It isn’t a monopoly Will, what I’m wanting is universal in the sense that two people using the system can’t own the same id.
If I’m understanding (correct me if not!) pet names allow more than one person to have the same id, but provide ways to resolve this.
So you can have multiple dns systems, but I want one that doesn’t allow IDs to be shared. So one id will always resolve to the same user. That’s the system I would use, but you don’t have to.
I think you’re misunderstanding the issue here.
Safenet already has postal address for all users. RAW format. It is OUR end to decide to name each of those postal address.
ALL of the postal offices RAW format are the same. The only difference is that each postal office decides how to name each of the RAW format.
Postal office 1: 234523523535 = happybeing
Postal office 2: 234523523535 = happycamper
You are still the SAME person. The only difference is that postal office decided to call you based on their opinion about you.
It’s the same for actual “competing” postal office.
Everybody has their own address. They provide the address to all postal office. The postal office will decide what is the best name for you.
If one user wrote the address on the letter, it would look like from safenet perspective,
“234523523535,
State, Zip code”
In postal office 1, it would look like this…
“happybeing,
State, Zip code”
In postal office 2, it would look like this…
“happycamper,
State, Zip code”
So in the end, it doesn’t matter how you look at it. You are still registered as 234523523535.
That is a monopoly. lol
The name we assign to a service is the raw name. It gives us a more memorable way to resolve a service, but does not need to be the most pretty name. Safe net dns could just use random hashes for these, but why do that when you can have something more memorable?
If you want a vanity/marketed name, then an overlay service can resolve these memorable names.
Example:
Safe dns name: searchengine3
Overlay dns name: google
I suspect overlay names would be worth big money in the long run. I am sure dns names would be too initially, but as has been discussed, there are limitations (squatting, lost ids, etc).
I don’t think I’m misunderstanding.
A house has many ways of addressing it, but there is only one house (thing being addressed) . Postal services have settled on one way, GPS another, the UK Ordinance Survey another. What all those systems have in common is that one address resolves to one location. No monopolies, just alternative systems.
I want one of those systems to work in a similar way to the Web dns inasmuch as only one person owns a given identifier.
You can have alternative systems that work whatever way you want.
There’s no misunderstanding, unless you are saying you want a pet naming system only (a monopoly), and that I’m not allowed to use anything else. I don’t think you’re saying that, so no misunderstanding - correct?
Right…well it appears both I and Happybeing were under the same misapprehension for some reason, both pointing out user experience as an issue.
Can’t the Network already tell one user from another, by whatever means…are you saying it can’t unless we introduce your system?
Having read back through this thread, it appears almost all of those interacting with you are doing so to ask for more clarity in your various suggestions and thought processes. There is more than one instance of others pointing out that the Network already addresses many of the things you identify as needing addressing.
It honestly seems like you are studiously not taking on board what others are saying, or responding to others’ suggestions or criticisms in any meaningful way.
You reprimand me for not understanding you and suggest this is because of my lack of comprehension. however it is apparent that I am not alone, so maybe this is not the real issue.
You reprimand me for not reading you properly and state that you are trying to address issues such as lost IDs and name squatting. Yet when I make a suggestion that addresses both these things, you choose to not read or respond, but instead choose to question my ability to comprehend/reason… (cheeky git…lol)
You Sir, have crossed the line! (slaps face with gauntlet and tosses to the ground) 
… - this demonstrates (to me at least) the depth of your desire for meaningful conversation to come to some sensible solutions - as opposed to churning out one thought after another seemingly with little considered thinking of things through.
The evidence, gathered from reading the thread properly (at your suggestion) would suggest that it is in fact yourself that is repeatedly demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the pertinent issues around this discussion.
You still receive RAW format regardless. It will always start with random generated URL. Therefore, we already have a universal naming convention. Neo already pointed this out.
Safe dns is a “monopoly” solution to the annoying culprit of random generated ID. Safe dns IS the Overlay dns name.
value / key
hashID / safe dns
It is the overlay dns we’re arguing about at this point. A choice between a monopoly or competing dns system.
You are not being clear. The purpose of a PublicID is to, among other uses, comprise part of the URL to a resource/page/app.
As such, you absolutely WILL have random numbers in your URL because the URL has to be unique. You are the one who proposed the random strings, which is what TOR does.
If you try some scheme where you have a non one-to-one mapping of friendly names to raw id’s, where two people both get to use the PublicID of “bob”, you run into problems. So when one bob sends out the URL to his fancy new website at safe://app.bob and I click it, I can’t be sure if I go to his website, or that other bob who also has PublicID of “bob”. How will you tell which bob I really wanted? When you send out a URL in to the world for people to click on, anybody who clicks on it must all go to the exact same place. There can’t be two PublicID’s named bob.
I’ve already said I’m happy with an alternative, not a monopoly. I see that I probably did misunderstand you because what you appear to propose is to have one system (of competing pet name indexes) and not allow an alternative. Please clarify if I’m still not understanding what you propose.
The only reason to do that is if you think the alternative will out compete your system. If not, why can’t they run side by side? In practice they can and will if anyone wants them to, because you can’t stop a protocol being implemented or prevent people from using it. That’s why it doesn’t matter if I don’t like pet naming systems, you can implement them anyway.
The key question is what ends up being used by particular applications, and of course what maidsafe choose to support in their own applications - particularly the first SAFE Browser because this will guide developers, website creators and users. If you want a pet naming system to be included I suggest you make your case ASAP or better still implement something.
The majority will pick which is the best for them. People are lazy, and won’t change. Whatever the system they lived through, they’ll live through. It’s humnan nature. We design to be efficiently lazy. That’s why we’re living in a screwed up system in the first place.
