Timeouts are an issue SAFE does not recognise time (except purely locally, never shared or transmitted, not even durations, never mind a time stamp), but it can refuse to refresh data, thereby naturally forgetting it. It’s an important thing to not recognise time as it means using a time server or similar which is not calculable in case of failure. SAFE uses the “arrow of time” approach i.e. constantly evolving entropy (stuff gets more complex and harder to reverse as time goes by) which gives it the ability to mathematically calculate what is “real” at any point in time.
It’s an area I find hard to explain, but time is a very huge subject and for me, at least, I prefer to ignore it and work with events instead. It has saved a ton of side effects and reliance on human interaction.
Why we need a DNS to be in the core design of the SAFE Network? Seriously…
The DNS we know it’s a different protocol than the IPv4, IPv6 and anything that can be created later which it’s used with them. Same thing with SMTP, FTP, POP, IMAP, HTTP and so on.
Why we really need an independent protocol to be integrated in the SAFE Network in the core? The SAFE Network it’s a protocol in itself that can be used with IPv4, IPv6, later with MESH Network and so on. Sorry for my word but that’s stupid.
We can take care about that later when the SAFE Network is finished and create a good new DNS protocol that work well with the SAFE Network. But at no time that should be in the core design.
Could a site be constructed to keep track of those statistics? Or maybe a new module whose sole purpose is name registration and revocation. For all else, I agree that time can make things very messy.
I’m not sure if I understand this correctly. Do you mean that a long term denial of service by the network could result in a legitimate and regularly used domain being lost as a result? If that’s the case then SAFE wouldn’t be fulfilling it’s purpose IMHO. The chances that a domain on safe would be unreachable to the masses for an entire month should be remote no?
This just got me thinking here. What about a site like archive.org but instead of archiving music or files or whatever it archives websites. Say you abandon your website for whatever reason. You lose interest, you lose your computer, you get hit by a truck, whatever. You stop updating the site. After 6 months or a year or whatever length of time the network appends archive. to the start of your site and slaps it into the archive site. That in turn frees up your old domain for recirculation. If you ever come back you just need to pick up a new domain, preferably the same kind of one, and reload the info from your old site. Also that way people can easily browse old dormant sites all in one place and they don’t get lost in the void.
I would like domain naming not to be transferable and to be just registered to your own account forever. If your safe site becomes popular because of the content, just sell the account what is the problem. Use ethereum and create a contract. A domain does not make a website popular it is the service it gives you. I am sure there will be a number of free search engines apps for all sorts of interest made for the safe network. If I wanted to be greedy I could register the already announced safe network names and hold them to ransom if I had the ability to easy sell the domain name, I would profit. The choice would be come up with a new name or buy the name and have it transferred. but if I had to register a name with account only, I would have to register one account with one domain name. I think this would be very difficult.
Me likes! I’m unsure that nesting old sites into one grand archive site is wise though. Seems like an all eggs in one basket ordeal. I posted a similar idea above that could potentially make everything else you mentioned possible though. Check it out and let me know whatcha think.
So create competing archive sites and have the user register their site with an archive site of their choosing or risk it being deleted upon it going dormant. Or if you don’t want to delete it you could just have all the files just revert back to the user’s safespace and just not be published online. They’d still be THERE, they’d still exist, they just wouldn’t be public.
Brand recognition, marketing, subtle psychological influences among other things are reasons for very specific domain names. Permanent ownership opens the door to spiteful domain squatting. Empowering legitimate use of domain names while thwarting domain hoarding and squatting purely for the sake of circumvention is imo the way to go. For the sake of early and widespread adoption, I want to see big names like google, reddit, facebook, and youtube transition over to SAFE smoothly.
Did you get to read my first post in this thread? The idea allows for your site to remain on safe indefinitely into the future without second or third parties. If you want to privatize your site, just add authentication requirements. Boom! There you have a permanent site and privacy. Let me know if I’m not making sense. Gotta go! Replaying the mass effect trilogy (with beautiful texture mods) in preparation for the glorious Andromeda release. The wait for VR is gnawing at my mind!!!
Barely 3-4 comments after I pointed out that the idea may mean the end of anonymity on the SAFE network, we learn “it’s not hard” as long as one agrees to give up on anonymity (and privacy) in order to prevent the evils of squatting.
Perfect. That’s a small price to pay!
And this the second comment (after smacz’s above) that throws away privacy to be able to root out the speculators.
Well it didn’t take long for the crowd to become willing to trade anonymity and privacy for moral values.
Another one.
Clearly after a bunch of unworkable and technically unsound “proposals” the majority is will to sacrifice the two most important features (anonymity and resistance to censorship) of the platform to be able to root out this non-issue and censor entrepreneurs. Amazing.
What I like about this is that it shows how democracies can go down the toilet real fast, but unlike in the real world here everything happens faster so we don’t have to participate for 50 years to see degradation take place.
Right. If I am Google and I want people to know that they are dealing with the real google, I need to identify myself to a registry and tell them that is my site.
If I want to be anonymous, I can put that stuff on a different place on SAFE and not claim it with any registry and nobody will know if it is mine or somebody else’s.
I don’t see this as a problem. If I want to be known I can be known If I don’t want to be known, I don’t need to be known…
You can have it both ways. I would just keep the registries independent of SAFE and allow there to be competing ones.
Really? And what if you run a site called progressiveparadise.safe and and I register or buy progressiveparadise.com and then ask the SAFE Government to kick you out and assign the domain to me?
If you read my suggestion you would see that I didn’t I didn’t propose a SAFE government…
I suggested that independent registries could verify that the website claiming to be progressiveparadise was run by the folks who actually run the existing progressiveparadise – and the can decide to list it as such or not… Through Digital signature verification etc…
The registries that are most accurate are going to be the ones that users are going to want to use because when I want to do business with somebody, I want the real thing, not a counterfeit or a domain parking linkbot…
I said that the known entity can authenticate themselves as the owner of a SAFE site to the independent registry… Using cryptographic solutions outside of SAFE. I gave a very specific example.
As far as I can tell one user may have many public websites on SAFE - and there is no way for anyone to tie them all back to the same user. The fact that a publicly known entity authenticates and vouches for the fact that they are indeed on SAFE is a choice that they can make to add value to their SAFE presence. Who wants to do business with an imposter?
This in no way prevents them from having other SAFE sites they don’t claim.
Is there some technical reason why they would have to disclose all or nothing?
