From RFC Launcher-dns-api
List Public Names
API would list all the public name associated to the User Account.
Implementation
This is simple a direct API call to the get_all_registered_names function
Before the PUT of an DNS the group can made an List Public Names. If the list if greater than 3 the PUT is rejected.
The problem is that DNS management is done on the client side. Any control done here can be removed by forking the code and removing the line implementing the control (like the change proposed by @smacz) and nobody on the network will be able to counter act the change.
Only vaults can implement unremovable controls (thanks to the consensus group) but they donāt know about files, directories, DNS records and configurationsā¦ They only know about Immutable Data and Structured Data and how to store and retrieve them. They could do some controls by analyzing the SD tags and acting on their values, but they donāt and I think itās a good thing:
For safecoins though, the vaults will implement more controls, but I think this is justified in this case.
@Blindsite2k That implies moderation of sites/domain names. This takes a group of people. This group of people is fallible and corruptible. Are you going to create ICANN all over again? No, that canāt work.
@Al_Kafir You canāt use time as a factor. Out of the question.
@digipl I agree with @tfaās analysis. Implementing such a feature would be both restrictive and invasive.
Okay say when you created a domain a hashes was created that was tied to your public id. So public ID + Domain name = Domain Hash and that is what in fact gets stored in the database. Why? So that multiple people can register the same domain name without confusing them. Then when you want to find the site you were looking for you can just look up www.whatever.safe and if it isnāt the site you want you can do a search and compare the hashes, or if known the public id of the authors. Similar to how you use phone numbers. Is this John Smith of Cherry Drive in Snowsalot Canada or is this John Smith of Moley Hill in Waytoohot USA? Are the phone numbers the same? Is the name the same? Is the address the same?
By George, I think heās got it.
These names [Domain Hashes] are just like phone numbers.
ā¦ Just as with phone numbers, one would use a directory service to translate a descriptive name into a handle. Unlike the problems associated with the scarcity of .COM names, the mapping of names into phone numbers is a well-established process within an existing legal framework.
The use of directory services works even better with computers. With current browsers one can type a name directly into the address line and be presented with likely alternatives. The choice can be stored in oneās address book.
ā Bob Frankston
We need to do with the naming system what weāve done with the internet - flip it on itās head. I just updated my Petname System RFC with the (semi-relevant) line:
This does imply though, that this kind of system would deviate from the existing paradigm. The existing paradigm being that the specific location is returned given the name. In this case, the name is returned given a specific location.
However, I would caution against relying on a personaās public ID, unless we change the current setup.
The problem with using that is that youāre limited (with the current implementation) to having only three personas at any given time. This I disagree with.
However, if we change it so that you can have unlimited personas (and handle them the exact same way as outlined above - how itās put in my RFC) one would then be able to post anonymous content/create anonymous sites easily.
If you have your main personas, thatās fine. You can use them and have this all be tied to those. However, if you wanted to do something anonymously, you could create a throwaway persona or just have the system randomly create one for you.
You then start to see how Personas and Domain Names are inherently interrelated.
@blindsite2k I think you missed my point. The limit is per account. There is a ācostā in effort for the user who creates additional accounts in order to exceed the limit.
Are you saying someone couldnāt write a script or program to automate account creation? And moreover limiting domains per account would incentivize regular users to create multiple accounts for different areas of their life and so personas would kind of become supurfluous. Isnāt the whole purpose of personas so that people donāt have to create multiple accounts?
Also, Iāve already pointed out how - thanks to the code being open source - I can modify the source to get rid of that restriction.
Then, if I understand your reasoning, this sets up an arbitrary restriction that potentially frustrates new/average users while not impeding any sort of malicious action. Therefore, these policies would negatively impact the adoption rate and undermine confidence in the network while simultaneously failing to prevent abuse of the network.
So itās harder? No, the real question is why is this possible in the first place?! Human controlled elements that we know canāt be trusted that have near-unlimited time and resources will not be hindered by āharderā - only āimpossibleā.
P.S. Humorously, Iām still in my early 20ās. Iāll always take the compliment of having an old soul though!
hi, i read through this, there are some good ideas and some not so good.
Really what is needed when fighting over visible domains is that the person who desires the domain the most have sufficient resources to claim it.
Take for example a popular situation, nissan motors wanted nissan.com but some guy already had it as his website intially for years prior and was actively using it, icann ruled that he had claim over it. So big corporation didnt get it.
But the popular sentiment here is that big corporation should get it, but its still not right to take it from someone who got it first.
Well the root of the problem is that there is no barrier to entry to acquire nice domains. I like Torās approach to acquiring vanity .onion addresses, the person who wants a nice address has to do alot of computations to find it, then they have the private key which gives them ownership.
So in the instance of nissan, the chances of mr.nissan getting nissan.onion are very slim, but nissan motors could afford the servers needed to find it.
This isnt a perfect example because .onions are all 16-char and vanities only go halfway into it, then the rest is usually jumbled.
It would take more power to get a longer name, but since shorter names are more desirable the dns system would have to make it harder to generate a shorter name than a longer one.
As for the suggestion that many sites can have the same name but with different hashes displayed next to them, this would make phishing a huge problem.
If someone clever can figre out how to make shorter names harder to generate then your dns squatting problem would be solved.
One idea off the top would be that at generation the user would type in the name they want, then they would generate 16 random char addresses until it found a hash of an address that matched the desired address, like a vanity md1 but tailored to a specific length. I think this approach would be more agnostic towards name length, being equally difficut to generate long and short names.
