wtf ? ^^
(http://i.imgur.com/1aVJx78.png)
really?
Maybe someone didn't get how the name migration to 2.0 works. :P
Quote from: Frodo on June 17, 2015, 10:01:36 AM
Maybe someone didn't get how the name migration to 2.0 works. :P
maybe 8+ chars. they will migrate
He's still at it actually, been registering 6-10 accounts per block for hours now:
http://bitsharesblocks.com/blocks/block?id=2826166
That makes an income of 1k to 5k BTS for the DAC in just 24h ..
+5%
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.
Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on June 17, 2015, 10:14:37 AM
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.
welp, good idea though. If you plan on selling names (future domains?). it's almost free
Tragedy of the commons.
Quote from: xeroc on June 17, 2015, 10:14:18 AM
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.
Quote from: cube on June 17, 2015, 10:19:19 AM
Quote from: xeroc on June 17, 2015, 10:14:18 AM
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.
min fee is 0.1 BTS... you can register names forever basically. not expensive
But how are so many accounts being produced at once? Seems like some kind of program is creating them automatically. Is that possible?
Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on June 17, 2015, 10:24:44 AM
But how are so many accounts being produced at once? Seems like some kind of program is creating them automatically. Is that possible?
this thread is proof. but it shouldn't be hard to write a script for the headless client
In fact its very easy via RPC .. in python with a dictionary .. it should doable in less than 10 lines
Obviously, this comes from the same person.
Are there people in the test?
Yeah... this is probably why account names should be in a different namespace than domain names. Or at least fixed-fee pure-ownership account names that can also be used by clients to access a server should have a far less desirable TLD by convention. And the other namespace designed to be used for more professional domain names should have the far more desirable TLD and should be based on a leasing model.
Also, I think we need to get rid of the idea of every account having a name. I don't think assigning a random sequence of letters and numbers as a name is a good solution. There should be a separation between the fee of creating a new account and the fee of adding on a name to the account. Many accounts (especially with stealth transfers) shouldn't need a name at all. Some may even be okay with holding off on adding a name to their main account and just using their unique ID instead. User clients can always use a local alias to map to the unique account ID (and in that case they don't have to be limited to the blockchain constraints on account names, e.g. using Unicode). This also means that the blockchain can charge a far more reasonable fee for non-premium account names than just the cost of creating an account (which should remain low).
bts2.0 ID will follow migration？？
Molecatcher will clearly go for big $$$
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, I can see the future now...
'If you'd like to register a BTS account name, please download the NXT client, http://nxt.org/ and head over to the NXT market-place where all the BTS names have been put up for sale by their one owner.'
Quote from: wuyanren on June 17, 2015, 10:44:31 AM
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
Quote from: fav on June 17, 2015, 11:13:27 AM
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???
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 17, 2015, 11:15:07 AM
Quote from: fav on June 17, 2015, 11:13:27 AM
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???
edited my post already
I dont get it , do we need to do anything with our current accounts ? I dont want to lose my bts ..
Quote from: bitsacer on June 17, 2015, 11:29:09 AM
I dont get it , do we need to do anything with our current accounts ? I dont want to lose my bts ..
no, you will just import your current wallet to the bitshares 2.0 and you're set. migration should be very easy
Great thanks
Quote from: fav on June 17, 2015, 11:13:27 AM
Quote from: wuyanren on June 17, 2015, 10:44:31 AM
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
To be more precise, I believe if you register a name after June 8th that has less than 8 characters but also has a number in it, it will also migrate without the bts- 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.
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 17, 2015, 12:21:38 PM
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.
btw, WTS smartcoin, smartchain, smartblock for 10k BitUSD :)
unexpected /s
(http://i.imgur.com/DJg83tl.png)
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.
Quote from: bitmeat on June 17, 2015, 03:31:01 PM
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.
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?
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://img.foodnetwork.com/FOOD/2013/10/08/he_fruit-preserves-thinkstock_s4x3_lg.jpg)
Had to look that one up.
Quote from: nomoreheroes7 on June 17, 2015, 03:48:00 PM
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.
It stopped? Dammit the server must have froze.. needs more ram.
Quote from: Thom on June 17, 2015, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: bitmeat on June 17, 2015, 03:31:01 PM
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.
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?
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 enabled
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.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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%
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
If you want to squat on all names then you can claim them *AFTER* BTS 2 has launched with new pricing.
What is going to be the default values for all of the various fees at the time of genesis?
And can we allow nameless accounts and separate out the fee for creating a new account from the fee(s) of creating a new unique name on the blockchain?
Quote from: testz on June 17, 2015, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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%
+5%
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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.
because "confitures" +5% ;)
Quote from: xeroc on June 17, 2015, 05:27:53 PM
Quote from: testz on June 17, 2015, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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%
+5%
I don't think you should change the rules now.
Quote from: testz on June 17, 2015, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Ander on June 17, 2015, 05:43:40 PM
Quote from: testz on June 17, 2015, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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%
gotta be a spammer on an SEO play - hoping these get indexed or pass something. It's weird.
Or someone trying to squat...
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 17, 2015, 05:48:45 PM
Quote from: Ander on June 17, 2015, 05:43:40 PM
Quote from: testz on June 17, 2015, 05:10:58 PM
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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%
Yes.
