Maybe someone didn't get how the name migration to 2.0 works. :P
Every 10 seconds someone is mass producing account names using random-as-all-hell words from the dictionary. Even now it's continuing. Here's a list of the most recent batch:
Account Name Id Registration date Registration block Last update Wall total Delegate Sub-accounts
dieterich 50099 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:40 AM 2,826,160 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:40 AM
0.00 No No
amazonite 50098 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:40 AM 2,826,160 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:40 AM
0.00 No No
acupressure 50097 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:40 AM 2,826,160 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:40 AM
0.00 No No
braunschweig 50096 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:40 AM 2,826,160 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:40 AM
0.00 No No
serpentin 50095 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:30 AM 2,826,159 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:30 AM
0.00 No No
paragliders 50094 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:30 AM 2,826,159 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:30 AM
0.00 No No
goldfinger 50093 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:30 AM 2,826,159 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:30 AM
0.00 No No
intertraffic 50092 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:30 AM 2,826,159 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:30 AM
0.00 No No
catskills 50091 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:30 AM 2,826,159 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:30 AM
0.00 No No
amoxicillin 50090 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:30 AM 2,826,159 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:30 AM
0.00 No No
marinduque 50089 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:30 AM 2,826,159 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:30 AM
0.00 No No
downsizing 50088 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:20 AM 2,826,158 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:20 AM
0.00 No No
handcrafts 50087 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:20 AM 2,826,158 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:20 AM
0.00 No No
mcclelland 50086 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:20 AM 2,826,158 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:20 AM
0.00 No No
wristwatches 50085 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:20 AM 2,826,158 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:20 AM
0.00 No No
paychecks 50084 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:20 AM 2,826,158 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:20 AM
0.00 No No
molecatcher 50083 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:20 AM 2,826,158 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:20 AM
0.00 No No
uplifting 50082 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:20 AM 2,826,158 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:20 AM
0.00 No No
coulommiers 50081 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:10 AM 2,826,157 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:10 AM
0.00 No No
irishwoman 50080 Jun 17, 2015 6:11:10 AM 2,826,157 Jun 17, 2015 10:11:10 AM
0.00 No No
Looks like someone really, really wants to take over 8+ character names. Heh.
That makes an income of 1k to 5k BTS for the DAC in just 24h ..
+5%
That makes an income of 1k to 5k BTS for the DAC in just 24h ..
+5%
Did someone find a way to register without paying fees? Looks like someone is either spamming the network or hogging cheap names to be sold for higher later.
But how are so many accounts being produced at once? Seems like some kind of program is creating them automatically. Is that possible?
bts2.0 ID will follow migration？？
every name with less than 8 characters will migrate with a bts-NAME prefix
every name with less than 8 characters will migrate with a bts-NAME prefix
I thought it was every name less than 8 chars reg'd before june 8th migrates as is and only names reg'd after 6/8 get prefixed???
I dont get it , do we need to do anything with our current accounts ? I dont want to lose my bts ..
bts2.0 ID will follow migration？？
all names prior to the 8th (?) june announcement will migrate.
all names with 8 or more characters will migrate
every name with less than 8 characters registered after 8th june will migrate with a bts-NAME prefix
Looks like we got ourselves someone in the domain name squatting biz that is betting on the value of BTS naming space.
Get ready to see extortion of like $2000 user names from this character.
20,000 accounts cost like what? $100? yikes.... I hope that if people throw $10K in account registering the system won't start having hiccups.
Through $100K in account names - 20M user names, can the system handle it?
Perhaps name registration itself should cost more.
Looks like it stopped. Final name registered about 35 minutes ago: confitures.
I was beginning to wonder if it was some kind of attack myself...
Apparently "confitures" is another word for "fruit preserves":
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=imgres&cd=&ved=0CAkQjBwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.foodnetwork.com%2FFOOD%2F2013%2F10%2F08%2Fhe_fruit-preserves-thinkstock_s4x3_lg.jpg&ei=65aBVdCdIcq7ggSR_YHgDA&psig=AFQjCNFzWJW6rsUR9vYZkDtZADhrlKDaBw&ust=1434642539635709)
Had to look that one up.
