But having them not encrypted imposes a risk to farmers I thought…?
And encrypting would be super easy… Just encrypt the content of name/hash(riddim) with the key ‘riddim’ …
But having them not encrypted imposes a risk to farmers I thought…?
And encrypting would be super easy… Just encrypt the content of name/hash(riddim) with the key ‘riddim’ …
Yes, so you hold forever ‘jlpell’ which is kinda selfish. Nice for you, but in the year 2186 when you are not around, no other person can do something with ‘jlpell’. But the idea of having a random extension is there will be no focus on this extension, so no squatting.
Lets start over, since there is some misinfo
I suggest include the name in the api call to register the NRS name and now the network does the registration in a reserved tag type.
The AD has to be readable by the public since it is a Name resolution system.
Currently a bad actor set of nodes can
My thought changes this by allowing the bad actor to know the NRS name at time of the registration. But the vaults get no extra info than they get now.
I am only exploring this as a possibility, but it does increase the complexity.
It would be to increase the network income and make it very expensive for any whale to mass register short names
A few points, dots can be replaced with dashes if a user wants to separate words.
Short vs long pricing seems a a simple and reasonable change to discourage squatters. However, it won’t stop fraudsters as it would be worth the extra cost to capture a key name (hsbc, Citibank, etc).
Initial parity with DNS for popular names seems to be the only way to stop fraud and squatting, afaik. I think this must be taken seriously as part of giving a consistent user experience.
Thanks for the write up but I don’t think there was any misinformation
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]
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?
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
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.
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
ready when you are
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 -.-"
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.
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)
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 )
Don’t Twitter shut down impersonators?
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.