RFC - Decentralised Naming System III - prevent domain transfer (dirvine)

This just got me thinking here. What about a site like archive.org but instead of archiving music or files or whatever it archives websites. Say you abandon your website for whatever reason. You lose interest, you lose your computer, you get hit by a truck, whatever. You stop updating the site. After 6 months or a year or whatever length of time the network appends archive. to the start of your site and slaps it into the archive site. That in turn frees up your old domain for recirculation. If you ever come back you just need to pick up a new domain, preferably the same kind of one, and reload the info from your old site. Also that way people can easily browse old dormant sites all in one place and they don’t get lost in the void.

I would like domain naming not to be transferable and to be just registered to your own account forever. If your safe site becomes popular because of the content, just sell the account what is the problem. Use ethereum and create a contract. A domain does not make a website popular it is the service it gives you. I am sure there will be a number of free search engines apps for all sorts of interest made for the safe network. If I wanted to be greedy I could register the already announced safe network names and hold them to ransom if I had the ability to easy sell the domain name, I would profit. The choice would be come up with a new name or buy the name and have it transferred. but if I had to register a name with account only, I would have to register one account with one domain name. I think this would be very difficult.

Me likes! I’m unsure that nesting old sites into one grand archive site is wise though. Seems like an all eggs in one basket ordeal. I posted a similar idea above that could potentially make everything else you mentioned possible though. Check it out and let me know whatcha think. :smile:

So create competing archive sites and have the user register their site with an archive site of their choosing or risk it being deleted upon it going dormant. Or if you don’t want to delete it you could just have all the files just revert back to the user’s safespace and just not be published online. They’d still be THERE, they’d still exist, they just wouldn’t be public.

Brand recognition, marketing, subtle psychological influences among other things are reasons for very specific domain names. Permanent ownership opens the door to spiteful domain squatting. Empowering legitimate use of domain names while thwarting domain hoarding and squatting purely for the sake of circumvention is imo the way to go. For the sake of early and widespread adoption, I want to see big names like google, reddit, facebook, and youtube transition over to SAFE smoothly.

1 Like

Did you get to read my first post in this thread? The idea allows for your site to remain on safe indefinitely into the future without second or third parties. If you want to privatize your site, just add authentication requirements. Boom! There you have a permanent site and privacy. Let me know if I’m not making sense. Gotta go! Replaying the mass effect trilogy (with beautiful texture mods) in preparation for the glorious Andromeda release. The wait for VR is gnawing at my mind!!!

Barely 3-4 comments after I pointed out that the idea may mean the end of anonymity on the SAFE network, we learn “it’s not hard” as long as one agrees to give up on anonymity (and privacy) in order to prevent the evils of squatting.
Perfect. That’s a small price to pay!

And this the second comment (after smacz’s above) that throws away privacy to be able to root out the speculators.

Well it didn’t take long for the crowd to become willing to trade anonymity and privacy for moral values.

Another one.

Clearly after a bunch of unworkable and technically unsound “proposals” the majority is will to sacrifice the two most important features (anonymity and resistance to censorship) of the platform to be able to root out this non-issue and censor entrepreneurs. Amazing.

What I like about this is that it shows how democracies can go down the toilet real fast, but unlike in the real world here everything happens faster so we don’t have to participate for 50 years to see degradation take place.

3 Likes

Right. If I am Google and I want people to know that they are dealing with the real google, I need to identify myself to a registry and tell them that is my site.

If I want to be anonymous, I can put that stuff on a different place on SAFE and not claim it with any registry and nobody will know if it is mine or somebody else’s.

I don’t see this as a problem. If I want to be known I can be known If I don’t want to be known, I don’t need to be known…

You can have it both ways. I would just keep the registries independent of SAFE and allow there to be competing ones.

1 Like

Really? And what if you run a site called progressiveparadise.safe and and I register or buy progressiveparadise.com and then ask the SAFE Government to kick you out and assign the domain to me?

If you read my suggestion you would see that I didn’t I didn’t propose a SAFE government…

I suggested that independent registries could verify that the website claiming to be progressiveparadise was run by the folks who actually run the existing progressiveparadise – and the can decide to list it as such or not… Through Digital signature verification etc…

The registries that are most accurate are going to be the ones that users are going to want to use because when I want to do business with somebody, I want the real thing, not a counterfeit or a domain parking linkbot…

Yes, to verify is to link the identity of the owner of progressiveparadise.com with a SAFE Network account.

I didn’t say that.

I said that the known entity can authenticate themselves as the owner of a SAFE site to the independent registry… Using cryptographic solutions outside of SAFE. I gave a very specific example.

As far as I can tell one user may have many public websites on SAFE - and there is no way for anyone to tie them all back to the same user. The fact that a publicly known entity authenticates and vouches for the fact that they are indeed on SAFE is a choice that they can make to add value to their SAFE presence. Who wants to do business with an imposter?

This in no way prevents them from having other SAFE sites they don’t claim.

Is there some technical reason why they would have to disclose all or nothing?

1 Like

Just who would “work” in this independent registry that reviews millions of matters for free (or who should pay for their work)?

I get that. What I’m telling you is that you can have progressiveparadise.com protected by WHOIS guard (used figuratively since the registrar will rat you out to the government if they have to), but once you cryptographically prove to that commission of yours that you own progressiveparadise.com (in order to get progressiveparadise.safe), then all the government needs to do to bust your balls is to ask your .com registrar for your email and IP address of your recent access to their Web site.

