Welcome!

If you do not agree to (1) lease 3-5 character names, who thinks we should at least:

(2) hold an auction for 3-5 character names (to distribute more fairly according to a "free market"), or if still no agreement, who thinks we should

(3) increase the minimum name length to 6 characters (at least until we see how the "name market" turns out, before deciding to open up "more premium names")

Also, the reason a market for names will not be efficient is because of the Endowment Effect:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect

Once you hold a name, you will be much less willing to let go of it.

For example, I may pay $10 or even $100 for a name I desire. But I would not give that up for at least $1000 or $10,000 or more. I would NOT initially bid $1000 for it though.

I think the first thing, which hasn't been done here, is to establish *why* people think short names have more value. With DNS names, this is easy to prove. But BU names are not used for discovering websites. In that regard they are more analogous to gmail addresses or twitter names.

For charitable purposes, I want to say, "Send your dash donations to "FOOD". By doing so, I am making the process as easy and as memorable as I can for the end user. The more frictionless I can make it, the more effective it is.

As a social media influencer, I want to say, "Send your dash to "Strad".

The longer I make my username, the more potential there is for error. Plus, a scammer will choose a similar name and the bad spelling won't be noticed so easily.

Yes I agree with you there. Your forum post makes a good point how a DNS name won't be used in the same way as BU names. DNS names are more analogous to storefronts/real estate; whereas an email address/BU name is more for connecting with people.

Still, it seems obvious that short BU names, email addresses, and Twitter handles are *more* valuable: I guess what's unclear is *how much more* valuable. You imply it's negligibly more valuable (or not at all), whereas I think it's not an insignificant value difference.

Are there cases of short Twitter and Gmail addresses being sold?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-way-to-get-a-short-Twitter-handle

From the link above:
> Or if you want something that general users can't (just like 2/3/4 characters in Twitter handle) you will probably need to contact Twitter for that short handle just like WSJ, EV, BBC, or else.

https://www.quora.com/Where-can-I-create-the-shortest-email-address

There clearly seems to be a demand for short names. It seems odd to give away for (nearly) free something that has so much value.

BTW, thank you for engaging with us on this. I used to be worried wondering if usernames would be implemented well or not, but overall I am happy and look forward to them.

"thank you for engaging with us on this" no problem, we're all on the same team! :) i'm really looking forward to launch and everything being open sourced so we can transition into an open process and benefit from the Dash community's input and get more devs involved etc.

I think I might make a PR to up the minimum chars to 5 or 6 after the superblock and make a case for that, actually reduce the total a bit too e.g. to 20 chars, if this proposal doesn't pass (I am not in favor of this proposal and its pricing model as I said. This would be an alternative to prevent really short usernames at launch then at least it closes the door on potential issues in a really simple way that we know only has the downside of users just don't get short usernames and not assumptions on pricing etc)

After reading Andy's opinion on the matter, i decided to vote NO on this polling proposal. I like the DIP 5 as is.

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/opinion-on-dip5-blockchainusernamepricingmodel.41438/

I agree with Andy that the existing model in DIP0005 is preferable to these proposed changes to lease premium usernames

math adding up? :) 5dash to submit proposal. And just requesting 5dash back?
b) aware can request funds from dashboost dot org? Proposal fee is 1dash

This is a polling proposal that proposal owner put before the network. The discussion is more important for this proposal owner, then possibly getting his 5 Dash back through enough yes votes.

I applaud the effort to force the conversation, since DCG has not been communicative on this subject. This is a difficult problem and must be reasoned out with the input of the community.

Exactly, and thank you.

Leasing usernames.. Why?

And what's the problem about people buying names and selling the popular ones for a profit? If you're opposed to free markets and capitalism: What on earth are you doing here? :P

> Leasing usernames.. Why?

It's the same reason why LVT makes sense for land. When you own a piece of land, you don't (necessarily) need to do anything. Just sit there, and the society around you will make improvements, like building infrastructure/roads/public transportation/fire departments, etc... and you will benefit, whether or not you did anything to contribute. Your role in all this is merely to "own title" to that piece of land (which happens to be enforced by the rest of society). The society's improvements around you makes your land more valuable, yet you benefit by extracting the rent due to your land title.
https://povertythinkagain.com/controversies/a-word-from-the-sponsor-of-the-film-the-end-of-poverty-georgism-capitalism-and-socialism/neither-capitalism-nor-socialism/

Similarly, when you "own" a username, you don't need to do anything, yet others around you make the network more valuable, and as a by-product, your username more valuable too.

