Do you think that would be a handy situation?
that would be annoying but i donât see a problem - it also annoys me that Iâm not the ruler of the world ⌠sometimes you have to find a way to get along with the circumstances âŚ
###Trust levels in delegated system
- a user recieves a pre-configured tree of namespaces when registering with MadeSafe
- each naming service has got a pre-configured trust level in his settings
- each mapping provided by a naming service also includes a trust level
- SAFE browser computes resulting trust level and displays that as address bar color
###Trust levels info displayed by SAFE browser
-
each naming service can supply additional info for each name mapping it provides:
** company name
** jurisdiction
** street address -
when a user hovers the address bar he can see trust chain info; example:
**official namespace
is curated bySAFE foundation (registered..)
confidence level in this information is95%
this namesapce has a record that
**sub-namespace ABC
is run bycompany XYZ (registered..)
confidence level in this information is 75%
this namespace has a record that
**website def
is run bycompany PQR (registred..)
confidence level in this information is50%
This may create a lot of drive for companies to register in the official
namespace - to obtain a high trust level. The level of trust assigned by Foundationâs proxy company to a name mapping will depend on the documents presented. Similar to ICANN business.
- adavanced users would mount new namespaces and assign trust levels at will
- a user would be able to present a Q-code to the camera and assign a trust level for the resulting local bookmark (they will need their own place in the namespace)
Good example and I agree, the fact that you need to have wealth to make sure you keep your desired domain name is a drawback in these cases. Itâs a bit of a double edged sword.
Well, his registration under that domain isnât gone, itâs just not the top ranked anymore. It can still be reached through that domain name, but users need to take that extra step to check out the registrations list under that name rather than defaulting to the top one. Browsers can be conditioned to show that registration list automatically under particular circumstances. Bookmarks will keep the internal address as well.
hmmmm - and how do honest drug lords (or non-official non-profit-organizations in difficult countries) ensure their trust level is high âŚ? maybe suddenly a cruel official emperor/security agency captures the site and tricks whistle-blowers into revealing their identities âŚ
your are creating centralized directories with not anonymous information here - that isnât exactly the aim of MS as I got it till now
A lot of interesting discussions here. Just want to add some ideas.
The main âthreatâ that some people see is that first movers register so many domains that for the rest only random letters and numbers remain. As far as I see this is actually rather a routing problem.
-
User may register a Domain Naming System by burning a relatively high, dynamically calculated ammount of Safecoin (i.e. the ammount of Safecoin gathered by sharing the network avarage ammount of GB over a certain period, which could be i.e. ~1000 $). The user who creates the Naming System doesn´t own it, but can decide how much the registry of a domain name costs. He*she won´t receive any of the fees users have to pay when a name is registered.
-
Users may generate a (random) native address that looks like duskgytldkxiuqc6.onion by burning a relatively low, dynamically calculated ammount of Safecoin (i.e. the ammount of Safecoin gathered by sharing the network avarage ammount of GB over a certain period, which could be ~ 1$).
-
They may then register this address to a DNS of their choice at the pricing of the correspondent DNS.
-
When starting a browser, users may chose between all existing DNS. The plugin can offer them with popularity stats, a search function and by default choses the most popular DNS.
The most likely consequence is that after some time there will be one very large Domain Name System and several smaller ones. This allows the necessary centralization to keep users in one system, but also enough flexibility to change systems. Imagine one system is flooded with registries and a large part of the network is unhappy with that, they can always collectively move to a different place.
Good question. Under the delegated naming systemâŚ
#####Case 1.
There is one surviving member of the website crew who has access to the private key.
My proposed system is 2-tier. On the lower tier public key hashes are mapped to routing info. This information is stored by the core SAFE network in a distributed hash table. This info has to be signed by the private key to be valid. Maybe we could allow any surviving member of the website team who still has access to the private key to publish a revocation message saying that this binary address is no longer mapped to any website? Just an idea. Not sure who would pay for keeping this info afloat.
This member can also go to all registration services he knows asking them to remove the name mapping or drive down the trust level.
####Case 2.
Nobody with access to the private key is alive. General public notices that things have gone wrong and notify naming services. Those naming services which have the ability to do that (curated) remove the mapping.
Please note that under the delegated system at least the curated naming services can remove the mapping in Case 2. Under the althernative proposals (first-come-first-served, auction) there may be nobody able to remove the mapping at all
Hmm⌠Donât think this is exactly right:
- curated services can include anonymous mappings - no copmany names on them of course
- a curated service can include an anonymous service as a sub-domain
- under the proposal each user is free to mount additional or alternative naming services and these new services can be as anonymous as they wish
- the preconfigured set of naming services each new user receives at registration time can well include one or several totally ones - depending on what the Foundation thinks
- if we donât want Foundation to decide smth this important, then each user can be asked to choose several from say 10 or 20 most popular naming services at registration time - and anonymous services will likely be part of the offer
So what the proposal is trying to do is to create is freedom and choice not to remove anonymity.