Can you give preference to Lifetime and Annual members?
Also for 8+ english dictionary word combos maybe we can slightly increase the costs of those compared to random names with at least one number?
Like basic accounts require at least one number?
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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%
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 05:09:05 PM
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.
I agree with fav - i.e. it's best to avoid changing the rules, however, it is aggravating to see someone doing this.
Which is the greater problem - bloat in the genesis state, or the fact that someone is squatting names?
Perhaps another option to consider would be to modify these names in BitShares 2.0, by prepending or appending something, like we are with the premium names? It'd be somewhat less harsh if we modify rather than omit the account names from BitShares 2.0.
edit: I do think it's almost a fundamental problem to retrospectively change the rules when dealing with blockchains. It goes against the grain of a large chunk of the philosophy, and can detract from people's confidence in the 'immutability' side of things. Can we therefore put something in place to prevent the problem from this point forward - some kind of restriction from now on, and let whomever is doing this keep what they have managed to grab up until now?
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.
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:43:04 PM
Hello, I am the Name Narwhal. It is me who bought a bunch of BTS so that I could register a few accounts.
No, this is not a spam attack, and yes, I am actually interested in these names (and a bunch more). Every single name was chosen to meet "more than 8 characters, or contains no vowels or at least 1 number" - names where it's been announced that they will make it into the new genesis block. I actually spent a lot of time putting together the list of names I'd like (and then finding a way to get the bitshares client to support having more than a couple names).
I believe the BitShares system is the perfect base for a de-centralized DNS system. And I hope to contribute to that process - I have lots of experience with domain names and I'd like to support the community in making the BitShares namespace become more valuable. I'm clearly setting myself up to be interested in having that happen - I'm making an investment into BitShares.
The source for Graphene indicates that it may eventually become possible to use BitShares names as collateral. Think about it - if someone is running a business using a BitShares DNS name (or a future DNS-like system), that name is going to become valuable collateral. And if the system allows them to use it as collateral, the price of BitShares will start to become supported (indirectly) from assets outside of the BitShares system. I think that's extremely powerful and will be very good for BitShares community.
I have a way to - without overly bloating the blockchain - allow people to use their bitshares names for DNS and much more. And I look forward to discussing those ideas with all of you.
No, I don't intend to demand $2000 for the crappiest of names. In fact, for the next few days: if you had an account prior to June 8th, if there is name I have which you would like to own, let me know your name and I'll arrange to give you the private key of the name you want.
So, if the social consensus allows, I'm going to keep spending my BTS buying some more names I'd like to own when BitShares 2.0 is released.
no one can stop you do this in 2.0 :)
However, this is why we shouldn't change the rules. @bytemaster: how about you announce that after today only accounts registered through the faucet migrate?
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:43:04 PM
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.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 07:47:05 PM
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:43:04 PM
Hello, I am the Name Narwhal. It is me who bought a bunch of BTS so that I could register a few accounts.
No, this is not a spam attack, and yes, I am actually interested in these names (and a bunch more). Every single name was chosen to meet "more than 8 characters, or contains no vowels or at least 1 number" - names where it's been announced that they will make it into the new genesis block. I actually spent a lot of time putting together the list of names I'd like (and then finding a way to get the bitshares client to support having more than a couple names).
I believe the BitShares system is the perfect base for a de-centralized DNS system. And I hope to contribute to that process - I have lots of experience with domain names and I'd like to support the community in making the BitShares namespace become more valuable. I'm clearly setting myself up to be interested in having that happen - I'm making an investment into BitShares.
The source for Graphene indicates that it may eventually become possible to use BitShares names as collateral. Think about it - if someone is running a business using a BitShares DNS name (or a future DNS-like system), that name is going to become valuable collateral. And if the system allows them to use it as collateral, the price of BitShares will start to become supported (indirectly) from assets outside of the BitShares system. I think that's extremely powerful and will be very good for BitShares community.
I have a way to - without overly bloating the blockchain - allow people to use their bitshares names for DNS and much more. And I look forward to discussing those ideas with all of you.
No, I don't intend to demand $2000 for the crappiest of names. In fact, for the next few days: if you had an account prior to June 8th, if there is name I have which you would like to own, let me know your name and I'll arrange to give you the private key of the name you want.
So, if the social consensus allows, I'm going to keep spending my BTS buying some more names I'd like to own when BitShares 2.0 is released.
NameNarwhal,
The protocol currently allows this, but the BTS 1.0 fees are too low for the cost to the network. We do not intend to revoke the accounts you have already registered. We are updating the migration rules to indicate that only names registered by the faucet will be migrated without a prefix.
Updated: https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration
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?
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:51:26 PM
The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?
Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.
Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.
Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?
it's updated just fine :)
"Update: All account names registered after 2015-06-17 will be migrated if and only if they were registered using the BitShares Faucet."
edit: wait a second, that includes today? I'm absolutely against it. please update to 18thedit2: ahh, was updated again. everything fine :)
Quote from: fav on June 17, 2015, 07:52:21 PM
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:51:26 PM
The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?
Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.
Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.
Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?
it's updated just fine :)
"Update: All account names registered on or after 2015-06-17 will be migrated if and only if they were registered using the BitShares Faucet."
I've edited it again to say "names registered after 2015-06-17" so as not to take away Narwhal's existing names.
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:51:26 PM
The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?
Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.
Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.
Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?
this is free market so we will watch what you can accomplish! Nice one :D Our "userbase" quadruppeled within a day :DD
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:
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:51:26 PM
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?
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. :)
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:43:04 PM
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
Quote from: hadrian on June 17, 2015, 08:07:25 PM
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:Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:51:26 PM
Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?
Hopefully you'll be around the forum some more?
As much as I would have loved to complete my wish list (of nearly a million names), I completely understand the concerns, and this solution is fair.
I'll be around! :)
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:51:26 PM
The only reason I spent that BTS was to get the names as-is. Don't you think changing the rules and taking people's assets (in this case the names) goes against the entire spirit of a blockchain system?
Migrating the names with a prefix makes them useless to me.
Although I wouldn't be happy, I could understand a rule that *future* registrations would not keep the name. But to take away the ones I've already registered is really crappy.
Would you also take someone's BTS because it was sold to them at a cost too low for to support the network?
The entire protocol is still under review and no rule is set in stone is it? Nothing is set in stone just as if there was a bug that requires fixing. The protocol is being tweaked and updated all the time. I think it's safe to assume that the first major solidifying of the protocol will happen when the community migrates to the hard fork. After that delegates can still offer changes to the system under DPOS so the idea that 'rules have changed' doesn't make sense. It's like saying Bitcoin's change of block sizes goes against the spirit of blockchains? Do you really believe that?
I'm all for self-interest and I think your actions highlight an obvious flaw in the name distribution system. I think someone should tip you some BTS. Anyways it seems the names are grandfathered in?
I would make the rules: 8+ names AND a number are free ...
Quote from: merivercap on June 17, 2015, 08:25:16 PM
...
I would make the rules: 8+ names AND a number are free ...
This is worth considering as a pragmatic stopgap measure until 2.0
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.
Quote from: Riverhead on June 17, 2015, 08:35:03 PM
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.
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Quote from: Riverhead on June 17, 2015, 08:35:03 PM
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.
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 08:45:34 PM
Quote from: Riverhead on June 17, 2015, 08:35:03 PM
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.
I'm curious to see how you make out with the names. The whole name transfer thing in general will be fun to watch.
Quote from: vikram on June 17, 2015, 07:50:59 PM
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).
Quote from: arhag on June 17, 2015, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: vikram on June 17, 2015, 07:50:59 PM
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.
Quote from: vikram on June 17, 2015, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: arhag on June 17, 2015, 08:50:09 PM
Quote from: vikram on June 17, 2015, 07:50:59 PM
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.
I concur. Glad to see this issue nipped in the bud, at least until the DNS considerations have been thoroughly understood. Like to see indolering weigh in on this.
@indolering, what say you?
Quote from: merivercap on June 17, 2015, 08:25:16 PM
...
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?
...
Technically you are perhaps correct.
But the gains from blocking these names from entering 2.0 would have been small compared with the
potential harm to our network effect if we had done this.
We could end up with a scenario whereby we get a reputation for "ganging up on someone and stealing their accounts against their will". Or perhaps worse, "BitShares boss bans person from opening accounts" (how very centralized).
We will do very well to avoid this kind of trouble, and have reached the best solution.
QuoteBank closes account of person buying bitcoins
isn't too dissimilar to
QuoteBitShares closes accounts of person who paid for too many of them
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.
Wow I can't believe I misread the migration rules. I thought the intent was to not create new squatters.
Selling names was literally the whole reason I joined BTS originally, can't believe I blew my chance
Quote from: toast on June 17, 2015, 10:32:35 PM
Wow I can't believe I misread the migration rules. I thought the intent was to not create new squatters.
It was. Some guy cheated the system and apparently still gets to keep his names.
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on June 17, 2015, 10:55:39 PM
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
That name does not fit my interest list and I did not register it. In fact, unless it happened recently, I don't think anyone has registered it. Register it by midnight US eastern, or register it using the faucet.
Quote from: Riverhead on June 17, 2015, 08:35:03 PM
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.
Sorry for both changing the subject and being picky here but this 'live site' is down for me for about 9h now.
And yes I cannot overstate how weird it is for the 4-8 biggest crypto to have only one blockexplorer....
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 17, 2015, 12:21:38 PM
$2000 user names from this character.
interesting, how did you arrive at this figure (even facetiously)?
I believe that he is referring to the guy who owns bitshares.com who is currently holding out for....
(http://www.cyber-m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/billion-10.jpg)
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on June 17, 2015, 10:55:39 PM
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 thought it was one of us and was about to tell you we'd give it to you when 2.O comes out, however I just checked our marketing wallet and nope, it wasn't anyone here.
Quote from: tonyk on June 17, 2015, 11:25:46 PM
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.
Quote from: hadrian on June 17, 2015, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: NameNarwhal on June 17, 2015, 07:43:04 PM
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
I had another idea!
