New accounts last 24h:

[hadrian]

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).

[fav]

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

[allseeinguy]

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?

[hadrian]

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?

[maqifrnswa]

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.

[chryspano]

Posting on this forum to dismantle a competitive advantage is:

"constructive criticism!" LOL

[maqifrnswa]

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

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

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!

[logxing]

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.

[Empirical1.2]

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.

What if account names were transferable and maybe even tradable?

Because account names are the destination address for funds it could result in funds being sent to the wrong person if you transfered the name and everyone that knew you by the old name sent payments to that name.

I personally am glad names are transferrable & tradeable now and think it's a good edition.

[fav]

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.

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

[sumantso]

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.

[hadrian]

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

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.

[xeroc]

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 ..

[hadrian]

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)