How does a group come to a consensus on time?
Oh yes i remember something like that âŚ
âŚnow iâm asking myself why should there be a time at all âŚ? iâm not sure how the self-authentification process works ⌠but in my head ⌠someone logs in ⌠browses the safe network ⌠and as soon as he logs off the account is gone, cause he didnât store anything inside safe âŚ
1 Like
Not the real time like the clock. Only the how much time stuff (time span) like a chronometer. So yes (My bad English)
1 Like
Unless he paid for his account. Itâs something like you said. Itâs not decided how it will work yet.
1 Like
In a sense you already gave an answer to your question when you claimed that there is a near endless number of domain names. This statement is only true when domain name=random string. However you clearly state that there is a difference of value and I agree strongly: you can get creative whem you have to deal with low ressources and call your service Flickr or use odd endings like iO but this doesnât change the fact that scarcity evolves and becomes more severe over years.
At any point users can switch to a different DNS, ao I agree that THEORETICALLY this ia not a problem. However. I believe there can be any doubt that if a system allows to choose custom strings THIS will be conceived as ârealâ or genuine DNS by the majority. Instead if the systems only allows to create a random strimg as native address that one can register on every existint DNS there wouldnât be any doubt about the relevance of the native address (that is: locating only).
Also, you probably see that the proposed solution doesnât spoil anyone since the native address is irrelevant for user interaction.
[quote=âtfa, post:157, topic:4235, full:trueâ]
Address 6sgjmi53igmg7fm7 is often cited in this thread, but people should be aware that raw addresses will be much longer. An ID is 512 bits long, that is 64 bytes, encoded in base64 that generates an 86 bytes string âŚ[/quote]
Correct. However
- we could use hashcode of public key as the âcomplex addressâ
- the length of this hashcode could be made any number of characters we want
- the shorter the length the greater probability of a collision
- a collision means accidentally generating a key pair with same âcomplex addressâ as an existing website
- potentially collision could be used to hi-jack that other website
- if measures against this need to be taken is an open question to me
TOR hidden services currently use 16-character strings in Base 32 (this encodes 10 bytes). Gnunet intend to use 52 character strings. Both TOR (.onion) and gnunet complex addresses are not case sensitive.
Indeed I hoped humans would never have to type them. Possibly with the exception of once when creating a bookmark for your bank. Entering 16 characters for that purpose is feasible. 86 chars are not. I also thought that the complex address can be encoded in a Q-code but presently that would work only for mobiles. Though you can snap with mobile and email to your PCâŚ
Please pardon my ignorance - would normal search engine tricks like scanning the content of a website and counting incoming links work in SAFE? Or is the intention that websites can not be scanned and meaningful search is impossible?
Hey letâs try to keep things appropriate here
Thereâs a great analogy in the Petname System of how a bookmark-like system can be achieved (under the heading âBrowser Bookmarksâ) and even improved upon.
That âstudyâ is utter garbage.
Reasons for the difficulty with which Namecoin is gaining acceptance are obvious to anyone (but an academic, I might add):
- Difficulty to integrate with existing systems
- Uncertainty that someone might register a TLD
.bit(see my earlier comment above) - Lack of a market where names could be traded in a trustless manner
Except for #2, the other two problems will gradually disappear.
Squatting is constantly highlighted as a major problem by control freaks and redistributionists and sadly that âstudyâ perpetrates the old myth. Like if I had google.safe I wouldnât want to sell it - Iâd just squat on it forever, or maybe create my own search engine. Idiocy of the highest order.
1 Like
Of course you want to sell it, but you may think Googleâs initial offer for that domain to be too low and reject it, hoping that as SAFE grows larger over time, theyâll eventually come back with a better offer. In the meantime youâre hampering SAFEâs growth because you make it harder for Google to add value to the network.
This is even worse if you have a valuable domain that isnât specific to a company, say search.safe. Since many companies might be interested in that one, youâll wait until SAFE is important enough for a bidding war to begin. Why settle for $5.000 right now if you may get $50.000 next year?
By the way, the use of insults usually indicates a lack of solid arguments. Calling supporters of my proposal control freaks is pretty ironic, since the main argument against it is that it gives too little control over domain names and that wealth would rule the system.
Since weâre quite frank with each other, I just have to ask: Do you plan to register and re-sell a number of valuable domain names yourself? Because that would explain whyâre youâre so hostile to a scheme that thwarts squatting. I admit, if we end up with the possiblity to squat, Iâm going to do it myself as well. The profit opportunity is just too big to let pass. If I donât, someone else surely would anyway.
4 Likes
And I will hold out for how long?
Itâs not bad to wait for 1 year, maybe even 3 years. Google can start providing service from glegoo.safe and after a quarter or two my domain will be 90% less valuable. Then they can offer me $5K and tell me to call them.
I called the outcome of âanalysisâ that âstudyâ idiotic.
They are not supporters of your proposal (or maybe they are, I donât know but it doesnât matter, they could also be supporters of Man United or anti-smoking activists or anything else for that matter).