I listened to this hangout (https://soundcloud.com/beyond-bitcoin-hangouts/beyond-bitcoin-06-12-2015-dev-hangout-s3) earlier today. Bytemaster (should 'bytemaster' be capitalized at the beginning of a sentence?) said they were considering giving people life memberships if they give $50 to Cryptonomex.
@NameNarwhal - would it be worth upgrading all of your accounts to life memberships at this cheap rate, in order to make them more valuable? How much would you end up giving to Cryptonomex!? :P
@everyone - has there been any more mention of this 'special offer' since the hangout?
Quote from: Ander on June 17, 2015, 11:48:06 PM
Quote from: tonyk on June 17, 2015, 11:25:46 PM
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
I just cut this off bsb under network health: 2829313
Under blocks it is:
2,829,423 Jun 17, 2015 7:16:00 PM valzav.payroll.testz 7 0.70 BTS Account registration (7) 0.70 BTS
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 17, 2015, 11:35:51 PM
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 17, 2015, 12:21:38 PM
$2000 user names from this character.
interesting, how did you arrive at this figure (even facetiously)?
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.
Quote from: tonyk on June 17, 2015, 11:58:20 PM
Quote from: Ander on June 17, 2015, 11:48:06 PM
Quote from: tonyk on June 17, 2015, 11:25:46 PM
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
It's slowly working it's way through the blocks now, it had gotten stuck somehow :(
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 07:47:05 PM
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?
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 18, 2015, 12:05:57 AM
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.
if you don't mind answering, was it .com and how many chars?
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 18, 2015, 12:14:10 AM
Quote from: bytemaster on June 17, 2015, 07:47:05 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: giant middle finger on June 18, 2015, 12:22:47 AM
Why did you make name registration free in the first place?
That was "many names ago" (
how we talk of BitShares in our teepee), but for some reason I remember something about it being done to basically get things off the ground, get transactions going, get the system going, get something going???
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 17, 2015, 10:31:58 PM
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%
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
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?
deadline changed？？？？
USER STATS
Number of accounts: 86,148
Number of sub-accounts: 671
New accounts last 24h: 48,602
New accounts last 7d: 48,908
the deadline changed？？？ jun 8→ jun 17 ?
for migrate bts1.0 id to bts2.0 with no BTS- Prefix
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 18, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
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
Quote from: vikram on June 18, 2015, 03:06:25 AM
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 18, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
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.
Quote from: vikram on June 18, 2015, 03:06:25 AM
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 18, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
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"
Quote from: cgafeng on June 18, 2015, 03:23:53 AM
Quote from: vikram on June 18, 2015, 03:06:25 AM
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 18, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
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
Quote from: Riverhead on June 18, 2015, 03:38:37 AM
Quote from: cgafeng on June 18, 2015, 03:23:53 AM
Quote from: vikram on June 18, 2015, 03:06:25 AM
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 18, 2015, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 01:11:50 AM
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
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.
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
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 08:16:16 AM
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.
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 07:13:27 AM
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
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 07:13:27 AM
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.
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 07:13:27 AM
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.
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 09:17:40 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 07:13:27 AM
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.
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 09:56:21 AM
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 09:17:40 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 07:13:27 AM
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.
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 10:06:14 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 09:56:21 AM
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 09:17:40 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 09:15:58 AM
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
Quote from: logxing on June 18, 2015, 07:13:27 AM
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.
Quote from: giant middle finger on June 18, 2015, 12:22:47 AM
Why did you make name registration free in the first place?
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/O0oo0.gif)
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.
Quote from: Empirical1 on August 18, 2014, 03:02:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 10, 2015, 05:07:59 PM
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.
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 10:06:14 AM
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.
I'm gonna post this even though arhag's better post appeared while I typed:
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)
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 12:39:28 PM
I'm gonna post this even though arhag's better post appeared while I typed:
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)
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 ..
Quote from: Erlich Bachman on June 18, 2015, 01:17:07 PM
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 12:39:28 PM
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?
Yep, I could have phrased it better - BitShares DOES have this feature as of 2.0
Quote from: xeroc on June 18, 2015, 01:21:13 PM
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 ..
Yeah, there are loads of ways to implement security which are enabled in 2.0, such as that which you mention.
Even with the function you mentioned, over time, multiple keys can leak in various ways. For this reason the ability to start again with new keys is important.
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 17, 2015, 10:31:58 PM
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 second that, they should be prevented from being transferred. As far as rule changes goes, there has been so big changes (merger, anyone?) this is hardly anything.
Letting him steal the names and get away with it sits wrong with me.
EDIT: I think names should be made nontransferable like before. In fact, do away with names entirely, it just leads to people getting scammed.
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 18, 2015, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: sumantso on June 18, 2015, 02:06:12 PM
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!
plus all the other crypto's that offer transferable names. :D
I don't think this will be abused. you should always use escrow when doing trades for example. maybe we could hire a worker to check for account transfers and give a warning before you send something to a name about recent transfers
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 18, 2015, 02:20:52 PM
Quote from: sumantso on June 18, 2015, 02:06:12 PM
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!
Everyone's entitled to their opinion and others have held similar postions to Sumantso.
Quote from: bitcoinerS on August 03, 2014, 10:20:10 AM
What if account names were transferable and maybe even tradable?
