Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
There's a tv show in the UK running now called 'The Bank: A matter of life and debt"
In particular, a digital currency owned by the UK government would be controlled by a central body ...Yep - the issuer can retain control
The response suggests a government-issued digital currency should be designed in such a way that its ownership and use can be traced, enabling law enforcement agencies to identify whether it has been used for criminal or terrorist purposes and who by.Yeah - whitelisting could be useful here
Regulation should also require that any digital currency involved in criminal activity can be seized by the authorities, the department’s response states.Aye! The issuer of an asset can do this.
It suggests a government-created cryptocurrency should be designed in such a way that fraudulent transactions can be reversed.Yes, I think this can be done too.
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.
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)
I would rather get rid of account names entirely than keep them non-transferable.
fuzzy - It was NameNarwhal who obtained all these names. They posted first here.
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.
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?
valzav maintains the faucet; if something is broken probably fastest to PM him.
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 ..
Hadrian, I applaud your forward thinking. I haven't seen nearly enough of that around here lately. Aside from NameNarWhal's registration initiative that is
The dev staff is probably too busy to think about this now. What we need is to come up with a list of such issues in a single thread, and elsewhere, in a different thread we can discuss them. A locked sticky that only the mods can add / edit, with content culled from anywhere else an issue is raised, like your OP here. I would title that item as Proposal Procedures.
Vikram mentioned elsewhere he would update the migration page of the website if additions & clarifications are needed. I don't think this falls into that category, I think it's a bit different animal, tho it clearly is related to migration to 2.0. I see it as a gap that needs some serious thought and consideration.
IMO you're spot on in thinking it's not such a simple thing to implement a workable system, especially as you point out if we have far more users with potentially divergent ideas of governance. It strikes to the core of how DPoS 2.0 will function. There are some fundamental decisions that must be made first, like how many Delegates are required and what the actual fee schedule for their registration will be and what qualifications they must have. Who knows who is even interested in becoming an unpaid Delegate under DPoS 2.0?
BM said in a mumble that the devs would be the initial set of Delegates until others are voted into place, and that they (CNX) does not want to be in those positions after some (as yet undefined) conditions are met. In my view there are still many things like this that we haven't begun to talk about, and we could really use a systematic approach to doing so.
Leadership to organize all of these things and focus our attention so they can be identified, discussed and resolved would sure be welcome. Perhaps it's too early for that, but I don't think so. It just seems to be an area of little concern at the moment though, at least I don't see much concern expressed like this.
Just who would be the ideal party to do this? Who have you seen in the community that has demonstrated leadership traits and organization skills that could guide such an effort? Chime in with your favorite candidate and tell us why you think he would be a good choice for this role.
