And in the end, the info is still in the blockchain I presume?
In other words a new asset could be issued based upon the data in the blockchain at the time of expiration, am I right?
This would eliminate human error in renewing the namespace completely. It’ll just mean someone is going to have some job on his hands 
All the data would still be in the blockchain. And a script could repopulate it, once somebody wrote one. It would not have to be done manually. Said person rebuilding his namespace, mosaic, and then sending thr mosaics to all the users will pay more in fees then had they just renewed on time in the first place.
Yes of course. Blockchain entries are irreversible and immutable. So, yes, all is not lost.
You’ve convinced me
If someone forgets to renew the namespace the users will just have to be patient but if it’s an honest mistake a solution is possible…
Can’t wait to see all of this happen !
It’d still be on the blockchain now but to me this sounds like a good candidate for a step towards blockchain pruning.
True , but it is probably not desirable to do this within a couple of months after expiration, or am I too conservative here 
this is absolutly opposite direction as it should be
a asset is a digital token that get value by demand it doesnt matter if the creator is still active or not
at least for locked assets which are created following a ruleset and can be never again changed this kind of assets (tokens) need no creator
the idea that u bought traded or whatever and hold in ur wallet disappear because someone else dont renew a namespace is horrible
I was thinking similarly at first but it actually shouldn’t really matter.
For example try giving one real world example where this behaviour would be detrimental.
run a virtual coin on top of NEM
issuer of the coin could go MIA as happens a lot on cryptocoins
but still the coin could be used and utilized in servised and apps of other active people
that a issued item (item) disappear with the issuer is bad design
Pinocchio dont disappear because Geppetto die
a expensive part of furniture dont vanish or lose value because the creator disappear
assets are digital goods which can if designed this way disappear following a releset defined at creation
example tickets for a movie in cinema could disappear after the date the movie did run in cinema
but there are assets designed to stay such as digital currencies basical everything that represent a longlating value or share of ownership
how could u store stuff like a patent or a certificate in a blockchain if it can disappear because of reason u cant influence
it seems to me that beside a namespace which might vanish maybe if u design it that way that assets need to have another ID that never disappear so assets never can get lost if designed that way
if u only create mossaik around asset ideas that have no lasting value u waste lot potential
Mosaics are supposed to serve real world use cases. People couldn’t care less about coins issued on top of it. Noone needs more coins.
There is no real world use case of a system like this in which the asset is not rendered useless if the issuer dissapears. At least I haven’t heard one or could come up with one.
If you issue furniture on a digital asset exchange and you dissapear then who is going to redeem that asset for the actual furniture ? I.e. asset = worthless and can be removed.
patents or certificates are a completely different topic and aren’t meant to be stored in this system. That would be another system on the blockchain (Allthough patents do expire so they could be stored in this manner).
The fact is that there are no assets to date that do not loose value if their issuer dissapears simply because you have to redeem those digital tokens somewhere in order to get any actual value or good. If that somewhere or someone doesn’t exist anymore assets are worthless and can be destroyed.
i hope u in no way involved in designing NEM features and abilities
removing a blockchain biggest power to store a complete history and never forget in a decentral way no goverment no single entenity can influence is plain ignorance
in fact u cant destroy a asset it stays in the block history
u could implement technology that parts of the chain become obsolete over time but afaik NEM doesnt do this
so why u want to remove something that keep forever existing because its stored in the blockchain
dont give mossaik the abilities even the weakest implementation of coloured coins have on bitcoin chain would be crazy
u have to add abilities and funktionalities and not remove them
I’m not. But that’s what the system does so I don’t see how that is relevant.
Also you still haven’t come up with a real world use case that is made impossible by this system.
I have a feeling you’re the one that’s being ignorant. You seem to be so stuck in everyday crypto thinking that you just can’t handle the fact that some stuff just works/should work differently in the real world.
To clarify: As it is right now this system wouldn’t delete any information. All the assets would technically still be stored on the chain but the namespaces would be expired and therefore up for grabs and I’m guessing any assets associated couldn’t be transacted anymore. All in all there is no detailed information yet.
Again…give me one actual use case where expiration would be a bad thing and I’ll take it all back.
I’d have though people would be outraged over the lack of orders but not over expiration of namespaces.
if and that is how i understand what i read until now
any bitcoin 2.0 ability NEM will provide is linked to namespace names
then expiration of namespace including “deletion” of all to this name bound assets contracts and whatever
is a major issue
each item need additional to its namespace root another host id so if the namespace become unavaiable by something the item stays
example
diamond.coin
if out of some reason diamond name was not be renewed
become
ID23ftT587x.coin
so yes a name can be lost but never the assets
dont think shortminded everything can be assetized and nothing should ever be in danger to get lost
if and how that assets will be utilized and what value they will have is another topic aimed mainly at the creativity of the crypto business that stand behind it
but think can happen that lead to lost access and this way inability top renew a namespace register fee
and for that there must but guranteed that only a name can be lost but never assets
but i dont want to discuss this more before there is papers released that explain namespace mossaik and the NEM way of smart contracts and assets
I disagree !
