We don’t need to worry about numeric collisions with 3 letter asset names (as long as they don’t start with A).
The numeric collision issue was with adding assets that start with the letter A.
1 Like
Just made some tests. My reasoning of asset space collision has been proved wrong.
- Numeric collision is inexistent, LLL names go from id 676 to 17576.
- Numeric address space starts from id number 95428956661682177 which is way off from this 3 letter asset space.
In conclusion, my main hold back that was space collision can be dropped, it’s just a matter of good old gold rush money grab now.
2 Likes
It seems to me that if we open up 3 letter assets now, there will be a “land grab” for assets like USD or ICO.
How do we prevent this? Should we prevent this?
Maybe make 3 letter assets way pricier than normal assets? Although for me I would be ok with the gold Rush like land grab, would be fun watching 8450 xcp burning ($160k burn at current prices).
This comment will probably look funnier in the future with xcp at $100-$300 levels
Some 3 letter assets are way more valuable than others.
I keep thinking an auction is the right mechanic here, but that would be difficult to do on-chain.
A VM would help 
1 Like
I am glad that numeric asset ID collisions is in fact not a technical issue to overcome.
I do not think that any names should be reserved, beyond XCP and BTC, which are already reserved. I think a land rush or homesteading approach is the precedent for Counterparty and it is a proven one. It’s a strong attractor for new projects and users.
Anything else seems market interventionist to some extent and I don’t think that fits in a decentralized protocol.
In regards to assets like LTC or ETH and scamming or confusion, I don’t think this is a matter to be addressed at the protocol level. Experience: I own IOTA and ZCASH.
In regards to assets being more valuable than others, that’s how it’s always been. Asset names are not fungible, they are unique. Experience: I don’t own GOLD.
I suggested 10 XCP for LLL registration fees earlier, but given the rise in the XCP and BTC price, and the history of Counterparty, I think the standard 0.5 XCP is simple and least controversial.
I have proposed a separate, but related CIP that I think addresses the matter of price discovery, re: asset name ownership. If you’re following this proposal, please consider my new proposal here to allow the trust-less sale and transfer of asset ownership via a new decentralized marketplace.
1 Like
It may take time to do right, but doing a dutch-style blind auction is ultimately the most fair
That’s how the ENS did (does) it.
While I’d prefer to continue allocating my time, energy and attention towards making art, I simply can’t let the LLL issue slide by without expressing my concerns.
It’s obvious to me what’s going on here. The devil is in the details. When I see a fox in the hen house, I shoot to kill. But I’ll refrain from critiquing the authors and focus on their idea.
Even if the reg fee is 10 XCP per asset, every single one of the 16,900 possible LLL assets will get bought up by $peculators as fast as technology will allow.
The first land-rush will be to register the LLL assets that mimic all 3 letter ticker symbols currently in use by the companies that are listed on Coin Market Cap and The Dow Jones index.
The second land-rush will be to register all of the dictionary LLL’s.
The third grab will be to buy up all of the LLL’s that remain.
At the proposed 10XCP reg fee and with current prices of XCP being $20 per unit, it’ll only cost about $3.5m to register all of the possible LLL’s.
Other than the obvious concerns surrounding LLL asset hoarding by BTC/XCP whales there are far greater negative consequences that will follow, resulting in irreversible damage to Counterparty’s reputation when, not if, the LLL asset class is exploited by scammers. LLL asset issuance is basically a squatter/spammer’s wet dream and swings the door wide open for bad actors to flood in.
Introducing LLL asset registration simply because it is technically feasible is not a good enough reason to do so. Before such a controversial, ‘high-risk for all - high reward for few’ feature — not improvement — is ever implemented on the Counterparty platform, the pros, cons and unintended consequences (which imo far outweigh any possible positive effects that could come of this) need to be better understood by performing thorough, multi-party research, then publishing these results and conducting an extended RFC.
2 Likes
It’s obvious to me what’s going on here. The devil is in the details. When I see a fox in the hen house, I shoot to kill. But I’ll refrain from critiquing the authors and focus on their idea.
I would appreciate if you would submit your dissent without threats or libel.
Even if the reg fee is 10 XCP per asset, every single one of the 16,900 possible LLL assets will get bought up by $peculators as fast as technology will allow.
The first land-rush will be to register the LLL assets that mimic all 3 letter ticker symbols currently in use by the companies that are listed on Coin Market Cap and The Dow Jones index.
