An simple idea that seems to have been ignored on the official forums...

Wouldn't it be easier to just allow dots in the asset names (hint:  Global_trade_repo's hierarchy idea)?

That way BTT.UNIQUESILVER and BTT.RARECOIN would not collide with someone else's UNIQUESILVER and RARECOIN?
As suggested by Global_trade_repo, the asset names with dots in them could cost less to issue.

Not only that, but the buyers could be more confident that the assets were issued from BTT without rechecking/verifying the description/catalog.  An impostor could issue a VERYRARECOIN with a description poiting to BTT's catalog for example.  But the impostor cannot fake a BTT.VERYRARECOIN asset if it's required to own the BTT asset first.

We should also allow other characters such as #, $, %, and digits after the dot in the asset names.  So BTT can issue BTT.SILVER$100  or BTT.GOLD#1906 for example.


Otherwise, assuming a business can issue 100000+ assets, how does it go about organizing/tracking assets efficiently?  It much easier to match BTT.GOLD#1906 or BTT.RAREGOLD#18394 from a catalog than to search for BTT.GOLDXFR and BTT.RAREGOLDSXR to identify the asset.


If Counterparty is a protocol like TCP/IP, then we will need a flexible asset naming scheme that works almost like the domain naming system.