Idea: Allow assets starting with A

If we reserve the first 2 bytes for a special A asset marker and use the 3rd byte for a length marker, then any asset ID that starts with 0xfff would become a special A asset.

The asset id encoding format for A assets will be:
0xffff {1 lengthByte} {5 assetIDBytes}

We will need to make an exception for A18446744073709551615 as this action would invalidate this asset: (Or this asset would just turn into the equivalent named A asset )

The new highest numerical asset would be A18446462598732840959.

Not all A assets can be 12 letters long and still be valid. All A assets that are 9 or less characters long will be valid. Some 10, 11 and 12 letter assets that start with A will be invalid.

This is a protocol change and would require a mandatory upgrade for all counterparty nodes.

Thanks to @something for coming up with the variable length idea in the Slack chat.


This is an excellent idea! I fully support allowing named asset registrations that start with A. Nice work @something & @deweller :slight_smile:

I think that in order to be fair to existing asset holders who have registered XA*** assets, there should be a grace period where existing XA* holders can register their A asset before it is open to public registration.

There are 785+ XA* assets registered to date and most appear to be registered in order to reserve “A” words (XAPPLE, XAUCTION, etc). I feel it would be unfair to open up “A” asset registrations to everyone without giving existing XA* asset holders first rights to register their A asset counterpart (APPLE, AUCTION, etc).

I propose that we allow “A” named asset registrations with the additional rule that “APPLE” can only be registered by the address which owns “XAPPLE” for 6 months. If after 6 months the XAPPLE owner has not registered APPLE, then it is available for anyone to register. This should give existing XA* asset holders ample time to register their A assets before other users can register it out from under them.

1 Like

I like this, but the sensitive “DAO” part is we have existing asset owners (although admittedly they’re almost “worthless”, but it’s a matter of principle). Existing asset owners would have to come forward and agree. Thankfully we know their addresses, so in case they’re expropriated without their consent (which would be terrible) a high multiple of the BTC tx fee they paid to register their alphanumeric asset should be sent to their address by the Foundation (from the bounty fund or other proceeds). Still, this would set some nasty precedents.

Clearly some funds would be required to compensate existing asset owners, and some to develop the feature. That is why I propose to auction off ^A assets this way:

  • Open bidding over a 3 month period while the feature is being developed, winning bids have to be funded 2 weeks prior to the activation date (block height)
  • ^XA owners get a 10% discount (so if some asset is bid up to $100, they could buy it by paying $90.01) for the same asset they own but without X (they can broadcast their bidding address via a broadcast from the XA-asset owning address)
  • After the bid has been funded and before activation, the Foundation hard codes this in the source code (obviously they can’t be activated before they can be activated)

I’m just going to post my Slack response here for posterity.

I have many XA assets, a lot more than I initially thought, many that I purposely removed the X in the asset description. Looking at those asset descriptions anyone can tell that the asset name was prefaced with an X intentionally out of necessity. I, speaking for others (?), thought that going forward the X before an A would be the universally accepted naming convention.

When or if this is tackled, I would be in favor of a sunset period for mirrored registrations only, where an identical token name ASSET can be created within the same wallet address as XASSET, maybe for a higher fee of 1 or 2 XCP each. Then at block ???, an open registration at regular prices.

I believe someone else suggested a similar resolution yesterday. While I think that just having the XA asset should not grant me a privilege to register during the sunset period without some sort of higher cost, an auction where I may have to fork over hundreds of XCP to secure a name I thought I secured two years ago, is not an acceptable resolution to me. The community can tell me to go pound sand and I’ll have to accept that outcome. However, I for one will be a little more wary of the CP platform.

Open registration or graduated registration/conversion both pose troubling issues and the fact that everyone seems to be having thoughtful discussions makes me think, no matter what outcome, CP is the place to be. Thank you for considering my opinion.