The difference I see between the browser and burning TLDs is that one is final, while the other is optional and in time anyone can opt out by using a different browser.
The reason I used the word hobbling is because the change is permanent, those TLDs are lost from that NRS forever. It may seem a subtle difference, but it triggers something negative in me - like a closing down of opportunity, of freedom - and so far without anyone having demonstrated the necessity or the value. Just fearful speculation.
Looking from this perspective, disallowing all short names is far worse IMO. There would be millions of combinations lost forever, many great names, again because of fearful speculation and without putting in effort to characterise and justify this.
Many of us here love to come up with ideas for solving problems, but if we don’t also look at whether this is a problem worth trying to solve, it’s likely to be at best wasted effort and could be making things worse for no reason at all.
Scammer owned or not, the perpetual squatting on common tlds and basic words is a problem that exists.
It is equivalent to restricting Everyone from using certain letters of the common alphabet used for centuries when trying to verbally communicate, but allowing a select group to continue using those letters because they were the first to “claim” them in the modern age.
Dosn mk lo of sns…
That’s why I tend to advocate for a public burn of those tlds/names. They will still exist, but everyone has the ability to use them. They become a public square.
I agree squatting is a problem but have not liked any of the solutions I’ve seen so far, and I think that goes for the community as a whole as we’ve had some epic threads about this. Some like one or other ideas, others not.
Squatting is a related to the OP, but the diffiulties it poses are I think quite well understood. But I think it confuses things to move onto squatting here because again it avoids the question of whether the scenario in the OP is a significant problem in the first place.
@Seneca has already found a decentralized solution to the squatting problem:
This system reduces incentives to squat a name because you are not sure to keep eternally the lead for a name. Your version of the name will lose its rank when someone pays a higher bid (either the legitimate owner of the associated brand name or another, more greedy, squatter).
As safecoins paid for increasing names rank are recycled, this system helps the network sustainability. I foresee fierce battles to get control of names like google, amazon, facebook, … They will be costly for the contenders, but healthy for the network.
A single global namespace incentivizes squatting. Either for profit or just for fun and bragging rights, or out of vindictiveness, anger, revenge.
Multiple entities exist with the same (legal) name, brand name, nickname, etc. A single global namespace allows one (at most) to use that name.
Many people/organizations will not even hear about Safe Network until early adopters (squatters) have gobbled up all the most interesting names. So latecomers are punished, and may be turned off by this.
doesnt solve squatting. doesn’t solve situation where multiple entities (businesses or people) have the same legal name.
That’s the challenge I’d like to set to those who want to lock out a number of TLDs. Please first demonstrate, or explain in detail how your imagined fishing attack would catch people - using the UX that Maidsafe have planned
Now this is a capital idea. On the next iteration of testnet, I may try to create such a fishing page! Would be instructive at least
I think this belongs in the squatting / DNS topics and is getting in the way of the discussion of the issue raised in the OP. We’ve already done DNS and squatting to death without result so if this is more of that I’ll probably drop out of this discussion.
Fair enough. I think the OP raises a valid concern (squatting) of a single global namespace, but I do not like the OP’s proposal because it doesn’t address the root issue (single global namespace), is centralized, and arbitrary / non-deterministic (meetings? fees?). In short, I don’t seriously consider it for a moment. But I do feel that the concerns raised are valid and can be addressed in way(s) that are more compatible with Safe Network principles.
I’ve put forth one such proposal above, and I’d like to hear some feedback on it, positive or negative. It’s just the first thing that popped into my head and very half-baked, but even still it at least attempts to address the facts that (1) people will arrive to Safe Network over time, and (2) people/orgs in real life have name collisions but still want to have their name addressable.
Perhaps I could be convinced otherwise, but as of now I think that a single global namespace would be a mistake, and we really should be aiming for thousands of reserved TLDs that become available over time as network grows, with at least 10 available at launch, that people can register names under. and no “special” global namespace.
I like this idea better than my original proposal. Very nice.TLDs are generated over time so .com is no more valuable than .foo, they are arbitrary. no maintenance required, the network does it for you. No lawsuits about entity XYZ stole my company’s trademark, pick a new TLD. If it starts at .aa by the time we get to the .com TLD safe network will be mature enough that the layman should know the difference between it and the clear net, if the clear net exists at all anymore that is. I can’t think of any downsides to this.
No I was not and in fact yours is exactly that because you deterministic release them to allow people to use them. If its not single global then your idea is not even making sense to do it over years.
My reply was in response to your single global idea, but is still good for the initial startup and if people use the original default system then it still helps. The initial reason holds years in while people come over from the old Internet.