Again, the suffix is not intended for uses to take a glance at and instantly trust the issuer. It is there so *humans* can remember which issuer is which (instead of 12312314141 vs. 1231514241), even if they are scams. All of these other systems - verification (basically ripple trustlines), service providers, self-added, etc. - can be done on top of this.
Asset names were made non-unique because that didn't make sense, it's completely possible for two different companies to release "swimming trunks". However, now the focus is shifted on the to issuer, which matches how reality works, and is not a "back-door" to unique asset names. It is not possible for two people to claim to be the CEO of Microsoft at the same time. You would buy Windows 8 from Microsoft, not Evil Bob. Same thing with AE - if Microsoft's true name on the AE is Microsoft123, then people will buy from Microsoft123 and not the scam Microsoft. Once the user verifies Microsoft123 is the real one, he can simply add Microsoft123 to his trust list, and never have to worry about buying from scam Microsoft ever again.
Realize the current system (account #'s) is just as prone to scamming, if not more. You can have two issuers, 12312314141 and 1231514241, both with the descriptions "BTC from Bitstamp"... that's confusing, and the user would have to look up which one was real anyways.
And then what about new companies who start with NXT? They can make their name as they want, without being squatted. This is the same situation with the internet - what do you do when you start a new company? You register your site before you announce anything publicly. In fact, it would be crazy not to. So it seems that we want to limit *all* future potential companies that start with NXT so present companies can't be squatted? (Which they can get around anyways, if aliases transfers is implemented. Or, they can just use a "verified" alternate name) Granted, that's where the money is, but the internet can be squatted, and that's not stopping them from using it. IMO, most companies have no problem having a "sub-name" for a certain market. This can apply to the AE as well.
So if the first thing we do is prevent any business from being able to use their own name without extortion it is *hardly going to be appealing*.
what are they doing with domain names since internet is born ?
Again - in many countries it is *illegal* to squat names (such as Australia) - the world isn't just the US.
Something decentralized (and more anonymous without a central registrar) like nxt, it really doesn't matter as no legal actions can be initiated.
However, there is a problem with life-time owning the domain, even after the account is lost (forgotten password, dead person) that domain name is gone forever.
I actually thought about this the other day (because it was related to NXTopia). Expiring Aliases could be very useful, for things like Proof of Ownership (PoO) that become invalidated after a certain time period (rent). The owner of the alias can refresh the duration at anytime before the alias expires, to prevent someone from snatching the alias away right when it expires. This is actually why I asked c-f-b a while back if parallel chains could define their own parameters (but it seems not to be the case). EDIT: Although, AT could probably do something like this anyways.
Pandaisftw