Not an attack ... but maybe the client becomes too heavy over time to handle thois amount of keys .. in particular if you have titan scanning enabled20,000 accounts cost like what? $100? yikes.... I hope that if people throw $10K in account registering the system won't start having hiccups.
Through $100K in account names - 20M user names, can the system handle it?
Perhaps name registration itself should cost more.
I think that is a very important question to be answered. We're talking about the 0.9.2 code here so can this indeed be an attack? Even if not intended to be that is a possible result we need to keep watch on.
@svk, are you continuing to monitor this?
The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
+5%The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
Yes +5%
The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
+5%The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
Yes +5%
The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
Yes +5%
The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
Yes +5%
I agree. DNS systems must prevent name squatting.
The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
Yes +5%
I agree. DNS systems must prevent name squatting.
+5%
The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
The network can handle it and so can graphene.
One thing we can do if the community approves is to only migrate names registered after June 8th if they were registered via faucet.bitshares.org.
There is no sense in allowing this squatter to bloat the genesis state for $100.
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
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.
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.
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.
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 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."
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
...
I would make the rules: 8+ names AND a number are free ...
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.
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.
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.
Great site - I was using it to benchmark my registration process!
Turns out to register faster I would have needed to load balance across multiple bitshares daemon instances. I added multi-threading to my registration system but the bitshares daemon was the bottleneck.
Updated: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration
Updated: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration
IMHO, you should get rid of the "so that they can double as DNS names" part too. Maybe it ends up happening anyway, but don't commit to that. I think it will be a huge mistake personally. The economic model of paying a fixed fee determined by an algorithm and owning the name forever with no tax is flawed for domain names. You guys recognized this with the auction rules for the original BitShares DNS. A naming system with a different economic model will require a different namespace from account names (because it should still be possible to have account names with the fixed-fee true ownership model since their use case is different).
Updated: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration
IMHO, you should get rid of the "so that they can double as DNS names" part too. Maybe it ends up happening anyway, but don't commit to that. I think it will be a huge mistake personally. The economic model of paying a fixed fee determined by an algorithm and owning the name forever with no tax is flawed for domain names. You guys recognized this with the auction rules for the original BitShares DNS. A naming system with a different economic model will require a different namespace from account names (because it should still be possible to have account names with the fixed-fee true ownership model since their use case is different).
Done.
...
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?
...
Bank closes account of person buying bitcoinsisn't too dissimilar to
BitShares closes accounts of person who paid for too many of them
Wow I can't believe I misread the migration rules. I thought the intent was to not create new squatters.
After 2.0 launches, I am looking forward to purchasing the name "Erlichbachman" from whomever owns it if it is unavailable for official registration. I am glad that the names are transferable. I'm sure that Cocacola will also be glad to know that they can acquire their name at their leisure also. You guys admittedly suck at PR, but stealing from your clients is suicide bordering on sabotage. It's a good thing that you have smart marketing geniuses like Russ and myself to guide you on your journeys young Jedi's
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.
$2000 user names from this character.
After 2.0 launches, I am looking forward to purchasing the name "Erlichbachman" from whomever owns it if it is unavailable for official registration.
Sorry for both changing the subject and being picky here but this 'live site' is down for me for about 9h now.
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! :P
Sorry for both changing the subject and being picky here but this 'live site' is down for me for about 9h now.
Hmm. Bitsharesblocks is working just fine for me.
2,829,423 Jun 17, 2015 7:16:00 PM valzav.payroll.testz 7 0.70 BTS Account registration (7) 0.70 BTS
$2000 user names from this character.
interesting, how did you arrive at this figure (even facetiously)?
Sorry for both changing the subject and being picky here but this 'live site' is down for me for about 9h now.
Hmm. Bitsharesblocks is working just fine for me.
Hmm what is the last block you see when you go to blocks...for me it is 2,827,953
We are updating the migration rules to indicate that only names registered by the faucet will be migrated without a prefix.