I donât care who they are and who/what they support - I was criticizing their findings.
It depends on how convenient it will be. Why not? I want to prevent greedy speculators from taking control of those domains. My approach is to keep them and sell them (at a reasonable price) to who I deem qualified individuals and organizations and would probably reinvest some of my gains in apps for the platform (since the Foundation doesnât want to do that).
I think I would be doing the society a big favor.
I have some ideas for how to inhibit domain squatting (making it much more difficult than on the current web) without undermining the stability of the naming system. The basics are simple but lots of things to flesh out so I need to go through my notes (made in the middle of the night :-)) and write them up. I think they are quite promising, though one depends on a capability Iâm not sure is feasible or efficient. I think it is, but weâll see.
I think Iâll write it up as a linked topic - it might be good to split out @Senecaâs proposal and the ensuing discussion into its own topic but I havenât had the time to do that. Iâll ask if any of the other mods has time to select those posts and create a new topic 
2 Likes
I would like to dig this topic out again and highlight that @Seneca s idea of a continuous auction system is actually possible by using the regular appendable data structure and having the version number represent the value of your bid (since every version costs you 1 put) [edit: and is even difficult/complex to implement]
Some more info may be found here where I answered some questions already: [but this topic here is for sure a better source of information than my attempt to explain a naming system i just happen to like]
I know this comes with down sides (and maybe fear to loose your own good public name that you would get with the current concept because you are here early on) but if all good names are gone immediately after launch (because someone just registered all names/good combinations and offers them for sale again) that wouldnât exactly help the network to succeed imho and therefore a solution that resolves this issue would benefit all of us imho
7 Likes
I think educating users to default to this (as is becoming popular on the legacy internet since increased awareness of phishing attempts, also crypto scam sites) is an easy route. I think there are plenty of solutions to help mitigate the cons in your proposal. Excellent work!
6 Likes
Original post moved here: âIâve got the whole âDomainâ, âDNSâ, squatting issues completely and undeniably solvedâ
So I donât do any programming so stick with me here through the logistics of it.
So my idea is based primarily on how the i2p network does itâs version of domain registration and âownershipâ. If you donât know how i2p works and how they manage DNS truely p2p, you should stop reading here and first go and learn how that all works.
So, that being said. Just quickly, in summary no one actually owns any âdomainâ name. Anyone would be able to create these âlistsâ (subscriptions in i2p) of âdomainsâ and where they resolve. Ideally these lists would be mutable so that anyone could easily transfer or just delete their ownership of a name in any given list. At the release of the network the Maidsafe company could maintain the first and âmainâ list (subscription).
But as Iâve mentioned in other comments, any big name companies coming in want to have their name and not have to pay someone $100k for it. This solves that in the following way: This list mechanic should ideally be a module of the network, so that when safeapp creators make their app they will (most likely) be required to use this module so that the app can resolve âdomainsâ to locations, and here is where an app creator, lets say Google, would create their own list in the network where they control the base safe://google name and people can create their safe://google/user/ folder there, with the app defaulting to using this list to resolve domains.
And then as I type this all I see the hundreds of duplicate and crossover problems pop-up but oh well whatever, if you went and learned how the i2p system works then start a discussion over here based on that design concept⌠Maybe this list system works but only one list? and in the beginning the maidsafe company oversees it? and later on it morphs into a fully p2p DEX of domain names?
2 Likes
So anyone can create the domain name google.com? Then these lists rank them or something? By popularity or via some authority?
EDIT: looked it up: from â http://www.i2p.to/en/docs/naming
I2P ships with a generic naming library and a base implementation designed to work off a local name to destination mapping, as well as an add-on application called the addressbook. I2P also supports Base32 hostnames similar to Torâs .onion addresses.
The addressbook is a web-of-trust driven secure, distributed, and human readable naming system, sacrificing only the call for all human readable names to be globally unique by mandating only local uniqueness. While all messages in I2P are cryptographically addressed by their destination, different people can have local addressbook entries for âAliceâ which refer to different destinations. People can still discover new names by importing published addressbooks of peers specified in their web of trust, by adding in the entries provided through a third party, or (if some people organize a series of published addressbooks using a first come first serve registration system) people can choose to treat these addressbooks as name servers, emulating traditional DNS.
1 Like
I like the I2P system ⌠more of a bookmarking system than a DNS system. Allowing you to name or accept or rename sites as you wish. So no messing about with DNS or domain names for the network at all ⌠just sharing bookmark-like lists of name->address.
There is no reason we canât have this on safe network regardless of other naming systems either. The core of it is just a way to exchange and trade these lists.
6 Likes
I havenât read about the i2p system, but what you describe could certainly be built on top of whatever we start with.
I think it fits well into the approach I outline below, which is to help users choose what is appropriate to them rather than waste time trying to build a bullet proof naming system that can always be circumvented:
1 Like
Iâd love to see a petname system implementation on safe 
(possibly integrated with the suggestion by @Seneca here)
2 Likes