It’s all ok @Antifragile, it discourages people if we do that, even if it’s not rude, we are all here because we are interested in this project to succeed, and we know nothing is just black or white, so if someone says he doesn’t like white it doesn’t mean he loves black, that’s what I saw in some comments here which I didn’t like, and that was not only against my comments. But all good!
11 Likes
Ok, but now someone claims safe://[your name] and puts childporn on it. With current design it will be that way forever. Nothing you can do. Sorry this is really not acceptable for anyone. With a NRS that expires you actually have a chance to do something about it. Also, the person who screwed you is probably not trying to maintain that NRS each time as it will cost him effort and money. IMO this fixes the biggest problem that the SAFE Network has with its current design.
Having permanent XOR-URLs and non-permanent NRS gives you best of both worlds. The whole perpetual web (linking) should be based on XOR-URLs. The NRS is a luxury addon for us humans to find and remember websites easily and should be flexible.
2 Likes
How do you propose we could make that work in practice? Currently people link to DNS names rather than IP addresses and will no doubt continue this (it is always going to be the easier thing to do, so I think we must expect almost everyone to continue doing it), on SAFE using NRS names to link, share, validate etc rather than Xor addresses).
1 Like
hmm - not wanting to try&be a smart-ass … but how would you do this without xor-urls with the currently proposed naming system @happybeing where with a new version of a name all old links (not including the explicit version-link) might become invalid …? (or maybe even malicious)
[and just as automatically including a version index when linking/copying one could include a <bidder index> for senecas continuous auction system for preventing mix-ups …? edit: + the continuous auction system would then deliver unambiguous links and resolve the problem of squatting/unusable domain names - simply a well functioning naming system in decentralized manner for the permanent web]
Not my problem! 
But seriously that’s a good question and one I’ve been wondering about. The key feature is that NRS guarantees access to all versions of links, and in general links will by default have their current version (eg when copied from the address bar).
The behaviour will differ for links that don’t include the version, but the browser UI can make this easy to explore, and I’ve no doubt other tools will be built that improve this ability.
I don’t think you can do any of that if you use an XOR address as a link because, as I understand it, it points to immutable data with no version history. That will have uses too, but different capability, so useful for different needs. I may be wrong about this part because you may be able to use an XOR address to point to an NRS container (the hash of the name), with or without version, but I’m not sure so I’ll stop until someone with a better knowledge can correct or clarify.
1 Like
Wild idea here, why not make it a compound adress, any time you copy the adress bar it would copy the NRS name first, so people know where it goes, but then also includes the XOR adress behind it like a prewritten hotlink with the displayed text being the name.
You can even write the browser so it only shows the first and do it’s mathy magic to prove the XOR adress behind it comes from the same name, if I understand things right.
Either way, everyone links with xor urls where possible so even if the NRS changes things up it shouldn’t break links.
Though I’m sure this has plenty of caveats too, especially with the rapid changes lately.
I think we can attain these goals by:
- Having a small fee on registration to avoid spamming. Small as in loose change for westerners and affordable globally.
- Maidsafe foundation pre register the top 50k names and sell them to the owner of the clear net equivalent for a reasonable fee, say approximate value of 20y of a .com address. Big enough to make a little to support the network, but small enough not to be seen as profiteering.
- Get clear net DNS name owner to put a unique key in their DNS record to prove ownership, much like Google requests in some cases.
- Uncliamed domains route to holding page with instruction on how to claim.
- Users don’t get tricked by fraudsters.
- Companies don’t claim IP abuse, have opportunity to claim name, can be encouraged to get involved in network to wave any fees, etc.
- Claimed domains can be transferred again later when owner no longer requires it.
- Multisig can be used to share ownership to prevent someone losing access due to death, negligence, etc.
- Pet names etc can be used as alternative resolution systems in the future.
Ignoring any technical issues, this is centralisation which undermines (violates?) SAFE Fundamentals, and comes with real word administrative costs, headaches, legal issues and jeopardy.
I doubt that Maidsafe would consider this for those reasons, but even if they thought it a good idea I don’t think it is feasible given the cost and work involved before launch.
3 Likes
We have a custom browser. So if you as developer create a link on the website, then the browser will only work with XOR-URLs (XOR://xyz). NRS names(SAFE://bla) are ignored.
As developer you will notice soon enough that your NRS name uri is not working. Once you know this it is just common sense using XOR for linking.
As developer I never type uris in the code. You copy paste them to make sure the uri is valid. So no big deal using XOR in html pages / or for programming imo.
The only place you really use NRS names (because of typing) is the address bar I think. Just like it is now on the current www.
If you send someone a link in the chat or whatever, you can just keep using NRS names if you want. How big is the chance that the NRS uri is not valid anymore within a few minutes?
1 Like
It is centralisation, but with the trajectory towards decentralization. As each name gets claimed, there is one fewer centralised names to worry about.
If we can’t do something like this, I fear that NRS will be stillborn, which will be a real shame (to say the least). A competing system which reflects DNS will almost certainly become a reality.
1 Like
That is not perfect. They look fishy to people, like a true scam. Also you have absolutely NO WAY to know from looking at the link or address bar if its a scam site or a good one.
Pages will have the link as the actual name both in visual and in the actual link since it will not freak people out when they mouse over.
