I think the best way to do this is to make usernames separate from keys and verification of a key owner's identity more valuable then usage of a username.
1. Duplicates of usernames are ALLOWED (they are not currently) 2. Duplicates of keys are prohibited (as it is now)
3. Anyone can create multiple copies of the username GOOGLE, but only one GOOGLE can be verified, and that verification lives on-chain. 4. Verification is by Associations (as planned, or another method decided by the current stakeholders)
5. Nodes can choose to: a. only display Verified usernames in searches b. allow a toggle for showing unverified usernames in searches c. display a badge for verified usernames
ETH ERC20 tokens, Cardano tokens, and WAVES tokens all allow unlimited duplicate names specifically to prevent name-squatting.
I like unlimited duplicate names. As member.cash covers multiple blockchains, we inevitably get duplicate names. We allow them all. I like the associations helping to indicate which name is most authentic *for you*. I don't like the suggestion of verifying names - this creates a point of centralization.
duplicate usernames i'm btw also against. i see it just getting a fucked chaos (seeing "vetting" as no feasible option whatsoever). i feel it not a good solution overall to tackle an apparent issue (here: name squatting), by introducing more issues. just let it be, guys n gals: humanity isn't good, that's just how that is. we must see to not let this lead to a policing state though, cause that is *much* worse still. introducing all kinds of circumnavigation (here: duplicate usernames) also doesn't sort the issue; it just makes new ones. cc @FreeTrade
while i'm against name squatting (& scams), i'm much more against "vetting", "verification". there are very valid reasons, to exactly not get verified; reasons that have nothing to do with bad intentions. in fact, i see us running into a massive trap, if we buy into the perception that anyone unverified (or unwilling to) is to be approached with suspicion. exactly this thinking is flawed, *very* actually. "verification by association" sounds good, but it won't work in practice. so, while i'm seeing your motivation, i strongly disagree with the suggested.
PREVENTING NAME SQUATTING:
I think the best way to do this is to make usernames separate from keys and verification of a key owner's identity more valuable then usage of a username.
1. Duplicates of usernames are ALLOWED (they are not currently)
2. Duplicates of keys are prohibited (as it is now)
3. Anyone can create multiple copies of the username GOOGLE, but only one GOOGLE can be verified, and that verification lives on-chain.
4. Verification is by Associations (as planned, or another method decided by the current stakeholders)
5. Nodes can choose to:
a. only display Verified usernames in searches
b. allow a toggle for showing unverified usernames in searches
c. display a badge for verified usernames
ETH ERC20 tokens, Cardano tokens, and WAVES tokens all allow unlimited duplicate names specifically to prevent name-squatting.
And here are some resources about this:
ERC20:
ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/24725/are-erc20-token-names-unique
Cardano:
forum.cardano.org/t/unique-token-name/51301
WAVES:
github.com/wavesplatform/waves-documentation/blob/master/en/waves-client/assets-management/issue-an-asset.md
Microsoft XBOX method:
thesun.co.uk/tech/9268049/xbox-gamertag-change-any-name-free/amp
And an overview of options from one of the smartest people in Blockchain (he doesn't mention allowing duplicates for some reason?)
medium.com/edenoneos/how-to-prevent-name-squatting-d35796cded35
What do you think about allowing unlimited duplicate names?
🕉️☀️💜🙏
@nader @AlexValaitis @salilsethi
#usernames #abuse #dev #developers
Posted via @cloutfeed
I like unlimited duplicate names. As member.cash covers multiple blockchains, we inevitably get duplicate names. We allow them all. I like the associations helping to indicate which name is most authentic *for you*. I don't like the suggestion of verifying names - this creates a point of centralization.
interesting idea
duplicate usernames i'm btw also against. i see it just getting a fucked chaos (seeing "vetting" as no feasible option whatsoever). i feel it not a good solution overall to tackle an apparent issue (here: name squatting), by introducing more issues. just let it be, guys n gals: humanity isn't good, that's just how that is. we must see to not let this lead to a policing state though, cause that is *much* worse still.
introducing all kinds of circumnavigation (here: duplicate usernames) also doesn't sort the issue; it just makes new ones.
cc @FreeTrade
while i'm against name squatting (& scams), i'm much more against "vetting", "verification". there are very valid reasons, to exactly not get verified; reasons that have nothing to do with bad intentions. in fact, i see us running into a massive trap, if we buy into the perception that anyone unverified (or unwilling to) is to be approached with suspicion. exactly this thinking is flawed, *very* actually.
"verification by association" sounds good, but it won't work in practice.
so, while i'm seeing your motivation, i strongly disagree with the suggested.