The second land-rush will be to register all of the dictionary LLL’s.
The third grab will be to buy up all of the LLL’s that remain.
At the proposed 10XCP reg fee and with current prices of XCP being $20 per unit, it’ll only cost about $3.5m to register all of the possible LLL’s.
Sounds like usage to me. Speculation boostraps network effect. What use is legitimate is a subjective thing and probably not a concern for protocol level development.
It would certainly not cost only $3.5m. You can see very clearly by looking at XCP balances that no one owns anywhere near that amount of XCP. The market dynamics will be sufficient to address this concern.
Furthermore, there are only 70,000 assets registered after four years. So, it seems to be very bullish that you think 17,000 will get immediately registered. I’m not really sure it’s based in any historical data though.
Other than the obvious concerns surrounding LLL asset hoarding by BTC/XCP whales there are far greater negative consequences that will follow, resulting in irreversible damage to Counterparty’s reputation when, not if, the LLL asset class is exploited by scammers. LLL asset issuance is basically a squatter/spammer’s wet dream and swings the door wide open for bad actors to flood in.
This seems alarmist, at best. Counterparty is a platform for permissionless finance. If “XCP whales” want to trade their liquid XCP for illiquid asset names, they must have a great deal of faith in the long-term prospects of the protocol.
Introducing LLL asset registration simply because it is technically feasible is not a good enough reason to do so. Before such a controversial, ‘high-risk for all - high reward for few’ feature — not improvement — is ever implemented on the Counterparty platform, the pros, cons and unintended consequences (which imo far outweigh any possible positive effects that could come of this) need to be better understood by performing thorough, multi-party research, then publishing these results and conducting an extended RFC.
Where is the high risk for a permissionless finance platform to adopt the standard ticker symbol format, familiar to all who trade on exchanges?
You yourself have “squatted” more than 100 asset names. JDog, I believe, has more than 8000 names. I have 1000 names. People registering asset names is a long-term investment in the platforms future, as they are illiquid. Often, once registering unused asset names, people find their incentives aligned for the long-term.
I would like to add a few points.
Subassets is a thing that we added which allowed for arbitrary strings for asset names, like ASSET.WHAT01.DA.FACK.123.$500. It was reasonably discussed and put into the code. It complicated the codebase a great deal and made the UI design for sites and apps supporting Counterparty much harder. But we discussed it reasonably.
I had concerns about scams and bad uses, for example, if someone owned the top-level asset and they let people register subassets and then they stole the best idea and implemented it as the top-level asset. The top-level asset owner could say, “Turn in your ASSET.SUCCESSFUL for ASSET at a rate of 2:1. We’re the true vision of this idea we’re stealing.”
But that’s not what’s happened. I was wrong. Subasset names have not been used in this manner. But the proponents of subasset names were also wrong. Only 180 subassets have been registered. We complicated the codebase and how apps implement their UI’s for seeming very, very little new usage.
So, from that experience, I think we should take away that concerns around “bad usage” or “scams” are generally very overstated. And usually deployed by people who are acting more in the capacity of a politician than a developer.
We can observe on other meta-layer protocols, like Omni, that allows three letter asset names that there actually not a big reputation or scam risk to three letter asset names. Please find me examples. This person, for example, has registered: BTC, ETH, LTC, NXT.
Have you heard of many stories where people are getting scammed left and right? I haven’t. I expect no one, literally no one, is going to confused “LTC” on Counterparty for actual LTC on Litecoin. Or “DOW” on Counterparty for actual DOW shares on NASDAQ.
I think simply that allowing three letter asset names is as simple logically and code-wise as ABC. And that projects and, yes, even speculators will find them useful. I think a higher registration fee will address most concerns around “squatting” (usage in my eyes).
Remember that there are only 180 subassets registered and 70,000 or so assets total. I’m not sure why it would be such a bad thing to have people registering three letter asset names. In fact, I think it would be a very good thing.
I think it’s absurd for a protocol to ban words for non-technical reasons, but if it helps assuage concerns (even knowing that it’s not a problem on Omni, and people owning things like BITCOIN on Counterparty hasn’t been a problem), we could reserve the top 50 cryptocurrency tickers by market cap, like ETH, LTC, XMR, etc. I think it’s unnecessary censorship, but I don’t see why a higher registration fee and some restricted asset names doesn’t fully address the issue.
Please use evidence and actual examples, base your argument in the history of observable use and not on your wildest ideas of what could go wrong. You’re arguing against ABC. I don’t get it TBH.
