Look at the link above. It’s just an app on top of the network. If we have multiple WoT app, it would be hard to collaborate.
All WoT users does is submit comments about that particular website.
Edited: Here’s amazon review from WoT. https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/amazon.com
Can I give you a hug, bro? Finally a like-minded individual 
How about periodically making owners of squatted sites solve exponentially increasingly difficult (computatively speaking) capcha or math problems to maintain ownership of a site that is being squatted, lest they lose the domain name ownership, with the site then being renamed a long random line of letters and numbers? Being that a effective squatter will have thousands and thousands of domain names, the problems themselves wouldn’t need to be that complex relatively speaking to weigh down the squatter’s computer farm. I doubt squatted domains get accessed more than even the most unpopular of sites except in the most extreme of cases, being that the internet is basically google search results plus an occasional competitor.
With that in mind, SAFEnet could determine a site to be a squatted domain based on the number of visits to the site relative to other sites that have been online for a similar time, minus the top twenty or so percent of sites that take eighty percent of the traffic and then give the aforementioned capcha/math tests to the domain holder until the site starts getting more traffic.
Kind of like the current DNS
I also want to make emphasis that even with SNS, we still need a trust to the address that we choose to connect to. At this stand point, would it be better if we just use random selected address, with contact (bookmarking) name system? AKA android contact list.
When you connect to the address, the address will give you sns name. From there, you can make a decision; do you want keep it, or is there a same name as other (if so, then you can change into your needs, or add additional note to the name, such (dude:product)).
Okay. We’ll use a private DataStructure in their accounts, as a contact name system.
Also, you did make a good point… With this, we can choose different public sns DataStructure. Each public DataSturcture has reputation system, aka WoT app. It is like blacklist, where you store a txt that blocks these address. Same thing, but more freedom to choose from.
We have two different zones;
Public Naming Zones - Approved by the group / individuals.
Private Naming Zones - freedom to name them as they see fit
Gotta love all this brainstorming. For example, in this case, different people - depending on which “public sns DataStructure” they use - follow the same link and end up on completely different sites.
And this “idea” was already proposed and discredited in another “RFC DNS” topic, so it’s not even an original bad idea.
@neo you are too generous. A better approach is to simply create redirects and rent the names by month. And as soon as you find a better payer, redirect to his site.
Under my suggestion, No. He could only inform the search engines that his site was verified real The search engines, if they want to be popular, would give the correct site a higher position than the phony ones.
It seems to me that everyone is still thinking in terms of a DNS model.
The SAFE Network is decentralized, so we need to think in these terms. The approach that makes the most sense to me is to build in a simple voting system. True democracy and decentralization go hand in hand.
All of the following instances assume desire of domain.safe ownership. The voting system would determine whether it’s their right or not.
Proposed voting model
It seems a domain name (or SNS, I like that idea) with a complaint brought against it would have to be a central official SAFE webpage (plus an archive of disputed domains?).
Hopefully this doesn’t add more stress to the dev team. This could be treated similar to a crypto currency exchange. The MaidSafe Foundation builds the voting and backend CMS, but another [vetted] non-profit Org steps in and owns the role of managing SAFE domains.
To be fair to @anon81773980 in his suggestion SNS doesn’t really exist as such.
BTW while I love the idea of collecting user feedback (analog of https://www.mywot.com/) my gut feeling is to run this as an app allowing potentially multiple mywot implementations. This would allow the most well-designed service of this kind to gain most popularity.
@catbert [edit] & to @anon81773980 – Web of Trust is great, but it would not resolve domain ownership and domain management issues.
I can vote and comment on a website like XYZ.com, or SAFE:XYZ, in a WoT like site, “It’s excellent and can be trusted”, but determining the “real deal” would not resolve a complaint from another user claiming, XYZ is their last name, so SAFE:XYZ should be their property.
In other words, this is the SAFE Network equivalent of a domain registrar issue, not a can I trust this new website I’m about to visit issue.
gonefarmin, it will 
Please follow here for the my full answer
Permanently bar the Fortune 10000’s domain names. The condition for a F10000 name to ever be unbarred would be conversion to full employee ownership (kind that bars stock ownership by execs, managers, supervisors and only allows former employee pensioners on its board).
Personally I don’t ever want to see Walmart on SAFE. I want Walmart along with every other big corporation to go out of business or be converted to a power structure that is democratic. Lock those domain names, and never allow them to be unlocked unless their charter and actual structure and relationships/contracts are changed to a format that allows the responsible use of power. I especially like the idea of Google being locked out. No issue with the indexes being borrowed,
May be hard to implement. But worthwhile in the beginning in particular because it slows down one particular headache in that those big firms see their brand name as their single most valuable piece of IP and will be much more motivated to fight SAFE earlier and harder if they think their brand is challenged in this direct way. It may be that very few to none will ever meet the requirement so there may not be much hassle about it. This also gives new SAFE style businesses a better chance to thrive- they will of course face proxies but it will still help.