Quote from: bytemaster on August 03, 2014, 04:23:13 PM
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.
I personally am glad names are transferrable & tradeable now and think it's a good edition.
Transferable name is a big mistake. It will be clear soon or later.
It is not about freedom, or technical demonstration, or what the other crypto done.
It is about a reasonable Identity System design.
Identity System is very important feature of BitShares. BitShares is a very serious Finance Platform, right?
Transferable name feature is a unnecessary hazard. The fee is meaningless if you consider the risk.
I beg DEV team review this topic again prudently.
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 18, 2015, 02:31:42 PM
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!
I sense your true feelings are being suppressed. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel! :D
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
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 18, 2015, 02:56:57 PM
Posting on this forum to dismantle a competitive advantage is:
"constructive criticism!" LOL
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 18, 2015, 03:50:07 PM
Quote from: maqifrnswa on June 18, 2015, 03:32:47 PM
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)
If I go AWOL, I do understand the grief and pain it will undoubtedly inflict on the psyche of all internet users, but that is besides the point and a burden I live with every day.
I think you're playing with strawmen a bit much. The question isn't just business, but technical - both must be balanced. It may be possible that the better business decision is to protect the technology while it is in specification discussions even if it means a single user loses money on a bad bet (the bet was that the specification wouldn't change before implementation, which is counting your chickens before they are hatched)
I'm not saying shut anything down, just an honest academic question. Which blockchain/business is better:
one where you can register any name at market value, but that "screwed" one person while the protocol was still in discussion and not implemented yet
OR
one where it is forever impossible to register ~40-80k names because they are lost forever, but kept it's principles and let someone lose those names. And this includes
molecatcher, which would be a catchy name for an exterminator service.
At the same time, and I repeat:
As long as narwal actually creates a market for them and works to develop the infrastructure that can support it, good for him/her.EDIT: speaking of business 101... It's not uncommon for performance metrics when granted a license. Narwal has purchased a license to all those names; I wouldn't be opposed to a performance clause on the usage of those names. Imagine if someone registered citibank for 0.10BTS and then never logs in again. That would significantly hurt the blockchain and bitshares. About "accepting profits," if I was to go to citibank and give them $100, do you think they will give me their building in Manhattan? I guess they skipped business 101 as well.
Maybe the Narwhal could be persuaded to relinquish the names if we ask nicely. Maybe the Narwhal would be receptive to a decent discussion with a representative from the BitShares community. Maybe a compromise could be reached whereby the Narwhal could agree to forgo migration of the majority of the names they've registered.
Has this even been attempted?
Mr or Mrs Narwhal - has anyone tried this yet? Would you consider giving up some names?
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
Quote from: allseeinguy on June 18, 2015, 07:05:37 PM
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?
I'm not saying he or she should surrender the names. That doesn't mean we cannot ask. If we could reach a voluntary agreement with which he or she would be happy, then wouldn't that be a good outcome?
In a democratic system, by the way, rule of the majority can apply. Democracy applied in this instance could lead to the majority 'legitimately' ganging up on NameNarwhal and not allow him or her to keep the names in BitShares 2.0.
I have already spoken up against this sort of action, as I think it harmful. (I do, by the way understand people's counter-arguments and sympathise with them to a point).
Quote from: fav on June 18, 2015, 07:15:47 PM
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
+5% +5%
Interesting discussion. Looks like one worth bringing up tomorrow. Something here needs fixed.
We should be prepared for things like this in the future because it will not doubt require a worker payment proposal to get fixes such as these implemented. We should also ensure we have people paid "in house" to try to fix common issues like these...
This thread right here could take up an entire hangout i'm thinking.
For instance--what happens if people start having us pay them to integrate certain things, but intentionally provide backdoors that only a select few know about--thus affecting the network security? Or implementing changes that give them substantial benefits over others moving into the future? Naturally they would try to get paid for this as well, acting as though said changes only have one effect---a beneficial one.
So:
1) we should hire workers with the expectation that we might have to fire them
2) we should have workers who are trusted within the community who are here to fix issues if someone gets a worker proposal to change something, which turns out to have negative consequences---and rather than fixing it, they leave.
This is stuff our community should be considering. What happens if Bytemaster and the crew 3-4 years from now no longer have the desire to fix these problems due to any number of issues? Will it happen? Maybe not...maybe so. We should regardless begin thinking now about this type of stuff...or potentially suffer from some of the same issues we see Bitcoin suffering from today.
One thing is for sure--we have the basic infrastructure to solve these problems by consensus. Which is FAR improved from the current design of Bitcoin, where people like Gavin can make decisions themselves. This is one good thing about Bytemaster and the team starting to step away as the sole potential team of contributors who can work on and improve BitShares as a platform.
And we have no shortage of people who can help...and are trusted members of the community ;)
Quote from: allseeinguy on June 18, 2015, 07:05:37 PM
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?
It has little to do with "democracy". I see you are a new account--are you the one who did this?
Now with that said, I see no reason why we as a community couldnt expect to retroactively change the policy so each name registration costs a certain amount (which would need to be quite a bit more than it is at present). Then we get the best of both worlds---if the guy (or girl) in question really wants alllll these accounts, then he/she will gladly pay the substantially increased amount for each. Otherwise, he/she loses all accounts NOT registered under a new fee structure after a specified period of time.