> what's the problem about people buying names and selling the popular ones for a profit?
There's no problem with "profit" per se. But how did you get that profit? Did you get it by producing something of value? Or by monopolizing a valuable/limited resource and "rent-seeking" to extract the rent from it?

How about if the network is "selling" the popular names for much less than they're worth? If "the network" is "selling" a name worth $1000's for mere cents, and your so-called entrepreneurial profit-driven person scoops up / "land grabs" (and squats) many popular, valuable, limited names, how is that "entrepreneur" improving the network? Does he "deserve" that profit, or was the network just stupid enough to sell it to him at the wrong price? Who is in charge of selling these names and at what price, anyway?

> If you're opposed to free markets and capitalism: What on earth are you doing here?
It's not much of a free market if whoever gets there first can just become a rent-seeker indefinitely.

One solution would be to have an "Auction" every year (or some fixed amount of time), where the price is reflected by the market (which would be an actual *free market*). Or, you could have a variable-length lease that reflects the *free market* rental value.

This proposal's "fixed" lease fee is a rough estimate, but better than nothing, IMO. Personally, I would prefer more free market (leases based on market prices) but that would add a lot of complexity - hopefully this moves in that direction over time, rather than toward the rent-seeking non-free market of land grabs and squatting.

Property ownership is the backbone of capitalism; something to acquire that retains it's value. I don't see the problem with a name market where people make a profit for being visionary and taking risk. They risk the dash they spend to buy the names and many of them will probably be worthless, but the ones that are special will get a higher price. They don't make any money if they don't sell the names as well, so they will trade hands. We're just creating problems trying to overide the free market.

By your logic no one in 2014 should have mined any coins because they should wait for everyone else to give them a fair chance at acquiring the same amount. Let's just leave the name transactions to the market instead of these socialistic ideas where we attempt to centrally control it.

Am most definitely for free markets.

Cheap / affordable usernames allows a few early birds to suck up lots of usernames. That's not a problem when you have trillions of permutations, but it's a problem when the permutations can be counted in their thousands.

This pricing model will hopefully distribute the most memorable names more fairly.

Premium names have premium prices.. Big deal.. Not

Names should be owned, not leased.

Can we just not support <6 character names at first and decide on those later?

Yes, if this proposal fails, I hope Core at least consider this option.

If someone sucks up millions of usernames in perpetuity (assuming they affordable), then isn't this effectively an attack vector?

And what should any normal username cost? One time 0.001 Dash?

So on one end we need to worry about name squatting, on the other the risk that someone loses their name and all the materials published on their address now redirect to the wrong wallet. I think the latter is a bigger concern. I'm in favor of a one-time purchase and treating the names as any other asset.

Or the first person to register "DCG" (or "DashCoreGroup") and perpetually scam innocent dash users. Is that what you're saying?

With a flat fee - and presumably affordable - a single scammer might appropriate thousands of usernames, forever. Can a single scammer do that with 3, 4 or 5 character usernames? Yes, perhaps a very rich scammer. Thus, the number of scams is reduced because it would take many scammers to occupy that limited space of 3, 4 and 5 character usernames.

You're right a flat fee would not do. There should be a bidding process.

There would still be scammers I'm sure but it will be more expensive to do so for contentious usernames. Also, as the username would be treated as an asset that can trade ownership there would still be an incentive to sell the asset to the person or org that would most benefit from it.

The DNS route points towards what you propose, the twitter handle route points towards I propose. Though admittedly I don't fully know how twitter handles are delegated

test

First i'd like to thank the proposal owner for submitting this proposal, because i feel we need to have a healthy discussion about this topic.

However, in my opinion it's a complete exaggeration to charge a specific amount of Dash per day, for a short username.
Dash is still too volatile, and if anything, we should charge a fixed dollar amount equivalent in Dash, for short usernames. (remember 10 months ago, when Dash's all-time-high made a proposal cost more than $5000 proposal fee?)
But charging $16 per day for a 3-character username, i think is way way too overpriced.
It's not like Dash has a $1 trillion market-cap and half the world is using Dash, maybe then it would be appropriate.
We should be glad and very grateful, if big brand names are even going to use Dash.
Overcharging them for the privilege of having a short username will only make us look like greedy robber barons.
And it will only hurt the reputation of Dash.

I think it would be appropriate to charge annual username fees like this:

6 and 6+ characters of username length: annual fee of something between $0.10 - $0.50
5 characters username length: annual fee of $5
4 characters username length: annual fee of $10
3 characters username length: annual fee of $15

We should not totally delude ourselves about the worth of a short username.
After all, it's just a username, in one of many cryptocurrencies out there. Come on now.

