Infinite longevity requires data to be unique and recyclable

If data is to be stored indefinitely it cannot conflict with other data. If data is to last forever it must be able to be recycled at some point. There seems to be an attitude going round that if data is immutable, that is it cannot be changed or deleted, that it’s okay for it conflict with other immutable data that that will just create markets for a limited resource. The problem with that is assuming that one can or will sell that resource. What if access to the data is forgotten or lost? In the case of a website this isn’t so much of a problem. Files get shared from user to user. Except what happens when you have a mess of safecoin going to a popular content creator that no longer has access to an account but his stuff is still being shared? Or lost publicIDs?

In the case of publicIDs each publicID could be made unique somehow so Bob#1 doesn’t conflict with Bob#2.

In short there needs to be some kind of statute of limitations so that lost data can be reclaimed by the network. And data like publicIDs need to be unique so that people don’t compete over them but more importantly so that if they are lost they aren’t lost forever.

1 Like

Public IDs are unique, they wouldn’t work otherwise.

1 Like

If public IDs are unique two individuals named Bob should not conflict. Uniqueness requires more than an alphanumeric string.

The first Bob can register the public id ‘bob’. The second Bob can’t, that’s what I mean by unique. You can’t have two people with the same public id, or they can’t be used to identify a particular website. It’s the same with the DNS. Since Google owns, you can’t have it too.

That’s what makes it stupid.

Suppose you have a child, and you want to name it bob. And central authority told you, you can’t name your child bob, it’s already taken. What then?


“Hey what’s up bobzeroonezeroonezeroone.” Really? You really want go down that path?

1 Like

Yes, I agree. We need to start naming our children with unique alphanumeric names.

I claim “dAi$y” for my next daughter.


Thats why we need to do a side step and put the naming in the hands of the individual and have naming services (plural/many) that offer suggested/default names for many of the actual IDs people have.

Thus Mary can have google’s ID of “1A4E6730945398…A3” as “google” and Jack can have it s “donoevil” and fred can have it as “evilsearch”

The user has a list of naming services that they wish to help with their naming and if they don’t have a particular ID listed in their personal naming directory then the naming services are asked (in order of preference) till the name (or ID) is found.

This way the naming services can also give a “score” to help inform the user as to the trustworthiness of the ID. The user could even set it such that they will not use an ID that is not known, so new IDs of friends etc needs the user to add them to his/her list before using. OR they could go cowboy/cowgirl and allow use of any ID.

This way the scam person who get “googlemaps” will not get very far since they would be downvoted very quickly.

BUT with the current system the person who gets googlemaps will be able to scam people for years to come and no one can do anything about it.


This is an example of why alphanumeric phrases are not unique. If they were unique they would not be able to conflict. DNA is unique, your phonetic name is not. That’s why we use DNA testing not just testing if you really are John Smith.

I’m going call my son, xxxEdgyLordxxx.