This becomes fair to both us and to the person who did this. The fact of the matter is that we as a community have to make the decisions on how to move BitShares forward...and sometimes that will mean we have to make decisions that clean up mistakes that were once unknown but become obvious due to malicious use of the structures in place. Why? Because in the end if this person owns 100's of thousands of names, it neither helps the owner of all those accounts...nor does it help the BitShares environment.
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. So the minority could quite easily create another chain and reward in a way that makes the chain reflect certain rules. "CapitalistShares" here we come! And then he can keep said names that were registered there!
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?
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 08:06:25 PM
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. :)
Quote from: fuzzy on June 18, 2015, 08:15:19 PM
Quote from: hadrian on June 18, 2015, 08:06:25 PM
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. :)
+5%
It'd be excellent to achieve such an outcome. It's certainly worth discussing if NameNarwhal is willing.
By the way @NameNarwhal, in a mumble session you can do any combination of listen, type messages, and speak.
This is a quote from you and it's pretty positive.
QuoteI 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.
It'd be fantastic to hear more from 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..
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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..
+5%
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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 tend to agree.
But excluding his accounts on migration would really be worst for Bitshares than having a squatter who has 30k-40k names registered. There would be a whole crew spamming out there against Bitshares on all the forums and medias, causing a lot of damages to Bitshares' image.
So basically he got away with because he found a loophole in the way the rules were set up. Good for him. Now let's just focus on making sure Bitshares' ship is tight and that kind of situation won't happen in the future.
I think you're all missing a really critical question here.
Will The Narwhals be receiving some compensation from @NameNarwhal's name horde?
@NameNarwhal is usurping the noble name of the Narwahl for their own profit seeking, internet based enterprise, while the Narwhals very existence is being threatened through poaching, arctic oil exploration, and climate change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpSn6wicIck
Narwahls, to my knowledge, have not adopted the arcane human-built 'internet' protocol. Preferring instead the original open source frequencies used by their species for the last ten million years. http://narwhalnewsnetwork.com/what-does-a-narwhal-sound-like/
So what will it be @NameNarwhal, what portion of your proceeds will you earmark for for the Narwhal Advocacy Coalition which you are about to found?
Not to mention if the Narwhal goes extinct, your brand name is going to be really sad... at that point you may as well just go with @DodoDomains.
Sorry pal, your name is now inexorably tied to the Narwhal.
Thanks in advance for saving the Narwhal, all the best!
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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. :)
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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.
If it is more costly to register these names or migrate them to 2.0 than the fees he was charged to do so, that should have been considered and thought through better. I see no reason to blame NameNarWhal for the lack of planning and forethought of CNX, or for that matter anyone else on this forum that had several days to see this possibility.
I think bytemaster took the appropriate reactionary steps to nip this oversight in the bud, and NameNarWhal agreed it was fair. So I say don't chastise someone for taking the entrepreneurial initiative and investing his time and money to try to earn a buck. If he fails, that's on him. If we try to enact some retroactive rule to cover our mistake that's on us. Not only does that set a bad precedent, it impugns our integrity. If we make a mistake that requires such action we'd better be able to show how NOT imposing such a retroactive rule would cause the ecosystem or actual people irreparable harm. Even if such action is deemed necessary restitution is owed to anyone that is damaged by the rule reversal.
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!
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 19, 2015, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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. :)
WELL SAID! +5%
Quote from: Thom on June 19, 2015, 12:12:07 AM
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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.
+5%
Squatters are just property speculators.
Now that BTS property is transferrable, there will be speculators.
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.
Quote from: Thom on June 19, 2015, 12:19:39 AM
Quote from: DataSecurityNode on June 19, 2015, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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%
You guys must have missed the merger.
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/advice 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.
Quote from: Ander on June 17, 2015, 08:13:36 PM
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. :)
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
Squatters don't deserve any respect..
<very long diatribe> ... </very long diatribe> :-\
such label. very wantrepreneur.
Quote from: svk on June 18, 2015, 10:54:29 PM
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..
+5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
Quote from: BitcoinJesus2.O on June 18, 2015, 02:56:57 PM
Posting on this forum to dismantle a competitive advantage is:
__________________(500BTS Bounty for best answer)_____________
__SNAFU__
Quote from: Methodise on June 19, 2015, 12:54:43 AM
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.
I'm not squatting. I was legitimately trying to safeguard my own business names. My surname.
Just musing on the topic, what if -
- randomly allocated (and meaningless) IDs or aliases are provided by default at network cost (i.e. "free")
- user-defined account aliases all have a cost based on form, with pricing accounting for demand and scarcity.
When do we start banning multiple account names on the forum??? Let's get a new thread going on that. All these sockpuppet accounts are being hoarded daily! Someone's obviously trying to corner teh market and it's causing people to get scammed (it could happen). One day, these forum name squatters will probably start selling these premium forum names and once they've proven the business model works, watch out world! We are going to be forum name spammed like it's 6-8-15!
Quote from: Thom on June 19, 2015, 12:12:07 AM
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.