Why i'm suggesting to charge a small annual fee also for the longer usernames?
Because Dash has a lot of envied haters out there, that might just pick up too many interesting usernames, more than anyone could ever possibly handle, use or market(sell).
Also, there are so many people just testing out various cryptocurrencies, but later forgetting all about it and never use them again and not even remember it anymore.
And after a couple of years, this may very well result in a situation, where 80% of interesting usernames are not only taken, but in fact are orphaned. While at the same time others are waiting for such a specific username to become registerable again, people who would want to really use it.
Therefore, there should be a mechanism in place, that will return a username back into the eligible pool of registerable usernames, unless a minimal annual fee is being paid for yearly renewal, indicating the interest of the current username owner, to keep his username.
And chances are, even a minimal annual fee will only be paid, if the owner cares about it and has interest to keep and use it. If not, such a username should return back into the pool.

Something else we should really consider, to discourage at least brand name squatting:
We should make it absolutely clear, that Dash intends to respect and comply with copyright, trademark and servicemark laws.
Upon official request by a copyright/trademark/servicemark owner in whatever jurisdiction, in case such or a highly similar username is already taken, the username should be forcefully taken and awarded to the holder of such legal rights.
Not offering such a procedure to the corporate latecomers, will only give us bad reputation and sooner or later, it will mean legal trouble for Dash.
If a private person is going to register the username cocacola or coca_cola or coca-cola, he should be aware, that it can be taken from him anytime, upon official request from the corporation, if they ever demand to hand them over the username.
It is clear that such a policy will likely result in some litigation, at least in certain cases, when not identical but highly similar brand names are being used by individuals, etc. and maybe it will be necessary to elect a Dash-internal Panel of Arbitration to decide in such cases, according to principles of law.

And if anyone really wants to register, say, 1000 short usernames (non-brand names) for an annual fee of $10,000 then i say let him do it. And good luck with it.
He will most likely learn, that he is not even able to sell 98% of them and will have difficulties to turn a profit.
But if he still manages to break-even or even turn a profit, maybe he deserves it.
It's not like it's a license to print money, but requires a lot of effort to market(sell) such usernames, and thus there is risk of loss.

At the moment, dollar denominated pricing is not possible as there is no mechanism to feed accurate fx rates. To date, all fees and rewards have been priced in dash. We can review and debate pricing later, in the same way we previously reduced transaction fees.

This proposal is not about specific pricing or how to screw as much money as possible. It is simply recognizing that short usernames are in very limit supply, high demand, and they do, and thus represent a premium.

I believe we should learn the lessons of the telecommunications industry, marketing and DNS. Short numbers or domain names are not just great marketing tools, they are also recognized as premium / non-standard numbers in their own right. In time, people would recognise dash usernames of 3, 4 and 5 characters as premium names, and this adds value for the leaser.

Regarding the recycling of usernames, in the phone industry, numbers are typically moved to the back of a pool, to reduce the effects of historic use e.g. to stop someone receiving constant calls because the previous owner was a taxi company.

Keep in mind, all these issues, whether it's trademark disputes, or how usernames are recycled, they are outside of the scope of this proposal. They can be dealt with separately and additionally to this proposal. This proposal is not an all encompassing solution, it simply addresses the problems of limited supply, high demand and good distribution (no centralized hoarding).

If this idea fails, we can fall back to the original DIP without consequence. The reverse is not true.

A one-time periodically adjusted fee for all user names should be sufficient. Periodic renewals and reissuing of user names are dangerous considering payments are non-reversible. We can't have user names moving from one wallet address to another for obvious reasons.

I believe the trick for user name availability is to require a suffix that is completely flexible except for maybe a ".dash" at the end to let people know it's a Dash payment address. For example, I could get something like nerdmoney@my.dash and someone else could get nerdmoney@sendme.dash. This solution would visually work a lot like an email address but I'm sure there are other creative solutions out there.

I won't say this will stop all possible brand confusion, because I could get something like nerdmoney@cocacola.dash. However Coca Cola doesn't have to adapt cococola.dash as their official suffix for their Dash payment addresses. This would probably not be a good idea anyway given people would start grabbing similar looking addresses to try and spoof official addresses.

I don't know if this a perfect solution, but having tiered payments with renewals just seems way too complicated.

Usernames are not perpetually linked to wallets. It is my understanding the HD wallet and username are independent, thus preserving privacy.

