NRS Pre-Registration and Sale

Well, I was talking about simple solution to solve problem with domain squatters. So you are talking about oranges where I am talking about apples.

It does. Now what? Some proof for your claim?

How is this simpler than my solution? My solutions is maybe 10 lines of code.( Or maybe impossible it depends on how NRS is implemented, I don’t know. But should be much simpler than any auction or presale). Btw. creating some database of domain names at the beginning will make very bad publicity as an autonomous network. Your story will start, there was a GOD, he created a database and fixed prices and now, everyone has to live with that forever. Nothing decentralized here, just a single creator.

Selling domains is very minor part of internet economy. It has close to 0% share. My argument about network earning money was just minor bonus argument. It does not matter much that network earns money. What matters is that squatters can’t buy domains cheap.

What? How? Really? Everyone has to pay same price for domain. If you are poor, well your chance to buy top domain is low. But the rich guy has to pay full price. To rephrase your sentence, it is like saying any price >0 for any PUT is violating SAFE principles, because rich guy can upload more GB of Data than poor guy.

Thanks for the write up but I don’t think there was any misinformation :face_with_monocle:

Edit/PS: Yes it’s a possible path but I’m a bit reluctant because of the (granted - little ) additional knowledge for others +the additional network side complexity… [while for example the continuous auction naming system is pure client side complexity]

1 Like

Hey - don’t get me wrong, I’m all about the blank sheet idea … and I’ve been pushing that this whole thread and everyone keeps coming back at me with “we need communicability” … So, turning that around then, if we need communicability, then why wouldn’t we want the tld ending!!!

If I’m telling someone about my new website on SAFE and I say hey check out my website tyler-yo-yo … what are they gonna say coming from the clearnet? They are going to say, okay, what’s the URL … even though I’ve already given them the URL. If I say check out tyler-yoyo.com … they’ll get it straight away - that’s part of communicability which seems to be what some here feel is critical for SAFE URL’s - so which is it - do you want good communicability or not?

So for the purpose of communicability (I’m talking to you here @JimCollinson), then why wouldn’t we use a system that allows the appearance of tlds? And that’s what I’m proposing a solution for with NRS (in my post above -repeated below).

My tld idea again:

Don’t get me wrong though @nevel - I’d prefer a search approach only and just be rid of defacto NRS. But if we are going to have it for the sake of communicability, then why not have the tld possibility as well?

  1. Whose to say I won’t be around? The best use of MAID is for a perpetual avatar alive an well on the SAFE Network.
  2. Hopefully someone would have come up with something better to use by then.
  3. Your argument is circular. I could just as easily complain that you have taken JohnSnow.txq and the NRS will only let me have JohnSnow.thx. It’s the year 2186 and I want JohnSnow.txq. You are being selfish. The alpha 2 system is superior because it doesn’t limit the extension to only 3 or 4 characters, it can be anything. The only limitation is the creativity of the individual choosing the name, given that it doesn’t collide with a prior registration.

Just because short names are more expensive than long names doesn’t solve squatting. A rich guy could purchase the name “safe://apple” and put up a picture of a bananna, then burn the private key or die of a heart attack the next day without telling anyone where the key is. The bananna will be there forever. The pubname “safe://apple” will be squatted/static forever and essentially useless.

Not really. It’s analogous to a scorched earth MAD policy. No one wants any one person or group to have perpetual control over simple words used in every day language by everyone all over the world every instant of every day. It’s logically consistent with the reason why you can’t copyright a single word or letter of a language. Instead, we make those unique pubnames claimable by everyone, and they only gain value by people working together, decentralized, to build something meaningful at those sites. For everything else, do what you want.

No, the rich guy and the poor guy pay the same price for a single PUT. The rich guy can just by more of them, which is fine. Same thing should go for NRS, because registrations are just PUTs. Rich guy and poor guy pay the same for any single pubname, but the rich guy can probably afford to buy 1000’s of them, whereas the poor guy gets one or two. The difference is that they both have the opportunity to choose whatever name they can think of that is not already taken, and pay the same price for it.

I have an idea that would solve that problem

1 Like

Yes Exactly. He can. If there is a rich idiot than he can buy any domain in any system and upload there photo of his ass. But no rich idiot can buy thousands or millions of domains if those domains are expensive. You simple misunderstand the whole point of squatting. Squatters buy shitload of cheap domains and sit on them. Then sell fraction of them for profit. That profit covers costs for all non sold domains. The more expensive each domain is, the less profitable domain squatting business is. So you have to make expensive all those domains. My proposition still allows close to 0 price for longer names of domains.

I still don’t understand how you mean that. What and how you want to achieve with this.