That is totally against the principles of SAFE. You cannot Ban anything. It is to be used without permission.
@warren is going to hate SAFE… He may not know it yet, but it is 170 degrees from everything that he believes.
Hardly, the point of SAFE is not to recreate the status quo. Its not to be a better portal to face book.
It is about decentralization not about allowing centralization to creep back in or about strengthening centralization. The point is not to hand the Fortune 10000 more power, its to take that power back. And its certainly not to simply accept and spread corporate business culture. Some seem to be dreaming of a preemption that will bring a reinforcement of corporatism. That is what is 170 degrees off.
Still, the idea of barring the Fortune 10000 domain names is still an incredibly practical suggestion that will prevent untold heart ache and distraction over stupidity when the network is trying to spool up. It also means the Fortune 10000 if they come to compete on SAFE network do so on a somewhat more level playing field. I’ll be surprised if this is not part of the approach SAFE adopts. I like the no decentralized naming system of catbert.
Thanks for elaborating. The SAFE client would have these signature keys built-in, so signed domain type properties could be “auto-attached” (from what I understand of the SAFE protocol). The big challenge I see with this solution is recognition and scalability. Obviously if a nickname cannot be treated as a public identifier, you’d have serious issues with 34yH856h5n4b getting traction. As the Zooko’s vertices states, the names should be human-meaningful.
There would need to be a solution to allow this setup to scale. i.e. Signing and uploading would have to happen in the background. You can’t expect most users to manually generate public / private keys, back them up, upload tar files. One of the cornerstones of the SAFE Network is that it’s usable by everyone.
If I visit SAFE:eBay and it’s signed, the owner would provide a suggested nickname, but I can change that when I ‘bookmark’ it locally, right? Recognition implies you could not display that messy public key in normal mode, only visible in advanced settings if the user drills down, which leads to the scalability issue.
You would be visiting safe:bc857d9a865c… The base question here is “how did you find out about that name.” If you found out about it online, the moment you interacted with the link itself, it would prompt you to assign it a Petname (bookmark it) with a suggestion
Whenever you deploy it digitally, the SAFE user interface using the Petname System would handle everything. The problem here is actually referencing a location offline would have to use the raw address.
But that would only create a bot race on the Web to make one Obama’s site more “popular” than all other Obamas’ sites. Most Obamas would pay botmasters and SEO wizards to make their Web site busier, and hence more “popular”.
You’d just move the money and income from Safe to Google and Amazon.
Ultimately the winning Obama would sell or rent the Safe domain to whichever Obama pays the most. It is completely expected that the squatter Obama, being well versed in this area, would win.
@dirvine , I think one should only be able to register 1 address for free while one creates an account. If one wants to create another, let them burn 100 times the price to PUT 100MB to make sure we irritate bots, and people who want to register 20 or 30 names. They probably will create a whole new account instead, but that takes them a lot of extra time. And I think honest people will pay for a second address if they really want to have it. And for the rest I think people should be able to transfer accounts, and even sell them.
Voting by individuality doesn’t work on SAFE, there’s no way to enforce that one human can only get one vote, because it’s possible for a human to make multiple accounts/identities. The only type of voting that works in an anonymous&pseudonymous system is voting with resources (proof of work/resources, or tokens like SafeCoin).
Incorrect… Only the real Obama could pass a DKIM type scheme, so only the real site would be rated top. Only the real Obama site would be highly rated by credible visitors…
The rest of them can banter about and bid all they want, nobody cares about them anyway, if I want Obama I want Obama, not some domain parking scam bot.
The SAFE DNS is going to be useless on it’s own, because it is permissionless. It will be about as useful as an IPv6 address. You are going to need another layer of directory services to get people to what they really want to see. I don’t think that is a problem.
Tampering with any module on the network could result in the loss of both anonymity and censorship resistance you mentioned. If a new module and safe site were created for the purpose of name registration collaboratively, it would then benefit from the trust we put in anything else deployed by the Maidsafe team.
Think of the OnioNS system currently in development by an SoP (summer of privacy) member. I doubt so much time and money would have been spent on something unworkable and unsound.
I propose something similar. Take the idea and re-purpose it for Maidsafe.
I still don’t understand how anonymity would be lost in the case of what you quoted. Could you please elaborate on that separately?