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.
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.
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).
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.
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
Not only the real BO, but any BO (unless you yourself is Barack Obama).
Additionally, he would be able to ask the Independent Commission for Redistribution of SAFE Domains for your DNS registrar info, GeoIP you and then drone you.
That would be good, certainly solve some problems, but would it not then allow others
People want to sell their business and the name that goes with it.
lost accounts and the names used
swatters and professional name dealers will simply create accounts with one or more names for each. Then sell the account itself to the highest bidder.
A couple of questions about SAFE (Decentralised) Naming System.
Why is the name still being called domain name? Is not SAFE structured differently to a centralisation model?
What would your view on calling it “SAFE Naming System (Decentralised)” “SNS” to remove the DNS confusion.
What happened to the idea of a name chosen by the user with additional characters (hash maybe) that allows many to have unique names but recognisable ones.
The question then is how the network assigns( chooses) the additional characters.
If only a few additional characters after the chosen name then maybe someone can come up with a way they could be memorable/searchable
See this comment at the top of this page: the claim is that anything that involves money would be inefficient and anti-egalitarian. (Of course, they may say they don’t want to completely eliminate money from DNS - they just want to “justly” distribute names, which means to allocate them below their optimal price - talk about inefficiency).
I believe we’re putting that through thorough scrutiny here
I would say there is next to no concesus on the topic of a distributed SAFE naming system. Therefore the question would arguably only make sense in the context of one of the competing proposals.
We need to keep this in mind. It needs to be SAFE and decentralized, with no human corruption involved. In short, the solution must be decentralized, simple and SAFE.
It is your end, and your definition for that particular website.
If you want to get to real safe:amazon then you need to use web of trust where community collaborate which site is the real deal, and which site is a malware. Plus, amazon would give out their actual credibility address, and you can compare of the two. If it matches, it is the real amazon. If it is not, then tag it as malware, and inform the web of trust community to avoid it.
I use WoT extensively when I look for new websites, and ensure their scripts are not malware. WoT is an amazing tool.
This means the web of trust is not hard coded into the network, but instead their could be multiple WoTs to choose from? Kind of like the current DNS. I don’t have to use the one my ISP gives me.