It's about how much one of my domains ended up being put up for sale after I forgot to renew it one year. It was not even a popular term of any kind. Yet, if I wanted it back.. $2k was the ask.
We are updating the migration rules to indicate that only names registered by the faucet will be migrated without a prefix.
woah, is this change retroactive or does it start on a certain date?
so, names registered after 6/8 with more than 8 chars will be prefixed UNLESS they are registered by the faucet as of this date <please fill in the date>, is that correct?
Why did you make name registration free in the first place?
I just got to say.. It's pretty damn impressive the names were allowed to be kept. Certainly more than fair in a world where getting mass accounts like this banned are common place.>:( +5% +5%
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.
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?
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
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
Less than 8 characters, no numbers.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.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"
Sent from my Timex Sinclair
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!
Transferable Named Accounts will be a disaster.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Why did you make name registration free in the first place?
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/O0oo0.gif)
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.
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.)
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'm gonna post this even though arhag's better post appeared while I typed:Afaik for businesses you can have accounts without a single private key but with a set if privkeys with threshold signing .. hence you can do transfers from that account only if a particular threshold of key weights signes the transaction ..
The important part of transferable account names is having the ability to change the keys associated with the name.
If BitShares is going to be widely adopted, having this ability is almost essential. People or businesses will need to keep an account name, and to build their business or reputation upon it. This has major security concerns, because in the real world people have problems obeying 'best practice'. We all know that not everyone can keep all information secure all of the time.
The ability to change the keys associated with an account is a massive benefit because it allows this concern to be significantly mitigated. If a member of staff has access to the keys, then they leave the company, the company can just change the keys. Likewise for private individuals who realize they didn't follow best practices, or who find malware on their computer...et cetera
I will certainly be changing my keys, once my account is migrated to 2.0, because I'm not sure that my keys are 100% secure, and I want to keep my account name. (I'm very please with the setup for easier and more functional security features in 2.0 by the way)
The important part of transferable account names is having the ability to change the keys associated with the name.
If BitShares is going to be widely adopted, having this ability is almost essential.
Isn't that what we just bought?
Currently no crypto in the cosmos can do this.
I thought that we had first mover advantage of this feature all locked up?
Afaik for businesses you can have accounts without a single private key but with a set if privkeys with threshold signing .. hence you can do transfers from that account only if a particular threshold of key weights signes the transaction ..
Else, i totally agree and intend to change my owner keys too ..
I just got to say.. It's pretty damn impressive the names were allowed to be kept. Certainly more than fair in a world where getting mass accounts like this banned are common place.
I think names should be made nontransferable like before. In fact, do away with names entirely, it just leads to people getting scammed.
Yeah, and while we are at it, let's give up our first mover advantage in:
_________(fill in the blank)__________ too while we are at it.
People got scammed in bitcoin too, so let's just cancel the whole BitShares project to protect people because they are unable to think for themselves. Why don't you be our King Sumatso! Hey everybody, I vote to give Sumatso total control over all BitShares parameters and development. He will take care of us all because we are unable to take care of ourselves.
Or else let's Dismantle BitShares For The Childeren!
I think names should be made nontransferable like before. In fact, do away with names entirely, it just leads to people getting scammed.
Yeah, and while we are at it, let's give up our first mover advantage in:
_________(fill in the blank)__________ too while we are at it.
People got scammed in bitcoin too, so let's just cancel the whole BitShares project to protect people because they are unable to think for themselves. Why don't you be our King Sumatso! Hey everybody, I vote to give Sumatso total control over all BitShares parameters and development. He will take care of us all because we are unable to take care of ourselves.
Or else let's Dismantle BitShares For The Childeren!
What if account names were transferable and maybe even tradable?
Because account names are the destination address for funds it could result in funds being sent to the wrong person if you transfered the name and everyone that knew you by the old name sent payments to that name.
If you do not like what just happened, then you are to blame. You apathetic (non)voter.
Don't hate people just because you are lazy.
Don't expect others to do your work for you.
And especially, don't steal from others simply because you are ignorant.