Also people do still read paper things and listen to the radio so they will show the textual name
If you do go the XOR path to transfer “names” then you will have a great way to scam people seen much on the internet. How many people trust a pure IP address as the link address? Why would they trust a XOR address???
So no XOR links are not the solution.
There has to be a better solution that does not make the links look scammy
2 Likes
Yes this is a perpetual web without people or outside administration. It is decentralised and no group as authority and the most minimal network administration.
This actually allows for the greatest use of the network because you are not restricting people to unnecessary or unintended rules that hamper development.
Which again, blue in face, is why NRS should not be core/defacto NRS, but just a browser plugin - one that perhaps allows you to just swap lists as needed/desired.
There is no perfect solution to this one as people have their expectations around this set TOO HIGH.
Sounds like an auction, purchases please only possible in Maidsafecoins.
Imagine paying 10K maidsafecoins, while on the SAFE Network it costs 2/1000 SAFE for a NRS, this will put traders in a better mindstate what MAID is worth. 
I’ve still yet to see a better solution to this problem.
-
Free for all squatters/fraudsters? Nope! Bad for consumers, bad for DNS name owners, bad for the network. Good for speculators/fraudsters though.
-
Alternative/competing resolvers? Technically possible, but confusing/undesirable for consumers, DNS name holders and speculators. Who gains from this? There would be high disparity between DNS and any of these systems and if none become dominant, the system used need mentioning every time in connection with the name.
-
Auction systems? Better than free for all, as better competition for names (not just first come, first serve), but more technical complexity. Still not good for consumers or DNS name holders, as little semblence of DNS parity is likely. Moderate for speculators/fraudsters as they can capture DNS names on NRS still.
For me, there has to be some key goals for name resolution:
-
There needs to be a defacto primary resolver, which I presume is why NRS has been invented. All users need clarity over addressing and making this more complicated than DNS is not going to help. Competition is good, but only if it brings different features - this is more akin to a natural monopoly.
-
Partity with DNS on clear net for (at least) popular domain names. This is good for all users, except for speculators/fraudsters. The relationship between data consumers and providers will remain similar to clear net and trust will not be broken.
-
Easy to use/manage, fast, decentralised. Once boot strapped, these are clear and obvious requirements. I believe the NRS design already meets these goals.
IMO, it is all about how to bootstrap NRS fairly, which will benefit data consumers primarily, data producers secondarily, with minimal fraud/speculation (by exploiting the monopoly on naming).
4 Likes
I don’t believe anyone wants such a system. I don’t want to have to explain how to resolve a name every time I quote it. It will be confusing to everyone who users the system. It is also why we only have DNS on clear net, despite dictionary lookups being trivial to implement.
No one wants competing ways to address something using a name. It adds nothing but confusion. Sorry to be blunt, but going blue in the face isn’t going to change this.
3 Likes
No, these are your subjective views … although many here agree with you.
Then I must be like Santa Claus!
Absurd. You would not have to do that.
Untrue, there are several alternative naming systems on the clear net.
Just call me Mr. No One.
To be blunt right back at you - while having a defacto NRS appears to be the accepted track here … an alternative will be made, probably as a browser plugins, in order to DEAL with the mess that the defacto NRS will create.
Where am I saying that? I really don’t understand your comment. In general, you cant trust any uri. I am just saying you should use xor in (html) code. And nrs only in the address bar. Nrs is just a shortcut to make life easier. The network shouldnt depend on it
1 Like
I personally think that it is a reasonable idea to reserving a set of “Names” to assist in reducing the impact of sharks taking all the current TLD’s and domain names to profiteer from.
One thought would be that the Maidsafe Foundation become the “owner” of those “Names” and do nothing with them other than transfer ownership of the AD for the registration to a valid recipient.
The issue include but not limited to
- how to identify valid recipients
- what to charge the recipients
- can the Foundation sell these??? Is it legal to sell these things
- How long to wait for valid recipients to apply.
I suggest that the best would be that the Foundation is the sole decider of who is a valid recipient and if allowed to be the benefactor for selling them. If they are not allowed to do this sort of business then they only keep a fee for each and the recipient somehow pays the network the cost. IE return the coins to the network’s pool of available coins.
The time would have to allow the network to grow to a stage where the bigger companies are coming over.
After allowing sufficient time for this process then the Foundation holds an auction for the remaining “Names”
Reasoning
In my opinion there is no conflicts or ethical problems with the Foundation (Or company if Foundation is not allowed) to hold “Names” in reserve to prevent profiteering by MAID whales. This profiteering will damage the early network amongst other issues with security of the profiteers not transferring the “name” honestly or correctly.
In my opinion there is also no conflicts or ethical problems with the Foundation (or company) selling the “Names” for a reasonable cost. There would have to be a way to determine value and also to decide if the cost is in dollars (converted to coins) or just in coins.
The benefits of this include
- assist in preventing profiteering from whales who can purchase 1000’s of names that should go to current companies who have domains with the said name.
- remove “Names” that may cause confusion with the public. This would include such names as “com”, “au”, “uk”, “net” and so on.
- Companies will not have a major problem moving over to the SAFE network if they can have the “same” name as they have already on the internet. EG google.com can claim the name “google”
- also suggest all 1, 2 &3 character names are reserved too.
3 Likes
Round and around and around we go, where the world ends, nobody knows… 
5 Likes