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: 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.

I believe that he is referring to the guy who owns bitshares.com who is currently holding out for....

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)?

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: 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: 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.

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

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.

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

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: 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, 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: 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: 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.