Really? Where did you hear this? I heard a developer say that usernames would not support privacy in an interview on Dash Force News a couple of months ago.

I think it was on one of the Three Amigos Podcast, but can't remember who-when. It was in response to the communities concern about privacy. Maybe someone from Core can confirm.

https://blog.dash.org/introducing-blockchain-users-428d87a1e87a

"Payment keys/addresses are handled separately to avoid linking a username with its financial activity. This separation also improves security since leaking the private key for the blockchain user does not result in a loss of funds."

I echo the sentiments that it's probably too early to know just how this will all be implemented and thus whether or not this is a good or bad idea, so I'm hesitant to commit to something so significant this early in the game. The point about name/domain squatting is well-taken and this is an interesting possible solution to that problem, but by the same token, we don't know how usernames will interface with wallets, for example. Suppose someone missed a "rent" payment and some corporate wallet was lost to someone who was just waiting to "snipe" the username and wallet from them and they lost thousands of dollars or whatever. Or suppose someone forgets to update their published username/address on a website and people are sending payments to the wrong address, etc.

So yeah, I like the idea of reducing name/domain scalping, but I'm not sure rent-seeking is the best way to accomplish this. Maybe once we know more about what DCG has actually built in this regard we'll have a better idea. I'll revisit this later this month to see if any more has been gleaned.

This is the opposite of rent-seeking... Rent-seeking is what a name/domain squatter does (or a land speculator, for that matter). He sits on the valuable resource, benefiting from it at the expense of the rest of society <--- that is what is called "rent-seeking" activity. The "lease fee" mitigates the "rent-seeking" by *capturing* that "rent" and "giving it back to society" (the network). Does that make sense?

It also has 2 beneficial effects: (1) by mitigating the rent-seeking it "pushes" the resources to be allocated more efficiently (since you must pay the cost of the "rent", and you can't just squat, you will only use that resource if it has actual current value to you now, and not the speculative "greater fool" use, i.e. merely hoping to sell it in the future), and (2) that rent goes back to the network to fund things that benefit the "society" (whole network) similar to the treasury (but instead of funding from the block reward, it's from re-capturing the value from a "rent-seeking" activity)

I believe there can be solutions to the problems you mention. I don't think a username should be tied to a wallet. If your username changes, then you don't get the new username's "old wallet balance" - likewise, if you lose your username you should still be able to access your old wallet, but under a different username. If you forget to update your published username, that's similar to the problem of forgetting to update your 33 character bitcoin address on your website when you get a new wallet.

A perpetual "lease-fee" also turns the network in to a rentier, though, whereas--unless I'm misunderstanding DIP5--names/domains are merely sold and not rented in general. The "network" benefits ostensibly, but this is mostly determined by how fees paid to the network are distributed to the network, so that's probably up in the air. I'll concede that this is probably less of a problem than name/domain squatters, but it could also be seen as an attempt by MNOs to siphon off more funds, so method of distribution would have to be carefully considered.

The second problem depends purely on how addresses and wallets interface with usernames, and the first problem is contingent on the second as well, so at this point we can only wait for more information.

Will this hold up the release of Evolution, or the first stage of it?

Tbh, it's a little disappointing that we're debating such things two years in. But it is what it is, let's just deal with the problem at hand. Maybe it will delay things (who knows?), but I'd rather see innovation than a botch job simply because of deadlines.

I'm just glad this proposal has sparked debate. Hopefully, DCG can engage with us on this.

That was my first thought as well. But this discussion does have value to it, so i let my thought go.

Easy No, why should we pay a daily fee makes, if anything you could do annual or quarterly fees

Or none at all, its an absolute cash grab, whoch the dao already does in the form of 10% which imo has been wasted quite a bit already,

Whats next taxes on the blockchain lol

Easy No

Pay a daily which makes no sense*

How is this an "easy no"? you seem to misunderstand this proposal. If you are agreeing we should have some sort of annual or quarterly fees, then you are agreeing with this proposal.

The specific "lease length" (daily/quarterly) is up for debate. Personally I think a longer time-frame like 3month, 6month, or 1yr "leases" makes more sense than being able to "rent" a name for just 3 days. Names should be relatively persistent, but allow for change over time. It boggles my mind when someone says "this is an easy no" when agreeing with the fundamental idea.