Fabulous! By why wouldnât we allow in addition to what you proposed curated collections into the mix? And why donât we allow the user to mount one naming service as .a.safe and another as .b.safe so that he can use both at the same time?
This is exactly what I want.
I donât think squatting is that bad. None of us like the idea of it, but at least anyone can afford to register a name and know it is there as long as they choose, for a minimal fee. Your scheme limits this based on wealth, which seems against SAFE to me: Secure Access For Everyone.
Also, I can start to see some rather unwanted behaviour arising out of the ability of anyone with enough money being able to disrupt an existing website.
I think this is important for everyone, not just big money earners. If Iâve put effort into a site that doesnât generate money, but gets lots of traffic, Iâm constantly going to worry if Iâve paid enough to keep ownership. Even if the site makes money and I can afford to pay a bit more, I could lose valuable or important traffic (and my users lose my service) if I donât pay âenoughâ with no way to know what âenoughâ is.
To me this seems worse than the impact of domain squatting, which despite having created many websites hardly affects me. It means highly funded ventures who want a particular name have to pay a few thousand dollars for it, and those with less have to be more creative.
I donât agree that â[domain] squatting should be prevented above allâ. You have stated this but not made the case for it.
The inclusion of warning popups makes it worse IMO. Note: if losing your domain was not terrible, there would be no need to pay big bucks to keep it. But popups donât solve this IMO.
Anything that delays a user getting to the content they seek loses traffic. This is a fact, and in business it matters, but also for the usability of the entire system. A pop-up which requires the user to make a decision, which to me looks like a pretty hard one for most people, will not only lose traffic for the website concerned, I think it would also risk turning people away from SAFE Network altogether.
To me either of these features (the risk of losing my domain and the need for popups where ownership has changed) is worse than the impact of domain squatting. 99.9% of users wonât notice the difference between a web with, and a web without, domain squatting, so we need to keep them in mind, and ensure everything we do improves things for Everyone. Or as many as possible!
I think we can make a system that is clearly better, and in no way worse, than the current one, and so can only encourage adoption.
On the current web, yes, most of the obvious names are gone and only affordable by business. But you can still catch them when they expire⌠I got my full name for about $100 - I learned about it because a broker offered to get it for me. I ignored his offer an bid myself
And even now, anyone with an imagination can still get a cool name like theWebalyst.com I even nabbed online-counselling.co.uk (or very similar only four years ago - I let it go).
However, with SAFE, choosing good unused domains will be even easier because there are no Top Level Domains to restrict us. This makes squatting much less restrictive, and if we limit the number of registrations per account, and include a charge etc, we can improve on the situation compared to the old web by making it harder and more costly to squat.
I think we need to be very careful before messing with something that works and which people already understand. We should certainly not insert a warning pop-up between a user request for information and supplying it, unless there really is no alternative. Warning popups are what we should aim to eliminate above all IMO!
SAFE Network can have both a better name allocation system, and keep a familiar model that we know works, and has no quirks that might discourage adoption.
Well, it´s not about âallowingâ, is it? I mean, even if its not included in the plugin, no matter who can create a tool to mount addresses in a specific way and share them. The reason why I proposed it in the above way is that I believe there needs to be a threshold at system level because otherwise the âcollectionsâ turn into mere top level domains (maybe I got you wrong, in this case please elaborate). The proposal that I made would still allow a large corporation to create a DNS and then register all addresses selling them to users, but a) they´d need to pay for each and every address, so even if you´re very rich, you would soon run out of money and b) the money would be senselessly wasted, since as soon as people understand you are ripping them off, they will simply switch to a different service.
But they donât expire on SAFE, at least I havenât seen a serious proposal that has that feature.
I think that squatting will be way worse on SAFE than it was/is on the current internet, because everyone now knows how profitable it can be plus they domain names donât expire.
This I dispute, I think squatting will be pervasive and very annoying to the average user. Practically all well-known domains on the current internet will lead to crap sites on SAFE.
I agree that âpopupsâ are bad, but I think that domain name take overs would be quite rare, especially high profile ones.
I have yet to see a proposal that delivers all of this. It seems we have different expectations of how things would turn out under the different models.
What I like about your proposal is that it allows multiple naming services. If we start with a system with only one naming service that assumption will feed into all software and will be impossible to change later on.
