chip]

How will the ability to transfer accounts play into this as well?

[xeroc]

Still a good questions what the mechanics between parent and child accounts will be.
@bytemaster?

[Troglodactyl]

If the root account signs up all of its sub accounts, then their fees will be paid to the root account anyway, so it may not matter so much if they aren't premium.

[bobmaloney]

ttt

[bobmaloney]

Are sub.accounts going to be possible in 2.0?

If so:

1a. Will the premium account of "maloney" offer a premium umbrella for its sub.accounts, or will each sub.account need to purchase a premium account (ie- bob.maloney, cousin-eddie.maloney, bills.maloney, savings.maloney)

2. What if I own a business? (ie- larrypage.google down to the lowly employees... thx1138.google)

3. Would it be possible to develop a method to determine between personal/family and business accounts? (Maybe the total # of sub.accounts available?)



A little outside the box and into the more distant future:

Could it ever be possible for an account owner to grant permissions for sub.accounts to be generated where the original account owner would not have access to the sub.accounts private key? (some kind of non-hierarchical structure would be required, I assume)

Maybe with the ability of the original account holder to remove the sub.account if abusive, but have the assets of that sub.account sent to another predetermined account (preset by the sub.accounts creator) upon close by original account owner.