How do you propose the network mitigates the "unfair" land grab and name squatters? That is more like "an absolute cash grab" - whereas charging a fee for a limited resource is not a cash grab, but a tool to incentivize more efficient use of resources - by reserving a premium name, you are excluding the rest of the network from something with a high-demand use value. Having a lease for it does two things: (1) it more efficiently allocates the usernames to those willing to pay for the premium "product" and (2) it raises money for the DAO which in effect goes back to the network in the form of better network services.

For more info on why this is a good idea, check out "LVT" (which can be applied analogously to premium usernames, akin to a limited natural resource): https://kaalvtn.blogspot.com/p/arguments-for-lvt.html

The alternative - DIP 5 in it's current form - is a land grab. A few early birds will grab all the short memorable usernames for pennies and then try to sell at astronomical prices. Is that more fair? Do you really want to see name squatting like domain names?

Name squatting on longer names is possible but at least the permutations are plentiful.

DIP 5 is not proposing free usernames but they are affordable for mass adoption and they are all the same price despite short usernames having a very limited supply.

I believe this proposal will encourage a wider distribution with more legitimate uses. Pricing is simple and predictable while discouraging squatting.

If we use this pricing model, we can refine prices and duration. But if we keep DIP 5 as it is, we can not later undo our mistake.

I'm not even sure that masternode owners know enough about DIP5 or how the Dash Core Team wants to implement DIP5 exactly, to make a
well-informed decision. Which means i think this polling proposal has been created a bit too early. Which means i will ABSTAIN from voting for now, untill more information is provided.

DIP 5 Official Info

https://github.com/dashpay/dips/blob/master/dip-0005.md#blockchain-user
https://blog.dash.org/introducing-blockchain-users-428d87a1e87a

Position Dash Core-Team on DIP 5 implementation (dd 1st oct 2018)
Link : https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/announcing-dip-5-blockchain-users.40361/#post-198227

"Thanks for the feedback everyone. There were quite a few discussions and "pre-DIP" documents internally over the previous year that covered some of the ideas above in the attempt to balance various factors (usability, security, flexibility, openness, accessibility, etc.) and be in alignment with the whitepaper. Your comments have been seen and there continue to be some discussions regarding the details to ensure future-proofing."

I understand but this proposal is for guidance only. I feel it is an improvement over the current specification.

My concern is that the current specification is too loose. We can apply the constraints in this proposal and adapt it, but the reverse is not true.

This is definitely open to debate, but in my opinion, it is "safer" to start with premium usernames at a longer character limit... say 7 characters, or perhaps even 9. That way, if it doesn't make sense to have a lease cost for 9 characters, you can always reduce the limit to 8. But once you start at 5, you can't increase the characters for premium usernames up to 6 without pissing off a bunch of people... (if all 6-character usernames go too fast, and we realize that was a mistake and try to start charging "rent" to allocate them better (according to the market/supply and demand), they're not going to be happy about being "forced" to pay).

There are different ways to describe premium usernames. A long username might be considered "premium" if we attach meaning e.g. there's some sort of dictionary lookup. Likewise, we might want to block certain usernames e.g. "administrator" or "DashCoreGroup". But these ideas are beyond the scope of this proposal. This proposal describes a minimum constraint and doesn't discount or exclude these other ideas or proposals. A Yes vote says you broadly agree with this pricing model, we can work out the finer details later.

From an objective point of view, six characters yield more than two billion permutations. This proposal is focused on the limited supply of short - and therefore memorable - usernames and deals with it accordingly.

BTW, having a "market" for the "lease cost" where anyone can "bid" on the daily "rent" is the most Georgist (fair and efficient) way to do this. So I do like that idea.

i.e. It makes more sense to charge more for an English word like BEST than some random letters like KJWQ (instead of having a flat lease-rate based on characters). And since it's a market, it'll adjust over time, instead of having a flat "0.01 Dash" rate where we don't know if it's too high or too low, now or in the future.

The only problem is it adds more implementation complexity.

A No vote runs the risk of keeping the current DIP 5, which is a flat mined fee, regardless of length.

OK. I think this is an "easy Yes vote" with very minor changes up for debate

Interesting idea, I need to do more research though.

This is a fantastic idea!! There is a short discussion about something similar here: https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/evolution-usernames-more-discussion.35542/

But this proposal's idea here is much more simple and practical. The "more in demand" real estate should come with a cost for the privilege of "keeping out" other users. And the "utility" cost will come back to help fund the DAO.

And if people don't want to pay, they can simply reserve a longer name (6+ characters). The premium users who desire the benefit of excluding the rest of the ecosystem from using that "real estate" (premium username) should pay more. This is more fair than a first-come-first-served "land grab".