Well, who cares that is it just a PUT? It is technical detail. We are talking about squatters problem. If you make it cheap as PUT price, than I myself will run a bot that will register all possible short names. Anyone can run a bot and you will be out of short domain names in few hours. With dictionary attack, all trademarks and words that were not in your original database will be registered by attacker too.

1 Like

Yes, true. I don’t think the quantity really matters. I was thinking of it from a micro-squatting perspective, site by site. When I say “squat”, I mean the ability the own a pubname in perpetuity for a single one-time payment, and have complete control over it. I would call what you are describing as a “professional”, “commercial”, or a “mega” squatter/profiteer.

Yes, precisely, we would need to get everything in the original database. The whole point of The Perpetual Public Reserve and Private Squat option is that the grand “dictionary attack” occurs prior to launch and all the private keys are published as a form of “public burning”. The database “GOD” you describe above is the entity that “in the beginning” performed the ultimate dictionary attack on the network, then on the seventh day gave the keys away to Everyone to do what they want with those sites - build up, tear down, let rot, criticize, make popular etc. Anything that is left over is free game for profiteering and private use, which isn’t much of a problem since you can still have “safe://cars.antifragile” or “safe://god.antifragile” or “safe://anything.antifragile” since antifragile is not in the english dictionary and I suspect not in any non-english dictionary either.

By the way, you would be surprised how easy it is to build this grand dictionary and use it against SAFE now that the safe cli is coming online with so many nice features. :wink:

1 Like

So you mean all those domains become public property and content can be uploaded by anybody like on wikipedia? but can you imagine Wikipedia without administrators? Wiki would be dead already without central authority checking uploaded content.

Yes, that is probably the most preferable option.

Yes, censorship free. Priceless.

I’m not convinced this is true. Maybe it is. It would provide an interesting social experiment and a true decentralized public commons centered around a particular topic/theme. Remember there is a cost to PUT, and there is versioned data. How would wikipedia be different if you had to pay money to edit things and mess around?

Other thoughts: there could be up votes, and a ranking system for contributors analogous to nodal age that lead to weak form of decentralized admin. Every change would be stored on the perpetual web. The most popular version could be the default view in SAFE browser. Also consider the profit motive for individuals to contribute good content. For such a public location with millions of views daily, the PtP reward for good contributions could be staggering. And then there is the constant stream of PUT income to the network due to the fight for dominance between the contributors.

I have an idea of a system that would lead to anything is said to be evaluated and proven of how true or wrong and include all of the views of the people

sidenote

Bildschirmfoto%20vom%202019-10-04%2016-28-16

ready when you are :slight_smile: :hugs:

ps: i guess it’s a bit slow how i just tested it (only 2 or so names per second… would take a while to reserve a whole dictionary …); might get better when i start with threading =)

pps: and i’m honestly sorry; i guess i just messed up some names on the shared vault - but i wanted to test a bit on real network conditions to be sure i’m doing it right -.-"

4 Likes

Sorry, what kind of argument is this?
You are thinking too much in extensions and that they are important. That’s why there is such a thing as domain squatting. That is what we are trying to solve here.
The whole idea is to have meaningless extensions. They are there to make your NRS unique, that’s it.
So you don’t want ‘JohnSnow.txq’, you want ‘JohnSnow’. Everyone can register ‘JohnSnow’ now, that’s the advantage. Up to you to create a great website and your version will show up when querying for safe://JohnSnow

Fun, but this is trivial coding and many a script kiddie will be all over this. I think some people are underestimating how much of the name space will become owned by squatters, diminishing the experience for everyone else.

4 Likes

Precisely what I wanted to demonstrate … This cost me (including searching for what programs precisely I need +downloading the cli + finding the configuration for public vault+creating an account+creating balance +learning how to create public names) less than an hour…

(and after i knew how to operate the cli it was literally 6 lines of python code; 9 including try+except because @bochaco s name was already taken which threw an error)

Ps: … Squatting here won’t be comparable to squatting on clearnet… It will be super simple, cheap +forever (and like the early bitcoin people there would probably be people with lots of reserved names that just loose their account)

4 Likes

Does squatting feel like a problem on Twitter, or Facebook?

It’s similarly cheap and trivial to create Names there.

(Dang, I said I wasn’t gonna get back involved. But I’m off duty now, so maybe it’s doesn’t count :smiley:)

2 Likes

Don’t Twitter shut down impersonators?

3 Likes

Centralised reputation system, vs decentralised that we could create. Still the same issues around Name creation… I could get in first and have @billgates And not impersonate him… he can’t outbid me for it.

Twitter and Facebook are a bit different than a bank. Also identities on them are on an app rather than a network, so one layer down from DNS as it were.

All me old fashioned, but I like the idea that all data is equal. @jim costs the same as @mij but it’s what I do and say and create with it that builds its value.

1 Like