Public ID's (Discussion)


#102

that doesn’t make any sense. you can’t have both. you can’t have a monopoly and competition. it makes zero sense, its an oxymoron.

any of the competing ones are as universal as they need to be. They can all rise to spot #1 and fall gracefully etc. it’s a natural system. a healthy and a balanced and long-term sustainable one

once anyone starts forcing / having control over others, it becomes unhealthy, like today


#103

Which begs the question how could one switch from one DNA system to another? And if one CAN switch then WHY does the network get confused between Bob #1 and Bob #2.


#104

simple change in the open-source browsers

it doesn’t, only you do :stuck_out_tongue: lol but seriously, to the network it is only hashes. Not ID’s


#105

You know what? I think we should implement the pet name system or some other DNS system just to start introducing competition into the system and demonstrating ones files work regardless of the DNS used to label them.


#106

It isn’t a monopoly Will, what I’m wanting is universal in the sense that two people using the system can’t own the same id.

If I’m understanding (correct me if not!) pet names allow more than one person to have the same id, but provide ways to resolve this.

So you can have multiple dns systems, but I want one that doesn’t allow IDs to be shared. So one id will always resolve to the same user. That’s the system I would use, but you don’t have to.


#107

I think you’re misunderstanding the issue here.

Safenet already has postal address for all users. RAW format. It is OUR end to decide to name each of those postal address.

ALL of the postal offices RAW format are the same. The only difference is that each postal office decides how to name each of the RAW format.

Postal office 1: 234523523535 = happybeing
Postal office 2: 234523523535 = happycamper

You are still the SAME person. The only difference is that postal office decided to call you based on their opinion about you.

It’s the same for actual “competing” postal office.

Everybody has their own address. They provide the address to all postal office. The postal office will decide what is the best name for you.

If one user wrote the address on the letter, it would look like from safenet perspective,

“234523523535,
State, Zip code”

In postal office 1, it would look like this…
“happybeing,
State, Zip code”

In postal office 2, it would look like this…
“happycamper,
State, Zip code”

So in the end, it doesn’t matter how you look at it. You are still registered as 234523523535.


#108

That is a monopoly. lol


#109

The name we assign to a service is the raw name. It gives us a more memorable way to resolve a service, but does not need to be the most pretty name. Safe net dns could just use random hashes for these, but why do that when you can have something more memorable?

If you want a vanity/marketed name, then an overlay service can resolve these memorable names.

Example:

Safe dns name: searchengine3
Overlay dns name: google

I suspect overlay names would be worth big money in the long run. I am sure dns names would be too initially, but as has been discussed, there are limitations (squatting, lost ids, etc).


#110

I don’t think I’m misunderstanding.

A house has many ways of addressing it, but there is only one house (thing being addressed) . Postal services have settled on one way, GPS another, the UK Ordinance Survey another. What all those systems have in common is that one address resolves to one location. No monopolies, just alternative systems.

I want one of those systems to work in a similar way to the Web dns inasmuch as only one person owns a given identifier.

You can have alternative systems that work whatever way you want.

There’s no misunderstanding, unless you are saying you want a pet naming system only (a monopoly), and that I’m not allowed to use anything else. I don’t think you’re saying that, so no misunderstanding - correct?


#111

Right…well it appears both I and Happybeing were under the same misapprehension for some reason, both pointing out user experience as an issue.

Can’t the Network already tell one user from another, by whatever means…are you saying it can’t unless we introduce your system?

Having read back through this thread, it appears almost all of those interacting with you are doing so to ask for more clarity in your various suggestions and thought processes. There is more than one instance of others pointing out that the Network already addresses many of the things you identify as needing addressing.
It honestly seems like you are studiously not taking on board what others are saying, or responding to others’ suggestions or criticisms in any meaningful way.
You reprimand me for not understanding you and suggest this is because of my lack of comprehension. however it is apparent that I am not alone, so maybe this is not the real issue.
You reprimand me for not reading you properly and state that you are trying to address issues such as lost IDs and name squatting. Yet when I make a suggestion that addresses both these things, you choose to not read or respond, but instead choose to question my ability to comprehend/reason… (cheeky git…lol)
You Sir, have crossed the line! (slaps face with gauntlet and tosses to the ground) :smile:
… - this demonstrates (to me at least) the depth of your desire for meaningful conversation to come to some sensible solutions - as opposed to churning out one thought after another seemingly with little considered thinking of things through.
The evidence, gathered from reading the thread properly (at your suggestion) would suggest that it is in fact yourself that is repeatedly demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the pertinent issues around this discussion. :smile:


#112

You still receive RAW format regardless. It will always start with random generated URL. Therefore, we already have a universal naming convention. Neo already pointed this out.