Jesus, who let the communists back in? I thought that we finally got rid of you.
Do you know how long Stan and I have been battling you over at bitcointalk!
Go home!
Posting on this forum to dismantle a competitive advantage is:
My concern is that for only $100 someone can reserve all those names then go AWOL, thus losing those names from bitshares forever. As long as narwal actually creates a market for them and works to develop the infrastructure that can support it, good for him/her
Raise the price. Drop a hard fork tomorrow. This is still a centrally controlled coin.
Problem solved........
What if you go AWOL? We all die. Let's shut down the whole project because death is inevitable?
So what. Nobody will ever get to use the name molecatcher. I say, let him keep going. When he moves on to the Spanish dictionary, he will have to buy more BitShares on the open market. Isn't that the point? He hasn't even begun forming complete sentences yet.
Oh wait...sorry, I forgot...We hate making profits around here...
BitShares T - "oh shit! we're making profits! SHUT HER DOWN!"
What is this, Bizarro Business 666?
I think we must have skipped Business 101 the day they taught:
"accepting profits"
Here's the Cliff's Notes: (you're supposed to choose to keep them)
Why should he surrender any names? This is a democratic system is it not? Surely if one person takes the liberty to spend or invest his coins in domains / username assets before anybody else then that is to his advantage. You snooze you lose.. We all have access to the same system as he does, why not register multiple names yourselves?
reminder: account migration rules have been updated to counter it https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration
Why should he surrender any names? This is a democratic system is it not? Surely if one person takes the liberty to spend or invest his coins in domains / username assets before anybody else then that is to his advantage. You snooze you lose.. We all have access to the same system as he does, why not register multiple names yourselves?
fuzzy - It was NameNarwhal who obtained all these names. They posted first here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17016.msg217777.html#msg217777).
I wonder if @NameNarwhal would want to join a mumble session?
fuzzy - It was NameNarwhal who obtained all these names. They posted first here (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17016.msg217777.html#msg217777).
I wonder if @NameNarwhal would want to join a mumble session?
Sounds like a great idea. A deal could be arranged where both parties are happy rather than just one. Maybe we could pay him a certain amount via a worker proposal to find bugs like this in the future. Everytime he(she?) finds a similar bug, maximize the leveraging of it to show the importance of it being fixed, then openly allow the change and be paid for finding it. :)
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.
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
This is really where everyones heart is I believe.
However, BitShares is built on the entire premise of providing freedom and property for all. For us to simply take away after the fact is a rejection of his freedom and rights to use the system as it is, and was designed. This would in turn cause a ripple effect (pardon the pun) where people would question of transactions/actions taken in bitshares could be reversed on them later.
There is hope though for those that want to see the dirty spammer staked and burned.
This is a community drive ecosystem. So later, if this guy thinks he will be able to start selling these names to people who want them without impunity the way you can with domain names now, because registrars couldn't care less as long as the fees are paid, he's got another thing coming.
We could very well create a proposal that puts limits on such actions. Or makes it a requirement for account holders of X # of accounts to have to pay out huge fees to maintain them.. or some other possibility I haven't thought of. The point is though, if some action is taken by him that gets on the communities radar in a bad way, we have a programmable way to take countermeasures to deal with it at the blockchain level.
So hopefully whatever the guy is doing is going to be on the up and up and be something that everyone doesn't mind seeing. If it's just a typical squatter play, well then, he will find out what happens in a DAC governed by a worldwide community that has little to no patience for anybody doing anything that abuses this baby.
So just wait and see.. hopefully we don't have to break out the pitchforks come 2.0. :)
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
It was mentioned before but I feel compelled to say it again: NameNarWhal did NOTHING wrong. I have to counter svk's comments and others like his that imply he has done something bad. Moreover, it doesn't help to call people names like idiot.
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
This is really where everyones heart is I believe.
However, BitShares is built on the entire premise of providing freedom and property for all. For us to simply take away after the fact is a rejection of his freedom and rights to use the system as it is, and was designed. This would in turn cause a ripple effect (pardon the pun) where people would question of transactions/actions taken in bitshares could be reversed on them later.
