B.E.E.f.A - quick start: ...
Block explorer extension for assetsSuggestion: Warnings about certain assetsIn the past there have already been discussions about
blacklisting assets - which I do not want to repeat here. Me personally, I am strongly opposed to any kind of censorship. "Caveat emptor (Buyer beware)" is a more grown up concept than the childish "Consumer protection by censorship and prohibition". A good option is
whitelisting assets (see the HZ "
trusted assets" page), but there are yet only 4, and I always thought ...
... "what about all the other 100+ HZ assets out there"?
That is why I built
my extension asset.phtml. I would want it to always display all assets ... scam, test, or proper ... regardless.
What is on the blockchain, gets reported!But still -especially where without any doubts- I consider ADDITIONAL information is appropriate ... if a certain asset should rather not be bought. Good thinking?
So this is what I coded, to implement a first approximation of that idea:
asset warningsSome assets are known to be
test assets, or
revoked (by the issuer), or even
scams (
perhaps,
probably or
proven scams).
However, the (too) centralized power of
the only official block explorer ... needs a balance between
user protection and
issuer protection (and censorship is bad)!
So with my 'asset.phtml' ... all assets are still shown - but in some cases with a clear warning.
All is hardcoded into an XML file. I urge the team to always link back to a forum post where detailed explanations are given, and can be discussed - so that e.g. the issuer gets a chance to react to the suspicion.
examples for the different warnings:To be totally clear:
Almost all assets will show
none of those warnings - because they are intended to be, and run as proper assets.
What do
you think about that suggested system?
P.S.:
This whole "warnings" function is coded now, but it can be easily switched off completely.
If
you find it too much to worry about for now ... just go back to the
"quick start" posting above now.
.
As you can imagine it gets tricky fast, I think that is why we went with trusted assets instead. It is easier to have a system to get people verified and with some level of trust and safety than trying to determine every asset, although even that isn't a guarantee, as individuals and various groups run assets and are ultimately responsible for their success or eventual failure. If people come out with their own lists and opinions to help though, I don't think that is bad? I would certainly like any additional information like that myself.