Bark Bark Public ID 🐶 🌳

Please let’s 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.

2 Likes

I expect there must be a sensible default approach being taken by ICANN for avoiding confusion of apparent duplicate Unicode characters. I’d love to see unicode enabled safe urls… Akkadian cuneiform ftw!

As for longest word… is the chemical name of ‘titin’… just call it titin!.. otherwise is like suggesting that your DNA is your name.

1 Like

imagine having this as your website ¯_(ツ)_/¯ 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 people’s attention, because right now on clearnet that’s being dictated by Icann)

BTW even safe:// shouldn’t be needed, on the clearnet I’ve been typing “addresses” 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 we’re use to right now :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Unicode DNS would be pretty great. I’m sure people from places that don’t use roman letters for their language would appreciate it quite a bit.

It would be pretty cool to see Arabic or Japanese urls.

3 Likes

:kissing_heart:

1 Like

like because cute puppy emoji in title

1 Like

และ ภาษา ไทย นะ ครับ

3 Likes

Absolutely. Any restriction that are not technically motivated should be removed. SAFE must be as inclusive as possible.

Do security concerns count as “technical”?

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.

4 Likes

Absolutely :smirk_cat:

If a software has to fulfill specifications then anything that makes it technically impossible is a technical concern, right? :smiley_cat:

I’ll have to disappoint you there :joy_cat: Now, that I looked it up, I don’t think it will be a problem with SAFE. Let me explain why I think so.

It’s the same problem that we’ll have with apps: “should I click ‘approve’ for that request, or is it a look-alike?”

SAFE will be an extremely open thing, without authorities that we’re 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? That’s 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 “because I said so”) 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 won’t need to protect ourselves against basic attacks (such as IDN phishing) not because they are not a problem, but because we’ll have enough more serious problems that those will also be covered by the solution.

2 Likes