WELL SAID! +5%
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. :)
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
I really don't get why everyone is being so nice towards this Narwhal character, he's an idiot who spammed the blockchain with useless account names hoping to one day profit from an even bigger idiot wanting to buy one of those useless account names. If it were up to me we'd just exclude his accounts from the migration but lucky for him I'm not in charge..+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
Posting on this forum to dismantle a competitive advantage is:
__________________(500BTS Bounty for best answer)_____________
FFs.
I previously tried to register my own first name via the faucet, and the faucet swallowed the name. I lost that name.
Then, at 1:30 am on the 9th of June I scrambled to register approximately ten of my own current, active, trademarks, so as to avoid suffering any nasty 'prefix' junk. I chose to use my own BTS funds because:
I can fucking afford to pay my own fees; I don't need the faucet.
The faucet totally fucked up my registration of 'Harry' on the blockchain some months ago.
Please tell me I can keep my damn names. This deadline I'm hearing about the 8th - that got extended until the 17th? for Name Narwhal something... who registered $100 names using a faucet, sorry? >:(
A little consideration/advise would be appreciated. I had two perfectly decent reasons for not using a faucet, using the faucet wasn't the requirement.. I'm feeling quite tested by the arbitrary and frenetic rule rewriting. Bitshares and block chain appeal lies in permanence.
As for fuzzy's comment that suggests it is a simple matter to fork the BitShares code and deploy it, get supporters, get delegates voted into place and witnesses to buy VPS nodes around the world and get them running and producing blocks, hire developers and find a way to pay them I gotta ask, where have you been all year? You make it sound so easy. Do you think such a plan is even remotely feasible? C'mon!
As for fuzzy's comment that suggests it is a simple matter to fork the BitShares code and deploy it, get supporters, get delegates voted into place and witnesses to buy VPS nodes around the world and get them running and producing blocks, hire developers and find a way to pay them I gotta ask, where have you been all year? You make it sound so easy. Do you think such a plan is even remotely feasible? C'mon!
Did I say somewhere it is easy to do? Nope.
P.S. If a 51% of the community makes a decision that 49% dislikes, it is quite easy for the 49% to simply fork and sharedrop in an inverse fashion (sharedrop of 51% for the minority holders in the other chain and 49% to the majority ones here) on the owners who voted with the minority.
When did we go from a community that wanted to see many flourishing, competing DACs to just wanting to see only one?The future could well be an unbounded network of DACs all talking and interacting together.
When did we go from a community that wanted to see many flourishing, competing DACs to just wanting to see only one?The future could well be an unbounded network of DACs all talking and interacting together.
It was mentioned before but I feel compelled to say it again: NameNarWhal did NOTHING wrong. I have to counter svk's comments and others like his that imply he has done something bad. Moreover, it doesn't help to call people names like idiot.
It was mentioned before but I feel compelled to say it again: NameNarWhal did NOTHING wrong. I have to counter svk's comments and others like his that imply he has done something bad. Moreover, it doesn't help to call people names like idiot.
+5%
(http://i.imgur.com/UY7n1WO.png)
I'd say that many of us have been doing what we can to make the sytem better for everyone, often at considrable personal cost in time, money, attention. Conversely, I think Narwhal is trying to make the system worse for everyone else for a personal gain for himself. I don't get any feeling at all that he is trying to enhance our project. Quite the contrary.
Is it wrong? Not legally I guess.
- Now we have only one step in pricing (8 characters). Maybe there should be more? Short names would be very expensive and with every character price goes cheaper?
- Is auction possible? If you want to register a name, you would have to wait for a period (like 24 h or a week) and during that time everybody else could see what name you are going to register and make a bigger offer for it if they see it valuable. This would propably optimise the income that Bitshares gets from name selling.
@arhag : does you get an info under your profile tab, that i was mentioned you here with @mentions plugin?
This is a democracy. It is a democracy with hard coded rules that we can vote to change. If all the Narwhals go extinct, and all the narwhal names go unused we can deal with that in the future. You know, for when we really need the name molecatcher. I see no need to mess with the narwhals expected business model at this point.