Safe dns is a “monopoly” solution to the annoying culprit of random generated ID. Safe dns IS the Overlay dns name.

value / key
hashID / safe dns

It is the overlay dns we’re arguing about at this point. A choice between a monopoly or competing dns system.


#113

You are not being clear. The purpose of a PublicID is to, among other uses, comprise part of the URL to a resource/page/app.

As such, you absolutely WILL have random numbers in your URL because the URL has to be unique. You are the one who proposed the random strings, which is what TOR does.

If you try some scheme where you have a non one-to-one mapping of friendly names to raw id’s, where two people both get to use the PublicID of “bob”, you run into problems. So when one bob sends out the URL to his fancy new website at safe://app.bob and I click it, I can’t be sure if I go to his website, or that other bob who also has PublicID of “bob”. How will you tell which bob I really wanted? When you send out a URL in to the world for people to click on, anybody who clicks on it must all go to the exact same place. There can’t be two PublicID’s named bob.


#114

I’ve already said I’m happy with an alternative, not a monopoly. I see that I probably did misunderstand you because what you appear to propose is to have one system (of competing pet name indexes) and not allow an alternative. Please clarify if I’m still not understanding what you propose.

The only reason to do that is if you think the alternative will out compete your system. If not, why can’t they run side by side? In practice they can and will if anyone wants them to, because you can’t stop a protocol being implemented or prevent people from using it. That’s why it doesn’t matter if I don’t like pet naming systems, you can implement them anyway.

The key question is what ends up being used by particular applications, and of course what maidsafe choose to support in their own applications - particularly the first SAFE Browser because this will guide developers, website creators and users. If you want a pet naming system to be included I suggest you make your case ASAP or better still implement something.


#115

The majority will pick which is the best for them. People are lazy, and won’t change. Whatever the system they lived through, they’ll live through. It’s humnan nature. We design to be efficiently lazy. That’s why we’re living in a screwed up system in the first place.

It is better to do it right once.

I am 100 percent against idea you propose, and what maidsafe implemented right now… It is better to have a competing service, so you can just pick one you trust the most rather than having a monopoly centralized dns service and nobody can’t get what they want.

IE, build a bot that buys up all of the dns names then sell them 10000x over. Nobody won’t buy it.

There is a reason why I am very vocal about DNS.


#116

This I definitely understand :wink: but if you want something different you need to advocate it and convince people. It doesn’t matter how many percent you want a pet name system, you need to explain your system in detail and show how it works and why that’s better.


#117

True dat @happybeing true dat… :sunglasses:


#118

@Grizmoblust gets it -------@–@--


#119

It’s actually better if the network behaves as a network without relying on the skill and honesty of random internet programmers who will abandon their friendly name service when they realize they are not making enough money from it to justify their time.

To put the success of the network entirely in the hands of random, yet to be named entrepreneurs, in the hopes that they will bear that burden reliably and in-perpetuity, is the definition of insanity.

Please create your friendly name mapper. You and Blindsite can each create one, so I can be bob.griz while somebody else can be bob.site Between the two of you we now can have two bobs. But I’m going to be pretty pissed when I have advertised bob.griz to the world, and you decide you are bored with the project and discontinue the service. So, perhaps I’ll stick to using the built in DNS that does not rely on you, if you’re cool with that.


#120

You were in discussion on “no dns” thread, and “petname” thread. Clearly, you have not changed your mind. That’s okay by with me. Certain people have this mentality of “old dogs can’t learn new tricks.”

I am still against it no matter what. I would love to build it however, as I pointed out to several members on this forum that I am taking my time off away from keyboard due to repetition syndrome. I cannot type on my keyboard for the time being. I am literally writing this out on my phone. This maidsafe DNS is part of the core system so there is nothing we can do about that. It is literally a monopoly DNS system at this point. we don’t have a choice.


#121

Safe net dns is barely an overlay. It is just a user definable base layer, imo. They are far more memorable than hashes or ip addresses, but there is no guarantee you will get a short or neat one. It is free though and genuinely useful.

For example, I see people with email addresses like joebloggs889@gmail.com. Is it ideal that Joe bloggs had 889 on the end of his address? No. Does that mean he should instead get ised1375audh92@gmail.com instead? No.

There are two issues here. One is a memorable and free way to resolve names. Another is a way to revolve specific short/meaningful/marketable names, which carry a premium. Just because safe net dns caters only for the former, it does not mean it shouldn’t be offered. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water here.