User interface comes to the rescue: “Bookmark this page” does what it says and handles the specifics of the link behind the scenes.
5 Likes
ok - how often will that happen (realistically) … and even when it happens … then some app might not work any longer … a bug - it will get fixed and everything is working again … i don’t really see a mess …
1 Like
hmhmm - the average user (me included) wouldn’t have a clue which key is the right one
…this would mean a horrible amout of keys every day for me … of course it is not really a problem … but I would rather see hostile take-overs (maybe with 24/48h delay - or simply a message popping up “the owner of this domain has changed within the last 2 days”)
For me just a network notification sounds perfectly fine … everybody knows it’s not the same site as before and therefore would be cautious … and then the original user can decide if he just wants to move to another address or try to win it back
1 Like
Obviously you haven’t been paying attention.
It’s not bad, to mess up someone’s marketing campaign and multi-week effort of creating incoming links, all for just $5.
The only thing I gain is not just annoying the new people - I can nicely ask them to register on my site with their SAFE account and PIN, or leave their “usual” data such as name & (Internet) email address so that they can receive news about great deals that we have once a month.
I forgot to note: the client who’s visiting the site for the first time every won’t have any public key that is known.
How many kids and housewives can actually comprehend that message?
Or imagine that site.safe they visited yesterday is not site.safe that they’re visiting today?
Not exactly a pinnacle of user-friendliness.
That is completely unworkable.
maybe - i still don’t see the problem in changing ownership as long as I know it and it can’t happen “in secret”
and that’s why large corporations may like so spent some money for getting a higher rank as prevention for such an attack
sorry … but I don’t think people are as stupid as you think … I’m pretty sure every 6 year old can understand this if presented right … at least some degree of common sense can be expected I’d say …
how this notice looks like totally depends on the browser/program then … the DNS-Resolver just gives you the “changed within the last 48h bit” and then you might get a blinking warning, an alarm sound, just a blocked website or sent a request out to find the new address of the previous website … you could make it perfectly user-friendly …
They can be presented in chronological order for starters, that probably helps in most cases. Other than that, there will probably be registries on SAFE where detailed identities are coupled with private keys. These could be maintained by third parties or communities.
Only if the domain holder paid less than $5, which is pretty unlikely if the website represents a serious organization.
Probably lesson one of the SAFE network is that you don’t need to register anywhere, and especially not with your SAFE credentials.
They know sometimes people have the same name, it’s not illogical that there can be websites with the same name as well.
That’s what I think of all other DNS options presented.
If squatting is possible (first-come first-serve), all good domains will be registered within a few days. If owners of those domains lose their keys afterwards or die or whatever, these domains can’t even be bought from them but are lost forever.
If we let the Foundation manage DNS we have centralization, their keys will be the holy grail for any attacker, plus governments will go ape-shit on them.
The delegated DNS system is harder on the average user than my proposal.
4 Likes
This problem could be solved at the HMI level. By default the highest ranked one is displayed when a user connects to a domain for the first time. Something in the HMI could indicate if there are alternate keys with high enough ranks (above a settable percentage limit). Then the user could click a button to make appear a list with the rank and possibly an icon with a preview of all alternate web pages (with a get fetching a conventional file name, like preview.jpg).
The list of trusted keys could be stored in a private non versioned SD. If I understand correctly these objects are updatable and cost a one-time payment of a standard put when their size is less than 100 Kbytes, which allows storing about 1600 keys.
An extended URL format could be defined so that when someone shares a URL it would contain the key in addition to the domain name. The copy command should include this automatically.
For peanuts!!! That won’t happen when these sites have a great community of supporters.
I don’t understand: the amount to pay is simply what your biggest adversary has paid minus what you have already paid. The list associated with a domain name is available. You can read it periodically and do you whatever you like with it: for example estimate the % increase and compute how much you have to pay to remain the leader for X days.
I am already used to add a few digits to my own name in current centralized email systems (google, hotmail …). I think this is also true for most people because there is a FCFS rule in these systems and nobody can do anything about it, so there is no regression here. On the safe network at least people absolutely wanting to use their own name can pay some safecoins.
An app should get this stuff from the key instead of the domain name.
I agree with you on this (but then @whiteoutmashups changed his mind because fans can express their support by recycling some safecoins).
2 Likes
I think that people should be able to create one address in DNS per account for free. And once it’s yours, it should stay yours, until you remove ownership and give it back to the network. Will people make different accounts to try to register different names in the hope to make money? Probably. But that’s all part of the game.
and when you forget your login it is blocked forever and we are pretty much back to first come first serve … nobody would start to pay for a name if he/she simply could create an additional account and never had to fear loosing this address
Creating an account cost you a Safecoin. I think a public URL in DNS should be provided to you for that money. If I loose my Bitcoin-wallet the coins are gone forever. Nobody can use them ever again. It’s all part of the game. Although I heard David once talking about friends who could “reset” your account. That would be great.
Hi, could sensible defaults solve this?
- early adopters would be expected to understand delegation and try different options - including yours
- once a sensible solution is found it would come pre-configured for each new user
An evarage user however would still need to understand trust levels (more in the next message).
What about that little kid in India who created a brilliant video-site for SAFE. It registered safe:videotube and know has 100K users and makes some money. Next moment some big “Silk Road” site pays a lot of cash for that domain, and decides that before they link to the kids site, first they’ll post advertisement for their own service. So the kid is now screwed, it has advertisement on “his” website without anything he can do about it.
The great thing about SAFE should be that people have ownership for stuff like domains and are safe that nobody could steal them.
So are even aliases with barely any market value expected to cost more than .com domains with the greedy registrars?
You pay $20, I buy it for $21 and sell it back it to you for $22. Everyone’s happy?
You dramatically overestimate the intelligence of the average Internet user.
Some rough idea - when registering domain you pay the network 100 coins and every say 1mil hits to that domain network releases 1 coin back - the numbers adjustable. Prices can even be ranked by nr of letters say abc costs 1000, abcdefg1234 100, somethingreallyreallyreallylong 1 coin 
Let’s just cancel the project then.
3 Likes
You can’t ‘sell’ it, only lose it to someone that pays more.
2 Likes
I already stated my suggestions:
- Use native SAFE hostnames/addresses
- Alternatively, auction off an alias layer (to which your objection was that it’d somehow centralize power, as if native names would stop working, or as if the Foundation/Devs don’t control the repos or hosts from the seeds file).
Another alternative would be to use one of new DNS implementations that already enjoy support from crypto community.
it could just register another url and publish this new url so its 100k followers use the new one instead Oo
1 Like
I don’t see how using no DNS is a solution. Besides, my idea also uses “native” addresses.
It isn’t power abuse that bothers me, it’s squatting and either permanently lost aliases, or a giant target on the Foundation’s back, depending on whether the Foundation keeps control over the alias registers or not. It’s bad either way. If we have to invent additional alias layers we’re back to square one and many of your own objections apply again.
2 Likes
yeah but i never seen any DNS implementation being able to prevent Squatting Oo that is an extremely cool feature i think (also no “unwanted squatting” by loosing login data …) it effectively prevents from the inevitable loss of possible URLs … i want the safenetwork still to be around and cool when I’m old and grey Oo I don’t want it to have 823931987432 dead websites with great names that nobody can ever update again …
if the price for that for me is that I might have to change my url even 7 times or so … then it shall be this way - i don’t care
2 Likes