It brings up a very important point though. Registered names are by definition a scarce resource as they can only be used by one person at a time. When we register a name we are effectively staking a claim to them. Common law for claims of previously unowned property required both enclosure, and development. Otherwise the property went back to its original unowned state. The blockchain securely encloses this scarce resource for us, but does not enforce development. What means of enforcing development would the community find palatable?
One model that springs to mind is that of a black hole. They are supposedly constantly losing mass due to hawking radiation. For a more massive black hole that is not really an issue, as it will take billions of years to waste away. For a micro black hole this become an issue though. If it evaporates too much it will vanish. Could we do something similar with names. Require a certain balance, to be parked on names that is burned as a fee at a certain time increment Perhaps just enforce a certain minimum fee burned within a time frame. If an account name does not have the fee it is purged from the blockchain. This would dramatically reduce squatting.
Perhaps the answer is to split account names from domain names. Require that domain names are linked to actual ip addresses. This could be as simple as requiring domain name owner keys to broadcast signed transactions to the network every month or so. Adding a small amount of work and cost to maintaining a name. We could try to go farther and require the mapped IP to be provably under the control of the owner key of the domain. Perhaps embedding this signed message into the page itself. Then we would want to limit the number of domains that could be assigned to a single IP.
While there is no reason to believe that the large aquatic animal is lying to us, I think we should disabuse ourselves of the notion that if we lay claim to something we can own it forever without putting forth any further effort. If all it takes is laying a claim, then I own the Moon, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and all its moons. In fact I own the Sun, and I need all of you to stop taking advantage of my property.
It is not a democracy, that would be 1 vote 1 person. It is a share-o-cracy, 1 vote 1 share.
In theory anything is possible when it is just a matter of consensus. But in practice the least controversial approach to consensus is to establish property rights and then NEVER violate them.
It comes down to a constitution with checks and balances designed to protect property rights. Rules don't need to change constantly and the less often they change the stronger the consensus. In my opinion, all new innovation should never change the property rights of old innovations.
I still seem to have had new rules applied retrospectively in my case, invalidating my attempts to protect my own trademarks. Because I registered my names on the chain but didn't use the faucet. I can't un-not-use the faucet.
I still seem to have had new rules applied retrospectively in my case, invalidating my attempts to protect my own trademarks. Because I registered my names on the chain but didn't use the faucet. I can't un-not-use the faucet.
I still seem to have had new rules applied retrospectively in my case, invalidating my attempts to protect my own trademarks. Because I registered my names on the chain but didn't use the faucet. I can't un-not-use the faucet.
No rules have been changed retroactively. The rules were set on June 8th and 17th respectively. If your name is non premium, and was registered before June 17th. You are just fine.
There is no guarantee that these names will be usable as domains when the domain system goes live. I don't think that system is even completely designed yet.
Charging 1/10 of 1 cent for half decent land in the most revolutionary financial country in the world was an error on our part.
Charging 1/10 of 1 cent for half decent land in the most revolutionary financial country in the world was an error on our part.
....
maybe everyone here had the exact same opportunity at the same time to buy this "revolutionary financial country" at the same revolutionary price.
It seems pretty fair to me and I fail to see the "error", unless the motivation is greed??
Therefore, is the issue actually, "they thought of it before I did!" or "they beat me to it!" or "mine! mine! mine!" and not price?
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.
If the price were higher, what would that change?
Would it simply deter these "squatters" from wasting money registering useless names no one would ever want and only target super duper premium names? (hint : yes)
So, for those super duper premium accounts, the perceived problem of "squatting" would not have been solved by adjusting the price higher afaic-theorize.
I'd still pay for a super duper premium name at a higher rate, and then likely make more selling it later. We should charge more so "squatters" can make more and force others to pay them more to get their super duper premium names!
Unless of course the "squatter" was going to charge 250,000 BTS for account name "squatter" no matter if he paid .1 BTS or 100,000 BTS for squatters rights.
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.)