So I consider it is rather important that the initial implementation of SAFE plugin allows the user to choose from several naming services. This would ensure all software is written and tested in an environment where names can be resolved differently by different users.
And true I would love to see curated services supported in this fashion as early as possible.
You are right - the collections do turn into domains! ButâŚ
-
each user will have a choice of which services to mount as top-level domains and under what names
is my.com
resolved by naming service A or naming service B?
do I want it it be.c
instead of.com
?
well maybe in practice these will be.com.safe
and.c.safe
-
this is a hierarchical system - collections can turn into top-level domains or into sub-domains:
imagine I mounted naming service000ffaaaaeooo000.onion
asa.safe
imagine000ffaaaaeooo000.onion
has a record saying that
another naming service134ffaaaafffooaaa.onion
is namedb
imagine I typename.b.a.safe
thenname
is resolved by134ffaaaafffooaaa.onion
the computed trust level forname.a.b.safe
then depends on trust level I have in
000ffaaaaeooo000.onion
, the trust level000ffaaaaeooo000.onion
has in
134ffaaaafffooaaa.onion
and trust level134ffaaaafffooaaa.onion
has inname
I welcome any system to the mix - under the condition this is not the only system offered! And this vein I donât see a reason why a big corporation shouldnât be allowed to run its own registry. I believe it should be up to people if they want to mount these corporate services as top-level domains. I hope people will not want to do it. I think the Foundation or its proxy company will be very well positioned at the start to become the maintainer of the most popular curated collection. Then it will be up to people running it not to loose the race.
Things are even funnier than you think.
In @Seneca proposal the safecoins you have paid for a domain name have been recycled. Unless I am wrong, this means you donât get them back if a higher bidder overtakes your domain name.
You cannot sell it back for $22. If I want to get it back I only have to pay $2 to the network and you get nothing. In this poker game one of us will not be happy at the end.
@Seneca proposal is also an auction layer but a decentralized one and with a very peculiar rule: the loser loses the domain name and the money too.
Maybe @Seneca isnât going so far but personally I like this system. And I would love to see huge battles between big corporations for a domain name because this system would double the amount of recycled safecoins (and in fact more than double when both competitors want the name desperately). This would be fantastic for the network.
All right, so the money goes to the network. I just need to constantly outbid you in increments of $0.01 or whatever is the minimum that triggers the change.
You wouldnât see huge battles between corporations, but between the small fish. Corporations would mostly settle in the real world outside of MaidSafe because they arenât anonymous. Individuals would not.
I donât expect this being such a big deal ⌠someone wants a site â he looks for free domain names cause he doesnât want to rally with someone who is longer active and probably will not give up at first try
So he chooses an unoccupied name from the unlimited possibilities in the safe network ⌠we arenât trying to limit the TLD for maximizing profit ⌠so if rid.dim is occupied iâd take riD.Dim or riddim.de riddim.home, riddim.at-work riddim.the-magician riddim.ruler-of-the-world, wise.riddim or vegan-cooking-with.riddim
A lot of websites which
- used to be run by ordinary people or small companies
- used to contain useful info
- have gained a google rank
- havenât had the lease on their names extended by owners
have now turned into link farms. Guess the âsquattersâ are trying to ride high google rank of now deceased websites. Something like this is a concern for SAFE - taking over the names of popular but not profitable websites for all kinds of gains.
if they are popular people would be willing to donate for it to persist ⌠people are donating huge amounts for financing wikipedia-servers too (and they would safe this money when wikipedia moves inside the safe network)
and riding high google rank of now deceased websites is not in the interest of google - so google will try to prevent this kind of abuse and it canât work too good (so prices obviously will be low) plus the risk inside safe is always that you loose all money and get nothing when you try this stuff here ⌠i canât imagine something like that turning out profitable
It sounds like weâre going to be utilizing a large public decentralized ledger of some sort then, huh?
EDIT: Or can this take on the MaidSafe mantra of: âEach computer has a unique view of the network.â
You can have a chain of ownership, much like we discussed in the blockchain thread. Each new ownerâs public key (or hash of it) would need to be added to the end of the chain. You would immediately see the previous owners, as well as the current owner.
This could be used to judge whether ownership had changed recently, especially if you could judge approximately the time of the event.
(side note - creating a hash of a public event could be used here. Maybe a hash of the last winning lottery numbers or some such. Easy to verify, but near impossible to guess. As we have no concept of network time, we would need something like this)
You put a grace/cool off period in, giving the kid a chance to upload a redirect to his vault address or his new name. He could also publish a message to the site prior to the switch over.
If the cool off period was a week, a month or some such, then there would be ample time to make adjustments. Even if the network could use an approximate time metric (based on some network metric that could be used - connections per second, safe coins farmed over a period, etc).