It is better to do it right once.
I am 100 percent against idea you propose, and what maidsafe implemented right now… It is better to have a competing service, so you can just pick one you trust the most rather than having a monopoly centralized dns service and nobody can’t get what they want.
IE, build a bot that buys up all of the dns names then sell them 10000x over. Nobody won’t buy it.
There is a reason why I am very vocal about DNS.
This I definitely understand 
but if you want something different you need to advocate it and convince people. It doesn’t matter how many percent you want a pet name system, you need to explain your system in detail and show how it works and why that’s better.
True dat @happybeing true dat… 
@anon81773980 gets it -------@–@–
It’s actually better if the network behaves as a network without relying on the skill and honesty of random internet programmers who will abandon their friendly name service when they realize they are not making enough money from it to justify their time.
To put the success of the network entirely in the hands of random, yet to be named entrepreneurs, in the hopes that they will bear that burden reliably and in-perpetuity, is the definition of insanity.
Please create your friendly name mapper. You and Blindsite can each create one, so I can be bob.griz while somebody else can be bob.site Between the two of you we now can have two bobs. But I’m going to be pretty pissed when I have advertised bob.griz to the world, and you decide you are bored with the project and discontinue the service. So, perhaps I’ll stick to using the built in DNS that does not rely on you, if you’re cool with that.
You were in discussion on “no dns” thread, and “petname” thread. Clearly, you have not changed your mind. That’s okay by with me. Certain people have this mentality of “old dogs can’t learn new tricks.”
I am still against it no matter what. I would love to build it however, as I pointed out to several members on this forum that I am taking my time off away from keyboard due to repetition syndrome. I cannot type on my keyboard for the time being. I am literally writing this out on my phone. This maidsafe DNS is part of the core system so there is nothing we can do about that. It is literally a monopoly DNS system at this point. we don’t have a choice.
Safe net dns is barely an overlay. It is just a user definable base layer, imo. They are far more memorable than hashes or ip addresses, but there is no guarantee you will get a short or neat one. It is free though and genuinely useful.
For example, I see people with email addresses like joebloggs889@gmail.com. Is it ideal that Joe bloggs had 889 on the end of his address? No. Does that mean he should instead get ised1375audh92@gmail.com instead? No.
There are two issues here. One is a memorable and free way to resolve names. Another is a way to revolve specific short/meaningful/marketable names, which carry a premium. Just because safe net dns caters only for the former, it does not mean it shouldn’t be offered. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water here.
Well, I picked out maidsafe, so I’m OK there thanks 
“Only the closed mind is certain” - Dean Spanley (great movie by the way)
I had to give up my job completely and refrain from keyboards for a long time due to RSI, so I understand this, so take care of yourself (and feel free to contact me if you could use any help with it.).
I think you are confusing unique with memorable. There is a distinct difference. A long string of random alphanumeric code is perfectly UNIQUE but isn’t very memorable. A url of specific phrases on the other hand is very memorable but is relatively not that unique. That’s the point I’m trying to make. We need to find a way to up the unique factor of the public id and url if we don’t want to go down the tor route. And why not have a string of random numbers in the url? Humans can remember up to 7 digits. 7 digits + a username + service would significantly up the odds. You might have the same service and the same name. It’s vastly less likely to have the same name, same service AND the same “id number” So you’d have a public ID name and a public ID number. What’s so complicated about that? You could even set the browser to hide the ID number in the url just like firefox hides www in the url on the clearnet because most of the time it wouldn’t be relevant unless you were trying to do a comparisan between two individuals with the same public id.
So the network goes
So the network create account process would go assign a random temporary number. Then check if anyone had the desired public ID? If yes then check does anyone have that id number. If yes again assign a new number. If no make the number they have permanant and go through with public ID and ID number. so the url would look ike id#.service.publicid
You could even set it up so that the user could change their public id number. It doesn’t matter if it changes so long as it’s unique to THEM AND no one else with their public id NAME has their number.
This would also make scamming and phishing almost impossible because while one could impersonate another’s name one could not impersonate their id number on top of it would give them away.
What does “relatively not that unique” mean? Something is either unique or not. It needs to be unique and already is unique…lol
How and why?..it seems to be a physical impossibility to “up” uniqueness. As soon as you have 2 of a kind, you no longer have 1 of a kind - which is the definition of unique. Are you not just upping the complexity in any case, for no obvious (to me) benefit?[quote=“Blindsite2k, post:94, topic:9933”]
Why is this so complicated for you?
[/quote]
the cheek…lol
Here…this may help explain:
" Usage
There is a set of adjectives—including unique, complete, equal, infinite, and perfect—whose core meaning embraces a mathematically absolute concept and which therefore, according to a traditional argument, cannot be modified by adverbs such as really, quite, or very. For example, since the core meaning of unique (from Latin ‘one’) is ‘being only one of its kind’, it is logically impossible, the argument goes, to submodify it: it either is ‘unique’ or it is not, and there are no in-between stages. "
(Oxford English Dictionary btw).
You reversed it. The problem is when scammers do register those names. Not that the names are registered by others. The point is about scammers scamming and not valid uses.
This is halfway to the system I am suggesting, the other half is having a personal register of names. Thats it, thats all you need to start.
The point is that SAFE tracks the usage, even if it doesn’t track the reason or the what. And SAFE doesn’t do that, not only is it insecure but its a ton of core code to do it.
Actually that is what is done NOW. When you generate an ID it is actually a 128 bit (or 256 bit) value (key pair) and the DNS maps a readable name to that ID.