I plan to attack the name service

Yes but I’m not suggesting this on the basis you can’t enforce the restriction. If it’s in the client, of course it’s useless, but I didn’t say it would be done by the client. The same with captchas.

I don’t know how you would do it in the network, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done. So whether or not this approach is viable is an open question.

:laughing: Humorously, if you’re still in your twenties, you were a very young surfer when I last ran my own SMTP demon with dial-up internet!

1 Like

Sorry, where’s “here”? [quote=“feelz, post:29, topic:6388”]
So in the instance of nissan, the chances of mr.nissan getting nissan.onion are very slim, but nissan motors could afford the servers needed to find it.
[/quote]
OK…I’m missing something important I think…why should Nissan motors be advantaged over Mr Nissan?
OK…I’ll cut to the chase - Is all this a way to create a World where rich and resourceful people have preferential squatting rights over the 99%? :smiley:
I’m sure I’ve wandered onto the wrong forum these past weeks… :wink:
OK…tell me why not so? Thanks

I don’t think there is such a way to prevent people with resources from getting what they want. People with more resources have an advantage and you can’t remove that advantage without using force or coercion.

Again, why not just use hard-drive resources to gauge? So shorter names require the ongoing contribution of larger amounts of resource and longer names a smaller ongoing amount of resource. In such a manner, any who ‘squat’ are at least helping to provision the network.

OK…I’m missing something important I think…why should Nissan motors be advantaged over Mr Nissan?

From what ive read in past dns posts on this forum the concern was that dnssquatterCo. not grab every domain under the sun because they are free or only cost $5/yr as is icann does. The concern was also that maidsafe appeal to businesses by allowing them to have their name to acquire when the time comes that they want to.

So if Mr.Macdonald wants to get Macdonalds.safe, then he can rent a server farm and spend thousands trying to find that exact name. Its like bitcoin mining, everone is doing computations to try to find an exact nonce but only one miner gets lucky and finds it, and it costs them alot of money in the process. But since only businesses will have a vested interest to spend that sort of money to find their specific name it would discourage anyone from squatting. Any other method such as having maidsafe co. distribute them goes against the decentralized philosophy, and having a free for all is self defeating and would result in no one getting the name they want.

Again, why not just use hard-drive resources to gauge? So shorter names
require the ongoing contribution of larger amounts of resource and
longer names a smaller ongoing amount of resource. In such a manner,
any who ‘squat’ are at least helping to provision the network.

I suppose, is that possible to have a domain name only be provisioned for the length of a resource contribution via protocol? Sounds complex, if there were squatters in that instance they would have to be very selective and dedicated to a particular domain. Its a good idea if it can be done, better than processing for a name and wasting energy on something that could be lost or stolen.

Well, if it’s not done in the client, where would it be done?

The Network is really only two things. Vaults that have personas (Relay, XXX Manager, etc.), and clients. If the code is not (only) implemented client-side, then wouldn’t it be true that it would have to be implemented on the vault side?

P.S. I just started running my first SMTP daemon this year.

@feelz, so, what if we make what they want trivial? Then there would be no incentive to waste effort doing this or that as brainstormed above.

We take the globally unique human-readable namespace off the table, and then any one entity’s credibility would not be judged by their name, but rather by their goods/service/content/etc.

So the independent artist doesn’t have as much right to a given name as a large corporation? Or why would a business be the only one to have a vested interest in finding their specific name? This is not dealing with squatting at all at this point. Now it is oppression. Plus you’ve just made it more difficult for the average user to get a name. No, this will not work.

While your suggestion does help the network maintain it’s infrastructure, the goal of the network is to have it be fueled by excess space and bandwidth, not sponsored.

This also has the chance of namespace take-overs, just like in @Seneca’s Continuous Auction proposal. This type of system gives too much power to moneyed interests.

My stance is that both the first-come first-served and the wealth/power/might makes right stances are inadequate to form a fair, unbiased namespace.

I’ll assert once again that in reality - in nature - all names are relative.