This thread is bound to get heated, as I saw above. Please do not flame me, as I’m genuinely interested in feedback, despite being a “squatter”. I posted the following on Slack and edited a bit here after reading the thread. Everyone is aware of the assets for sale on https://xchain.io. However, the traffic so far for my names has been light and offers woefully low. I look at my assets as an investment to be sold off. I have so many, that I fear a negative effect if I hold them too long. I would love to see more attention to Counterparty, as we all do, and don’t want to be a barrier to entry just because an asset is taken. I do have some questions on the latest push for changes to naming convention, as viewed through the lens of my held assets.
My concern is specifically about the push for 3 letter assets. I’m not necessarily opposed given the caveat that they come with a premium price. However, I believe I will be on the losing end, in that I used the current naming conventions of X preceding assets to designate X as a three letter prefix which could be viewed as a null space in the name. Most of my assets have an X utilized to precede an “A”, some do not. I’m curious what other opinions are bouncing around the platform on the issue of current asset registrations that tried to conform to the generally accepted 4 letter name limit with use of an X. Does anyone support preference in LLL registrations for those XLLL asset owners before opening registrations to the public? I welcome all opinions, especially those critical of my own.
Thanks for bringing your perspective as an asset owner. I think what stands out, and should be made clear to everyone, is that owning asset names has not been a lucrative business. (Please keep that in mind when your “gut” is telling you someone is going to spend millions to register them all.)
That said, it is my view that you are essentially concerned with having your investment diluted. Luckily, you would have the same opportunity to register three letter asset names as anyone else.
This is something that happens in rounds of investing all the time. If you are at risk of being diluted, you can re-invest at the same terms of the new round of investment.
IMO - It would not make sense to add code to Counterparty that gives preferential treatment or special permissions. The proposal as it stands is very minimal coding and would be a land rush equally available to anyone interested.
But to your concern, I think three letter asset names could be an opportunity to reinvigorate use through a new round of speculative investment where some portion of that speculative investment turns into productive use. Where, ideally, a rising tide floats all boats.
New speculators who learn about Counterparty through three letter asset name land rush may also see the value in other names too.
—————
I have a proposal in the idea phase that may interest you where it would be possible to list asset name ownership for sale similar to, but separate from, the dex. Like a decentralized aftermarket.
I think there are many asset owners who would be interested in listing their assets for sale. I know for myself I could sell asset names for less than the current 0.5 XCP registration fee and make a profit because of the shift in USD market prices.
Here’s some charts I put together the other day. May’s data is partial, obviously.
I’ve circled two spots on the issuance chart. There are other waves you could look at also, but these two stand out.
What I see when I look at the first circle is a big wave of asset name registrations that results in a small increase of use. That’s largely a speculative wave. But that’s okay. I think some portion of those asset owners got invested and educated.
The next wave I circle comes 6+ months later. I think it’s probably related to the first wave. I see here speculation turning into productive use. You may disagree. But I think it’s hard to argue that the second circled wave of asset registrations isn’t closely correlated with the dramatic rise in overall usage soon after.
Asset name registration leads to use. I think that’s almost a tautology, but worth stating based on the opinions expressed so far.
You obviously understand that detracts value from what I already own. While I’m not upset about it, we also don’t need to polish the turd. It is true, I would be on the same footing as everyone else. However, it is decidedly unlucky, as my XLLL registrations would become worthless when someone registers the equivalent LLL.
1 Like
I own 1000 asset names myself, most of them four letter. I’m not unaware of this situation. But I also believe that 1% of nothing is nothing and that any efforts to increase use should be embraced. Everyone that speculates on asset names is taking a high risk position. No guarantees to any individuals are made by protocols. Realistically, what do you think your XLLL asset registration are worth today? I think you’d be really interested in the Decentralized Marketplace idea I linked to.
Any proposal to simplify or automate elements of asset purchase transfers is a benefit to the platform. However, I have concerns about the precedent of 3 letter assets. Sub assets added potential value without taking anything from the current asset owners. Going from 4 to 3 damages future value of some 4 letter assets. If the community gets behind it, I have no choice. However, I’ll be less inclined to purchase any, as what’s to stop 2, or 1 letter asset names from being implemented, negating some 3 letter values. I’d like to see some other alphabets implemented, Russian, Indian, Thai, Korean, Japanese, etc.
2 Likes