You haven’t answered (or don’t have an answer?) to my question about me registering progressiveparadise.com.cn and then based on that asking the registry to reassign your progressiveparadise.safe to me (regardless of whether you proved you own progressiveparadise.com).

And here’s another hilarious consequence of your idea: now in order to get a “free” .safe (or safe://) domain one has to spend $10 bucks to register the same .com domain otherwise he exposes himself to confiscation risk at a later time. Can’t make this stuff up…

The way it works now I can build nearly any DNS entry I want without permission and without fee or question.

So SAFE:www.progressiveparadise can be owned by whomever signs up.

No problem.

If I am the real entity I can get www.progresiveparadise5737021 and then have the “search engines” or independent registries point people looking for me to that website.

The search engines that attach themselves to the correct entities are going to be the winners in the marketplace. Because a squatter or an imposter is not who anyone wants to deal with when they are trying to find me.

If I want to sell my website to somebody else, so be it. The free market ought to allow that. Businesses need succession plans and exit plans etc… Often the entrepreneur is a lousy manager of a growing and thriving business…

As far as the WHOIS guard etc. that still isn’t a problem If you have access to the website you can still set up DKIM or something similar to that and authenticate that you are the operator of such a site even without disclosing your IP or your identity.

If you don’t care to authenticate with the independent registrars or search engines, they can still rate you highly in the search if they think you are the legit deal, and they can still rank you low if they think you are a spambot. Registering would be entirely optional. People can still find you at www.progresiveparadise5737021

On twitter, I can talk to somebody with a celebrity’s name, or I can talk to a different handle that is “Verified Authentic” I would tend to choose the real McCoy whenever possible. The Celebrities probably prefer to be known real as well so they are not blamed for that other guys tweets. If they want to be anonymous joe they can also set up an account for that.

Abstract

   DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or
   organization that owns the signing domain to claim some
   responsibility for a message by associating the domain with the
   message. 

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6376.txt

The key words are “associate” and “responsibility”. Once you associate a real world account with your SAFE domain, you’re identifiable and responsible to your local government for anything you do on that SAFE domain.

Okay, let’s wait for a DNS III proposal, it’s going to be fun to see what the third (or maybe fifteenth) version contains.

Just copying and pasting doesn’t mean you have an ounce of understanding what it means.

Basically DKIM means that you sign an email with a key associated with your domain. Since the public key is accessible, anyone can verify that the email was properly signed. Because the private key is unknown nobody can sign the forgery.

You don’t have to disclose anything – But the fact that the public key is published on the domain means that you must have access to upload to that domain.

Public private key signing is a good way to prove you are who you say you are even if your name is Satoshi Nakamoto… That’s how he did it, and we still don’t know who he is.

If you don’t want to be associated with the SAFE site, then don’t be. But if you are Google, or Amazon, or a politcal party or any other public entity, or public personality you are going to want the real you to be discernable from the imposters.

Anonymity ought not be required. That isn’t freedom.

That’s news to me.

The clients allow people to anonymously join the network and cannot prevent people joining.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MaidSafe

Digitally recording the content creators (through an anonymous ID) of each piece of work will enable the network to manage and pay out rewards without human intervention and without corruption.

(Corruption means the sort of shenanigans that could happen in this Domain Commission of yours, composed of selfless volunteers not at all associated with governments and Amazons of the physical world).

Source: http://blog.maidsafe.net/2015/03/19/the-next-generation-sharing-economy/

Maybe I am again copying and pasting without understanding what was being said before.

Yes, anyone can join anonymously without permission but nowhere does it say that they cannot claim to be Satoshi Nakamoto, publish a writing and then provide a digital signature proving such.

Or Barak Obama for that matter. Anonymity is built in, but it is not mandatory. If we want to be known we can make ourselves known. He needs no permission. To say “you cannot tell us who you are even if you want to” isn’t within the network’s capablities, even if it was, it would be censorship of the worst kind.

Yes, the network can theoretically pay without ‘corruption’ But why? Just for sport? The intent of the payments was to allow open source software developers to contribute and get paid. It was to allow research on things like cancer to be shared freely. Paying pirates isn’t terribly contructive, particularly when their wares are freely available on competing technologies.

Paying ignorantly is hardly a free market. It is just a market begging to be gamed into oblivion…

If The network pays more for it’s resources than is necessary it will be inefficient and will most likely fail.

Payments are a good idea, but it definitely needs refinement. Paying for the sake of paying is not constructive. Paying for the sake of progress is.

1 Like

Hiya, trying to understand the idea better - so can the real Barack Obama kick me out of barackabama website if I was to register it before him?

1 Like

i think every system has his own advantages and disadvantages. but to be able to reflect on it and to propose different things, i think we should know the pyramid of layers that the developers have in mind when they design the system. example: on layer 0(most important) is privacy and freedom and on layer 1 is resources income and on layer 2 is user friendly. only when we have a pyramid containing the layers by their usefulness and importance in the developers’s view, we will be able to make proposals of things
does the pyramid consists in only 2 layers (privacy and freedom on layer 0 and all other things on layer 1)? what do the developers are after when they do x or y? i know it’s a 2 way road (for good or bad people, or good or bad for business, for investors etc), and these things are discussed inside the team, but at least a pyramid of priorities is something useful