But just as with everything it could become easier over time as tools are constructed to accomplish it (of there is a need). As much as I love bitshares, I do not want there to be only one badass chain like it because then we slowly gravitate right back to where we are today...only this time we are the "ruling elite" so we need to make sure multiple chains exist that take different paths philosophically.
Do you really think that people are incapable of forking over issues that represent very big divides? Do you think you could be a bit more respectful in how you give your response? I assure you I've been around all year and have been talking to multiple devs who are interested in making other dpos chains...
When did we go from a community that wanted to see many flourishing, competing DACs to just wanting to see only one?
Quote from: fuzzy on June 19, 2015, 03:00:10 AM
Quote from: Thom on June 19, 2015, 12:12:07 AM
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.
Quote from: fuzzy on June 18, 2015, 07:33:51 PM
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.
Quote from: fuzzy on June 19, 2015, 03:00:10 AM
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.
I haven't read through all 11 pages of this so I apologize if someone already mentioned this:
Bitshares 2.0, or Graphene, is a different chain created by Cryptonomex. They're sales pitch to jump chains is to share drop 100% onto BTS holders and also have all of the core team. All well and good. The takeaway is that it's a new chain with new rules, etc. The names Narwhal has registered will still be alive and well on the BTS blockchain. Granted, that chain is going to be a ghost town until someone decides to pick it back up again to compete with Graphene, but the names will all be there safe and sound.
From what I understand Bitshares 2.0 is still in the proposal stages and things are changing. I don't think there is any sense of, "They closed all my accounts!" since they aren't closed; they're just on a dead chain. Granted it is effectively the same thing.
While I am not a fan of squatters that doesn't mean I have the right to unfairly punish them when they haven't broken any rules. However, if we want to get all nit picky and lawyery about it and say he hasn't done anything wrong because it wasn't coded out then my above paragraph is also true.
Frankly I don't care one way or the other. The best use case for BTS so far is as a backend protocol where no one sees the account names anyway. A simple (in concept) design change to separate account names from DNS names and that could be that.
If it was a thread about rolling back his account names on the BTS1 chain I'd be 100% against it for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. Given the upgrade situation things are a bit less cut and dry.
Carry on.
Quote from: starspirit on June 19, 2015, 03:08:59 AM
Quote from: fuzzy on June 19, 2015, 03:00:10 AM
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.
I don't understand where this convo is going.
Stan already stated very clearly there are options for licensing and certain instances where it just makes sense.
Peertracks is now creating another chain.. so we are already going into 2.0 with more than one.
I think there is some kind of confusion over practical application for where another chain implementation makes sense, and the idealism of being able to do it out of some kind of protest.
The fact is that there is so much utility now to 2.0 that there are not a whole lot of use cases for why you would want to go to all the expense and difficulties of creating another and getting another dev team to work on it.
Perhaps in the early days because it was so under developed, the hope was that other devs would create other chains and a swarm of developers would make the whole of bitshares grow.. that was the ideal of the experiment.. result after all this time?
Experiment failed.
There was not enough devs and interest in the whole thing to make such a swarm and a bunch of innovation.
The 'ideal' sounds nice.. so does the equality of men and women, the elimination of all forms of prejudice, and universal language and education for all. But the practical delivery of realizing all these things is an uphill battle that only the few are willing to endure without some very clear huge payoff in the end. While the many will just go to paypal and watch from the sidelines.
I think you will continue to see multiple chains, there is just less reasons to go to so much trouble.
Quote from: Thom on June 19, 2015, 12:12:07 AM
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)
Quote from: fav on June 19, 2015, 04:45:24 AM
Quote from: Thom on June 19, 2015, 12:12:07 AM
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%
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.
Quote from: onceuponatime on June 19, 2015, 05:03:43 AM
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.
Well, the blockchain doesn't care about individuals. it's based on a certain ruleset, everyone can work with this as they see fit. forking to reverse this would mean we're no better than ripple and the negative PR and shitstorm would hurt us all long term.
BitShares is for traders - personal gain is simply natural in this environment.
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.
People respond to incentives. If you create an incentive for squatting, you'll get squatting. It is that simple. I'm a little surprised that we had to wait for several days to first squatter to come.
My two ideas on this:
- 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.
Quote from: Samupaha on June 19, 2015, 07:35:04 AM
- 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?
That is already possible with Graphene. You can charge a different fee depending on the number of characters in the name up to 8 characters (after that it is non-premium and the cost is fixed).
Quote from: Samupaha on June 19, 2015, 07:35:04 AM
- 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.
The way I see it there are three significant economic models for names (there are infinite variations of course, but these are the three that are most important in my opinion):
- Pay a fee to register a name where the fee price is determined by an algorithm and not by the market (the algorithm could be as simple as a fixed fee, or it can charge different prices based on character length like Graphene does today), and then you fully own that name forever with no other costs (maybe a very small fixed "I'm still alive" fee every year).
- Use an auction to determine the initial price of a new name (or a name that has since been lost due to the owner not paying the small fixed "I'm still alive" fee), but after the name is sold, the owner gets to fully own that name forever with no other costs (other than the small fixed "I'm still alive" fee).