Yes but Iām not suggesting this on the basis you canāt enforce the restriction. If itās in the client, of course itās useless, but I didnāt say it would be done by the client. The same with captchas.
I donāt know how you would do it in the network, but that doesnāt mean it canāt be done. So whether or not this approach is viable is an open question.
Humorously, if youāre still in your twenties, you were a very young surfer when I last ran my own SMTP demon with dial-up internet!
Sorry, whereās āhereā? [quote=āfeelz, post:29, topic:6388ā]
So in the instance of nissan, the chances of mr.nissan getting nissan.onion are very slim, but nissan motors could afford the servers needed to find it.
[/quote]
OKā¦Iām missing something important I thinkā¦why should Nissan motors be advantaged over Mr Nissan?
OKā¦Iāll cut to the chase - Is all this a way to create a World where rich and resourceful people have preferential squatting rights over the 99%? 
Iām sure Iāve wandered onto the wrong forum these past weeksā¦ 
OKā¦tell me why not so? Thanks
I donāt think there is such a way to prevent people with resources from getting what they want. People with more resources have an advantage and you canāt remove that advantage without using force or coercion.
Again, why not just use hard-drive resources to gauge? So shorter names require the ongoing contribution of larger amounts of resource and longer names a smaller ongoing amount of resource. In such a manner, any who āsquatā are at least helping to provision the network.
OKā¦Iām missing something important I thinkā¦why should Nissan motors be advantaged over Mr Nissan?
From what ive read in past dns posts on this forum the concern was that dnssquatterCo. not grab every domain under the sun because they are free or only cost $5/yr as is icann does. The concern was also that maidsafe appeal to businesses by allowing them to have their name to acquire when the time comes that they want to.
So if Mr.Macdonald wants to get Macdonalds.safe, then he can rent a server farm and spend thousands trying to find that exact name. Its like bitcoin mining, everone is doing computations to try to find an exact nonce but only one miner gets lucky and finds it, and it costs them alot of money in the process. But since only businesses will have a vested interest to spend that sort of money to find their specific name it would discourage anyone from squatting. Any other method such as having maidsafe co. distribute them goes against the decentralized philosophy, and having a free for all is self defeating and would result in no one getting the name they want.
Again, why not just use hard-drive resources to gauge? So shorter names
require the ongoing contribution of larger amounts of resource and
longer names a smaller ongoing amount of resource. In such a manner,
any who āsquatā are at least helping to provision the network.
I suppose, is that possible to have a domain name only be provisioned for the length of a resource contribution via protocol? Sounds complex, if there were squatters in that instance they would have to be very selective and dedicated to a particular domain. Its a good idea if it can be done, better than processing for a name and wasting energy on something that could be lost or stolen.
Well, if itās not done in the client, where would it be done?
The Network is really only two things. Vaults that have personas (Relay, XXX Manager, etc.), and clients. If the code is not (only) implemented client-side, then wouldnāt it be true that it would have to be implemented on the vault side?
P.S. I just started running my first SMTP daemon this year.
@feelz, so, what if we make what they want trivial? Then there would be no incentive to waste effort doing this or that as brainstormed above.
We take the globally unique human-readable namespace off the table, and then any one entityās credibility would not be judged by their name, but rather by their goods/service/content/etc.
So the independent artist doesnāt have as much right to a given name as a large corporation? Or why would a business be the only one to have a vested interest in finding their specific name? This is not dealing with squatting at all at this point. Now it is oppression. Plus youāve just made it more difficult for the average user to get a name. No, this will not work.
While your suggestion does help the network maintain itās infrastructure, the goal of the network is to have it be fueled by excess space and bandwidth, not sponsored.
This also has the chance of namespace take-overs, just like in @Senecaās Continuous Auction proposal. This type of system gives too much power to moneyed interests.
My stance is that both the first-come first-served and the wealth/power/might makes right stances are inadequate to form a fair, unbiased namespace.
Iāll assert once again that in reality - in nature - all names are relative.
We take the globally unique human-readable namespace off the table, and
then any one entityās credibility would not be judged by their name, but rather by their goods/service/content/etc.
I dont think eliminating DNS is condusive or practical. Their name is where the value of their credibility is stored.
Business do have a greater interest in a domain than individuals, we arent talking about some photography websites and blogs, this is peoples livelihoods.
Have you ever used a phonebook? The Yellowpages? Seems to work just fine for businesses and individuals alike, unless Iām missing something.
This type of system was working just fine decades before DNS was mis-implemented.
What is it not conducive to? You have a gaping hole in your sentence there.
I donāt mind the relative naming thing, however itās not any better ultimately. If you put a rating system on it, then the wealthy will just hire a company that pushes up their rating. You might create a domain like āsafe:google.comā, but youād be at the bottom of the list - so what would the point be of having multiple ārelativeā names? As it seems youād just be creating a more complex system that everyone would have to navigate. ā If SAFEnet is going to work, then IMO, it needs to be simple and effective, not one or the other.
Iām also wondering about tldās ā¦ any thoughts there? Or would those be anything as well. The ability to search by tld is useful (I use that all the time on google e.g. site:*.org to limit searches). However if tldās are just random then that makes it hard to use as a limiter.
What were you thinking about when describing a ārating systemā?
I thought it had been mentioned here that, under a relative naming system, people could rate/rank domains of like name.