2 Likes

We take the globally unique human-readable namespace off the table, and
then any one entity’s credibility would not be judged by their name, but rather by their goods/service/content/etc.

I dont think eliminating DNS is condusive or practical. Their name is where the value of their credibility is stored.

Business do have a greater interest in a domain than individuals, we arent talking about some photography websites and blogs, this is peoples livelihoods.

Have you ever used a phonebook? The Yellowpages? Seems to work just fine for businesses and individuals alike, unless I’m missing something.

This type of system was working just fine decades before DNS was mis-implemented.

What is it not conducive to? You have a gaping hole in your sentence there.

3 Likes

I don’t mind the relative naming thing, however it’s not any better ultimately. If you put a rating system on it, then the wealthy will just hire a company that pushes up their rating. You might create a domain like ‘safe:google.com’, but you’d be at the bottom of the list - so what would the point be of having multiple ‘relative’ names? As it seems you’d just be creating a more complex system that everyone would have to navigate. – If SAFEnet is going to work, then IMO, it needs to be simple and effective, not one or the other.

I’m also wondering about tld’s … any thoughts there? Or would those be anything as well. The ability to search by tld is useful (I use that all the time on google e.g. site:*.org to limit searches). However if tld’s are just random then that makes it hard to use as a limiter.

1 Like

What were you thinking about when describing a “rating system”?

1 Like

I thought it had been mentioned here that, under a relative naming system, people could rate/rank domains of like name.

That could indeed be an aspect of a search engine that functions on top of a relative naming system. But I think you’re teetering on the brink of a very good point.

Anecdotally, would you say that you use search engines to find results that only contain the keyword(s) in their domain name?

Yes, this is the point I was making, why advantage the rich, who have all the resources and reserve their seats - it’s the opposite of what Safe’s about!. It’s not even just that - they could easily buy up all the Mr Nissans etc - that’s why I said you could also end up with the rich squatting.
This rewards resources- rather than resourcefulness. [quote=“smacz, post:35, topic:6388”]
This type of system gives too much power to moneyed interests.
[/quote]
Absolutely - spot on :smile:
Edit:

Lol…can’t believe you are arguing this - so are the small photography studio or blogger’s site. Big business should be given preferential treatment to the detriment of small business entrepreneurs and individuals…yeah…right.

LOL…nice one :smile:

1 Like

Yes, of course. It would be part of the network logic, as is Safecoin handling, and in time other features as they are added.

Having thought more it seems feasible to me. I’m not proposing it, I’m saying it is technically feasible, so if we think it’s a useful thing to do, we shouldn’t rule it out.

Ah, lol. I use SMTP to send directly from Linux mail, but still use a hosted server for everything else.

My typical use of search engines involves keywords that are often unrelated to the domain name + a tld to limit searches to particular types of sites. If I know the domain, I go straight there and, if needed search on that site directly. Only occasionally will I use a search engine to search within a site. I expect on safenet that will be even more true.

In some ways I think perhaps the domain name isn’t even very relevant to me - but the tld is very relevant/useful. Hence, having a wide variety of standard tld’s might come in handy. In the same way, when I search for files on my computer, I want to limit the search to a video or a picture or a particular document type to limit the results.

I dont think eliminating DNS is condusive [sic] or practical.

What is it not conducive to? You have a gaping hole in your sentence there.

Condusive to the usability of the network, it would be like reverting back to typing ip’s in. Are you really arguing for a regression of the internet? Any sort of decentralized rating system to delinate which google.com will give you the search engine and which google.com will land you on a malware ridden site will be abused to the upmost and give the network a bad name.

Lol…can’t believe you are arguing this - so are the small photography
studio or blogger’s site. Big business should be given preferential
treatment to the detriment of small business entrepreneurs and
individuals…yeah…right.

Except that Mr. Macdonalds photography studio only pays one salary, Macdonalds fast food Inc pays 420,000 peoples salaries. now who stands to benefit more from the domain?