- Use a leasing model. The "owner" of a name does not truly own it. They initially use an auction to buy a limited time lease to control the name and the right to extend the lease without disruption. However, each time they get the opportunity to re-extend the lease, they need to pay a fee for the extension that is determined by market forces. An auction system could allow the blockchain to know what the market value of the lease extension would be, and it would require the current lease owner to pay some fraction (perhaps 100%) of that price before their lease expires to extend their lease or else they forfeit the lease to the highest bidder at the end of their lease.
We can implement any subset (including all three) of these economic models. However, each of them require their own namespace. This means the same name can exist in all three economic models and they are disambiguated by the namespace they belong in.
My thoughts are that we should have at most two namespaces (one for domain names and potentially one for account names). I think economic model 1 or 2 is appropriate for account names (if we even have any) and economic model 2 or 3 is appropriate for domain names. Domain names could also have a "default account" parameter that points to an account ID. Therefore, even if we get rid of account names, domain names could still be used as a sort of account name for those who choose to pay the cost of maintaining them (the rest of the people wouldn't bother with account names which as I have discussed elsewhere (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,17043.msg218102.html#msg218102) aren't actually necessary).
My first preference is to have account names follow economic model 1 (despite the squatting potential) and domain names follow economic model 3. My second preference is to have account names follow economic model 2 and domain names follow economic model 3. My third preference is the get rid of account names and only have domain names following economic model 3. My fourth preference is to get rid of account names and only have domain names following economic model 2.
One other possibility is to mix economic models in the same namespace depending on how an algorithm classifies the name. For example, we could have domain names follow economic model 3, but account names would either follow economic model 1 or 2 depending on the length of the name. An account name that is 10 characters or longer could follow economic model 1, but account names that are less than 10 characters long would follow economic model 2.
@arhag : does you get an info under your profile tab, that i was mentioned you here with @mentions plugin?
Quote from: cass on June 19, 2015, 08:35:46 AM
@arhag : does you get an info under your profile tab, that i was mentioned you here with @mentions plugin?
Nice! I did. +5%
Quote from: puppies on June 19, 2015, 06:08:02 AM
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.
+5% this is my concern, well articulated. Has nothing to do with narwhal, he can keep names or not, whatever, but this is the problem I see with the system thanks to narwhal illustrating it.
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.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 19, 2015, 03:20:59 PM
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.
Very important distinction between democracy, and voting based upon stake. I also agree wholeheartedly that BitShares should not change the rules often.
The question of property rights brings up an interesting idea. If 90% of users fork the blockchain, and write the balances of the other 10% out of the blockchain, have they violated the property rights of the 10%. All they have done is change the code that is running on their computers. The 10% are still free to run their own old code. I don't think classic ideas of property rights apply. Exercising my valid property rights on my property should never violate someone elses property.
Rather than property rights, I consider it a promise from the network. Of course violating this promise would be a terrible idea. As far as I can tell, all cryptos derive their value (market cap) directly from this promise from the network. I am just not sure that my ownership of my BTS which is on the distributed blockchain can be derived from first principles. At least not in the same way that my ownership of the laptop I am typing on can be.
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.
Quote from: Methodise on June 19, 2015, 04:35:21 PM
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.
when did you register your names?
Quote from: Methodise on June 19, 2015, 04:35:21 PM
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.
Quote from: puppies on June 19, 2015, 04:51:01 PM
Quote from: Methodise on June 19, 2015, 04:35:21 PM
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.
@Methodise
puppies is right. Nothing was changed retroactively. See here (https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/migrating-to-bitshares-2.0/#account-name-migration).
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 19, 2015, 12:44:50 AM
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.
*typing out loud*(http://i.imgur.com/4OXwPt1.jpg) 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?
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/Vf2BQVQ.jpg)
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 20, 2015, 05:38:11 AM
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 19, 2015, 12:44:50 AM
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.
....
Your thought process is a bit hard to follow, so apologies if I misunderstood some of your points.
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 20, 2015, 05:38:11 AMmaybe 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?
No they didn't think of it before I did.
Quote from: Empirical1 on August 18, 2014, 03:02:22 PM
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.
So the issue is that BTS shareholders would be underpaid & BTS accounts would be far less user friendly & attractive to the average customer if squatters had scooped up millions (That was his goal) of non premium names.
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 20, 2015, 05:38:11 AM
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)
No, you make a false assumption that raising the price from $0.001 is going to make non-premium names completely unattractive. In reality there is a price that is fair for customers but yet will discourage the majority of squatters. (It's also not going to make premium names worth particularly more or less imo.)
Quote from: Tuck Fheman on June 20, 2015, 05:38:11 AM
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.
Yes believe it or not that's how markets work. His ultimate selling price will be determined not by what he paid but what the market is willing to pay.
Example... If you buy an ounce of gold for $8000 which the market values at only $1200, good luck finding buyers at $8100 just because that's closer to what you paid :)
So the goal with the premium names, if we were forced to also used a fixed price strategy is not to undersell them. This would lose BTS shareholders money, make our namespace less attractive and potentially give someone a monopoly over it. At the same time if you overcharge you will not even attract people that genuinely want that name specifically for themselves or their business.
I'm sure there are better strategies but my suggestion for premium names is...
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on June 10, 2015, 05:07:59 PM
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.)