At first , I had the same opininon, but think about it a little. Then think about it a little more.
It is really useless to have assets without someone backing them.
value of an asset is backed by supply and demand
not by a active issuer
rembrand will never renew his namespace for his pictures but still they dont lose value
assets in a blockchain can represent a lot that keep value even after the issuer of the asset is no longer existing
different companies can utilize assets where they are not themself issuer of the tokens
how they could this by have the risc over their heads that this tokens vanish
how can u create longterm smart contracts running over years if they vanish because the registered namespace they are created in is not renewed
more and more i think about it it looks like namespace have to be seperated from assets and smart contracts
as addon u can add to ur contracts and assets
a name without contracts and assets inside fullfill no purpose beside maybe speculation on sell the name
a asset and a contract without a namespace instead still fullfill the original purpose
if two people make a contract about something
that contracts dont become non existent or invalid because the notary died or retired
if u buy a car and next year the company that build that car go bancrupt the car dont vanish
u have to understand crypto business will deal with many stuff once it establishes u cant own any tokens u utilize to make sure their namespace never disapear
u could never sell tokens (or utilize in long term busines) with a 1 year lifetime that noone beside the original issuer can expand
What you need to understand is that assets are "IOU"s. And If “I” am gone they are worthless because “I” am not here to give you what that asset represents.
rembrand will never renew his namespace for his pictures but still they dont lose value
If you buy a Rembrand on an AE then you would get the picture home to you no ? You would redeem that asset right ? Or would you be cool with hanging up a screenshot of your wallet displaying the asset ? So another example that doesn’t apply.
assets in a blockchain can represent a lot that keep value even after the issuer of the asset is no longer existing
and yet you still haven’t been able to give an example of such a thing.
different companies can utilize assets where they are not themself issuer of the tokens
And what would that look like ? And why would the other company then not renew the namespace if that original company goes down the drain ? Why can’t the new compnay just issue new assets in exchange ?
if u buy a car and next year the company that build that car go bancrupt the car dont vanish
then you already have that car at home though. Or are you going to drive a digital asset around ? At that point noone gives a rats ass about the asset anymore and it can vanish. Your car doesn’t vanish with the asset.
We can do this all day if you want. You give examples and I tell you why they don’t apply. I’m having fun
Listen, I really don’t mean to dissrespect you but you seem to be stuck in a narrow mindset about this issue. Just think it through and you’ll see it’s not a big deal.
The asset is only a digital representation of something that has value. If the issuer can’t put in the effort to renew the namespace how can you expect the intrinsic value is still valid?
The namespace has nothing to do with the actual value of the asset. You just need a namespace to enable asset distribution.
I can imagine that for long term contracts in the future a smart contract can be created to renew the namespaces with reserved funds. This way an asset creator could warrant the user that the namespace will be renewed for a certain time, however, I still think it’s not an issue.
@patmast3r described it very well I think. It should be possible to understand what he is saying.
If you think an asset has any value besides the “real thing” it is supposed to represent (car, rembrand painting, …) then you can only mean a currency like value in which case you would misuse that asset as a currency. But then you better just use XEM and not any asset.
Btw, even this is not a problem:
Reason: If a patent asset disappears (which means the patent office dropped the namespace, which means it quit its service), thats like you have a “real” patent (how we know it today), but now the patent office in your country stops working and all you have left is some crappy paper which doesnt prove anything in case of doubt. So where is the difference?
Assets dont have a value itself. It is as simple as that. Of course you can trade with the value BEHIND the asset by transfering the asset, but that only makes sense as long as the value behind the asset still exists. For exmple: I hate the fact that people are still trading the NEMstake asset on the NXT AE lol
I gotta say I somewhat agree with what @cryptonit says. Either the standard option for namespaces should be auto renewal or the namespace should change to some id when it expires, like cryptonit suggested.
Just deleting all assets that belong to a namespace that has expired is bad for many reasons. For starters it would introduce a lot of problems for issuers that forgot to renew or for some reason are unable to renew (data loss and no backup, person that handled it quit or died, mistakes on who was responsible for the renewal etc).
Moreover would it be more of a security for the users if the issuer couldn’t just choose to delete/not renew the namespace/assets. Say I got a gift card at my local shop in form of an asset, the law says a gift card has to be valid for x years. If the shop owner/issuer can just delete my asset by not renewing the namespace and without me having any easy way to prove that I did in fact own a gift card at his shop (that was valid for x more years), the whole mosics/asset system would be severely crippled.
Some assets may be “collectables” (think old coins, collector cards etc whose issuer might be long gone) other could be from closed businesses that still holds a value (some other business, organisation or government might redeem them/back up their value)
@nottrulyevil
Well, because the mosaic transactions are on the blockchain, you can always prove that you bought that asset (and didnt transfer away) and if e.g. a law says “a gift card must be valid for 2 years” then you can use that proof to use the gift card, even if the namespace disappeared. The blockchain doesnt forget.