Please letās also have this on the SAFE Network. The clearnet has 1 single letter domains.
More over will there be love on the SAFE Network for the longest word?
Freedom in my mind means even adding special characters to populate our domain names.
https://nl.godaddy.com/tlds/gtld.aspx?catId=27
I expect there must be a sensible default approach being taken by ICANN for avoiding confusion of apparent duplicate Unicode characters. Iād love to see unicode enabled safe urlsā¦ Akkadian cuneiform ftw!
As for longest wordā¦ is the chemical name of ātitināā¦ just call it titin!.. otherwise is like suggesting that your DNA is your name.
imagine having this as your website ĀÆ_(ć)_/ĀÆ total fun. Unicode characters alone would be a reason for everybody on clearnet to leave it behind FOREVER. We have a real good opportunity here to showcase that the SAFE Network has no limits.
.safenet should be .whateveryouwant (This will also draw peopleās attention, because right now on clearnet thatās being dictated by Icann)
BTW even safe:// shouldnāt be needed, on the clearnet Iāve been typing āaddressesā forever without http://www. especially with SAFEr Browser you just know that your on the SAFE Network.
We want to and should be so different to what weāre use to right now 
Unicode DNS would be pretty great. Iām sure people from places that donāt use roman letters for their language would appreciate it quite a bit.
It would be pretty cool to see Arabic or Japanese urls.
like because cute puppy emoji in title
ą¹ąø„ąø° ąø ąø²ąø©ąø² ą¹ąøąø¢ ąøąø° ąøąø£ąø±ąø
Absolutely. Any restriction that are not technically motivated should be removed. SAFE must be as inclusive as possible.
Do security concerns count as ātechnicalā?
I am sure you all remember the IDN Phishing attacks right after DNS was extended to utf-8, right? Allowing all of Unicode opens you to this attack vector.
Absolutely 
If a software has to fulfill specifications then anything that makes it technically impossible is a technical concern, right? 
Iāll have to disappoint you there 
Now, that I looked it up, I donāt think it will be a problem with SAFE. Let me explain why I think so.
Itās the same problem that weāll have with apps: āshould I click āapproveā for that request, or is it a look-alike?ā
SAFE will be an extremely open thing, without authorities that weāre used to on the plain internet:
When you see the little padlock with some green text, you can be fairly sure that page is what it says it is, right? Thatās because somebody, an actual human, had to okay it first.
Trust problems can not be solved by purely technical means, because they are not technical problems to start with; they are problems about people, so the solution must incorporate trust between people.
SAFE will have (out of necessity, not ābecause I said soā) some means to express a web of trust between people, and probably one or more anonymous reputation systems as well; these will be used everywhere, everyday, by everybody. We wonāt need to protect ourselves against basic attacks (such as IDN phishing) not because they are not a problem, but because weāll have enough more serious problems that those will also be covered by the solution.
