[quote author=porqupine link=topic=186.msg1350#msg1350 date=1395163405]
I already expressed my disagreement with this on the talk thread, and I’m going to express it again. A high enough fee was not implemented and the asset market is already cluttered with junk.
This is not ‘encouraging an effective and innovative financial marketplace’.
If there is a (significant) demand for issuable assets that are not single issue then it should be a question of whether it is worth filling this demand by creating a second type asset class, not by polluting the only existent asset market with uncontrollable junk.
[/quote]
The great lesson of the Internet is that the junk is a small price to pay for the benefits that come with having a very low barrier of entry.
Wikipedia is (much) better than Brittanica.
Wikipedia is still moderated.
[quote author=porqupine link=topic=186.msg1352#msg1352 date=1395163842]
Wikipedia is still moderated.
[/quote]
Not at the protocol level.
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1353#msg1353 date=1395164247]
[quote author=porqupine link=topic=186.msg1352#msg1352 date=1395163842]
Wikipedia is still moderated.
[/quote]
Not at the protocol level.
[/quote]
Nobody can "squat" a wikipedia page, the people who want to actually do the work supplant them. In your system, people who want to do the work have to convince the person who got there first and so whose address has 100% controls of it (assuming their contact info is available, since this is pseudonymous) to sell it to you first.
I do not think squating is a problem. What is certain is that it does not cause more problems than squating of domain names.
And squating the domain name has not stopped the internet success.
P.S: I sell the asset name GOOGLE for XCP 1000
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1355#msg1355 date=1395164898]
(assuming their contact info is available, since this is pseudonymous)
[/quote]
one can imagine in the future market place specializing in asset names. And perhaps, who knows, the ability to buy and sell names on the DEX …
[quote author=JahPowerBit link=topic=186.msg1367#msg1367 date=1395190993]
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1355#msg1355 date=1395164898]
(assuming their contact info is available, since this is pseudonymous)
[/quote]
one can imagine in the future market place specializing in asset names. And perhaps, who knows, the ability to buy and sell names on the DEX …
[/quote]
This is very compelling. An asset name aggregator and reseller business that simply auctions high-demand names and can generate new sales. This would be a great new startup opportunity in the ecosystem if there enough squatted assets seeking a broker platform.
Excellent idea Jah. Nice.
[quote author=JahPowerBit link=topic=186.msg1366#msg1366 date=1395190550]
And squating the domain name has not stopped the internet success.
P.S: I sell the asset name GOOGLE for XCP 1000
[/quote]
LOL 
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1369#msg1369 date=1395192424]
[quote author=JahPowerBit link=topic=186.msg1366#msg1366 date=1395190550]
And squating the domain name has not stopped the internet success.
P.S: I sell the asset name GOOGLE for XCP 1000
[/quote]
LOL
[/quote]
Hehe, we are entering a new virtual realm here. I offer to buy Jah’s GOOGLE asset for 250 XCP.
As you can see, the GOOGLE asset is now worth at least 250 XCP just because of my offer
Not only that, my offer could indirectly affect the value of XCP and the future of issuance fees.
One can also imagine new opportunities just to support the Counterparty ecosystem itself such as businesses to verify assets, bets, feeds, insurances, etc…
Hmm, if Jah can sell his GOOGLE asset for 250 XCP, this means we should be demanding lower issuance fees now to get a head start on the asset squatting
…
Am I really the only person here who sees the problem? You are incentivizing a squatting goldrush, which is great for the first few users and shit for the next years of them. Counterparty is not the only game in town, but with fees like these it’s certainly going to be the junkiest.
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1372#msg1372 date=1395196284]
…
Am I really the only person here who sees the problem? You are incentivizing a squatting goldrush, which is great for the first few users and shit for the next years of them. Counterparty is not the only game in town, but with fees like these it’s certainly going to be the junkiest.
[/quote]
There are 256^8 = 18446744073709551616 possible asset names, so squatting isn’t a problem. A lower barrier to entry is much more more important than the availability of common English words.
[quote author=AdamBLevine link=topic=186.msg1372#msg1372 date=1395196284]
…
Am I really the only person here who sees the problem? You are incentivizing a squatting goldrush, which is great for the first few users and shit for the next years of them. Counterparty is not the only game in town, but with fees like these it’s certainly going to be the junkiest.
[/quote]
No. I really agree with your points in this thread. I’d prefer the fees to stay at 5 XCP right now.
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1375#msg1375 date=1395196709]
There are 256^8 = 18446744073709551616 possible asset names, so squatting isn’t a problem. A lower barrier to entry is much more more important than the availability of common English words.
[/quote]
I agree that a lower barrier to entry is very important.
But shouldn’t we wait until there are real complaints from users that the fees are too high before reducing it by 10 folds?
[quote author=GLaDOS link=topic=186.msg1378#msg1378 date=1395198146]
[quote author=PhantomPhreak link=topic=186.msg1375#msg1375 date=1395196709]
There are 256^8 = 18446744073709551616 possible asset names, so squatting isn’t a problem. A lower barrier to entry is much more more important than the availability of common English words.
[/quote]
I agree that a lower barrier to entry is very important.
But shouldn’t we wait until there are real complaints from users that the fees are too high before reducing it by 10 folds?
[/quote]
In USD terms, we didn’t reduce the fee—we kept it the same. And I have heard real complaints. I wouldn’t have suggested the change if I hadn’t.
Two points:
1. Domain squatting is worse in the sense that .COM is the only TLD worth having, and there are only so many good .COMs. Google prioritizes “.COM’s” above other TLDs, consumers think in “.COM”, which makes .COM essential for word of mouth, and average computer users type in website.COM sometimes to search for things.
2. The supply of XCP is nearly 10X smaller than BTC’s, and we’ve seen how quickly BTC can rise in price.
Clearing houses and front-ends will be built on top of Counterparty and Mastercoin, and that will be where all the action is for consumers and traders. CPTY “GOOGLE” being squatted isn’t as bad as it seems.
Even if Bitcoin 2.0 devolves into something akin to the domaining industry, that’s a sleazy albeit legitimate industry, and it’s so far worked out ok for the Internet. There’s still plenty of room to get GOOGLECOM GOOGLEX, lots of combinations. That combined with clearing house front ends, and I’m not sweating this decision.
[quote author=Headband link=topic=186.msg1382#msg1382 date=1395199584]
Two points:
1. Domain squatting is worse in the sense that .COM is the only TLD worth having, and there are only so many good .COMs. Google prioritizes “.COM’s” above other TLDs, consumers think in “.COM”, which makes .COM essential for word of mouth, and average computer users type in website.COM sometimes to search for things.
2. The supply of XCP is nearly 10X smaller than BTC’s, and we’ve seen how quickly BTC can rise in price.
Clearing houses and front-ends will be built on top of Counterparty and Mastercoin, and that will be where all the action is for consumers and traders. CPTY “GOOGLE” being squatted isn’t as bad as it seems.
Even if Bitcoin 2.0 devolves into something akin to the domaining industry, that’s a sleazy albeit legitimate industry, and it’s so far worked out ok for the Internet. There’s still plenty of room to get GOOGLECOM GOOGLEX, lots of combinations. That combined with clearing house front ends, and I’m not sweating this decision.
[/quote]
Agreed. +1