It does indeed seem that the domain name itself plays a small role in that scenario. What I mean is that the domain name doesn’t really mean much unless there is some information about how it applies to the situation.

What I need is a referral.

It can be a referral from “past me” to “future me” (bookmark/petname), or from an outside source (search result/emailed link). But the fact that navigation is typically done based on referrals means that they can only mean something once the referral is received.

In other words, the domain name is meaningless without the context of the why. Now - with that context - mapping personal context of why onto the domain name becomes important.

But when you visit that site you’re familiar with - by going straight to the domain - you’re forced to utilize the domain name that someone else chose (a referral with a global name), instead of being able to denotate the site as what it would mean to you. You’re forced to remember both the why as well as the what, instead of combining the two into one namespace.

  • For example, here it’s safenetforum.org, while my bookmark for this site - what I type in my browser to get here - is just safe (my local referral). But it’s the only safe that I have for myself; it only points here - and nowhere else. [1]

In this example, it’s more of a referral from my past self, and it only applies to me, locally. I could have also denotated it as safe.forums, or safe#decentralizetheinternet, or anything else that would make sense to me - I could have come up with my own scheme for myself (based on the domain name or not).

Likewise, when I receive a referral from an outside source - a search result, or an emailed link - I’m still forced to utilize the domain name that someone else chose, but I don’t have to remember it, it’s just a referral. I don’t have to worry about the domain name in that context.

  • However, if I wanted to remember a site page for future viewing, I would prefer to bookmark it as PythonListOfLists instead of https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11487049/python-list-of-lists. If I don’t, there’s no harm done in seeing the location of that information as that long, unwieldy URL.

So in any given namespace system, does the relevance come from the domain name? Or does it come from the why (the “why I want to visit this site”) - with the global name (the what) as a “suggestion”?

[1] For more information on why bookmarks only solve half of the problem though, see the section “Browser Bookmarks” here.

P.S. I want to remain on the subject of “The What and the Why” for at least another back-and-forth, but to address the rating system (which is a tangent of what we’re discussing) you can refer to the first paragraph of the “More Detail, and Interactions” section of the link above.

Basically, while that may be true (paying to push up ratings), if you create search engines that are centered around the why of the search, the domain name itself becomes more and more irrelevant.

1 Like

Re: Mr. McDonalds - You are still arguing that “might makes right”. This is flawed thinking.

As for the rest, as you can see in the post below yours, typing in URLs is becoming an increasingly rare occurrence, and I believe that they can be safely eliminated altogether.

In fact, it’s bound to reduce the surface area of social engineering attacks such as typo squatting, phishing, and other mimicry attempts. (Goodbye Cryptowall)

Since there is no globally unique human-memorable addresses in the Petname System, URLs/URIs will be deprecated. They will be replaced with a Key input to reference unique data. This will be used sparingly, but it is still relevant in order to be able to navigate to a specific site without any digital Referral.
My Petname System RFC (PR)

Also, the rating system is not an inherant feature of a relative naming scheme. That is something that search engines can, but need not include in their search rankings.

The big Corporation. Now I can’t believe you’re continuing the argument! :smiley: Nice try…MacDonalds the Corporation benefits - the question for the “employees” is whether working for MacDonalds benefits them? A growth in MacDonalds does not correspond to growth in employee benefits.
So, an even bigger Corporation, should be even more preferred, based solely on how many people it “employs”.?
So a Sweat shop employing millions at slave wages, raping the planet etc should be preferred even more?
Anyway, just a differece of opinion/viewpoint - depends what your priorities are. :smile:

1 Like

The naming system is not the right vehicle for putting big corporations in their place.

Ranking domains based on popularity is just a more dynamic system of what we have now, but without the centralization. The phonebook approach is ideal. If most people expect to see McDonalds Inc. when they type in McDonalds.com, then the corporation should indeed get McDonalds.com. The farmer will have to resort to McDonaldsFarm.com, or something, just like he would today. As it turns out, that’s pretty intuitive for people anyway, and they’re used to it.