Re: <nettime> What do you think about .art?
----- Forwarded message from Morlock Elloi <morlockelloi@yahoo.com> -----
Morlock Elloi wrote:
A complex discovery process itself is a great moron filter.
How do we earn the moron's cash? Put kindly the duplication of brand names will create confusion among non-technical users and from that confusion will result a loss of income. Besides why would I want google.com to lead elsewhere than what I expect it to? Do I want to have to go through a DNS(-ish?) config procedure when I want to show nyan cat at my friends house? What else than a unique name do you want, 20Q? Good luck getting free from "slimy thugs". Naturally we could don the DNS system and use onion-id style identifiers. Good luck making the usability plea on that one. "Don't worry Google can find it for you"? Not to mention we can already use IPv4/6 addresses without DNS. Why don't you? The only thing that really fucking frustrates me is the requirement of "."'s in the name. Why not just accept any string as an ID? Why does Google have to register Google.[com|org|net|nl|co.uk|be|sp|hu|etc.]? Why not just "google" or "google"? Tie it right in with the brand-name protection stuff we've got going on. They should've done that from the beginning. You register your company, you get a unique address. Strip the "Inc", "AG", "BV" and stick to the company name. There is some cross-business-type problems, fix them by either appending a ".accounting" or by changing names. Allow people to register addresses but override them if a business comes in the way. Why didn't they do it? Politics, man. Seriously though, we should figure out a way of splitting the responsibility for who gets what address. ICANN is now screwing that bigtime by spamming gTLD's. Maybe we'll abandon them completely in the future. I suspect the switch'll be quite painful.
I never understood how it works exactly, but what is wrong with namecoin? (besides the fact that noone uses it) 2012/3/12 lodewijk andri de la porte <lodewijkadlp@gmail.com>:
Morlock Elloi wrote:
A complex discovery process itself is a great moron filter.
How do we earn the moron's cash? Put kindly the duplication of brand names will create confusion among non-technical users and from that confusion will result a loss of income.
Besides why would I want google.com to lead elsewhere than what I expect it to? Do I want to have to go through a DNS(-ish?) config procedure when I want to show nyan cat at my friends house? What else than a unique name do you want, 20Q? Good luck getting free from "slimy thugs".
Naturally we could don the DNS system and use onion-id style identifiers. Good luck making the usability plea on that one. "Don't worry Google can find it for you"? Not to mention we can already use IPv4/6 addresses without DNS. Why don't you?
The only thing that really fucking frustrates me is the requirement of "."'s in the name. Why not just accept any string as an ID? Why does Google have to register Google.[com|org|net|nl|co.uk|be|sp|hu|etc.]? Why not just "google" or "google"? Tie it right in with the brand-name protection stuff we've got going on. They should've done that from the beginning. You register your company, you get a unique address. Strip the "Inc", "AG", "BV" and stick to the company name. There is some cross-business-type problems, fix them by either appending a ".accounting" or by changing names. Allow people to register addresses but override them if a business comes in the way.
Why didn't they do it? Politics, man.
Seriously though, we should figure out a way of splitting the responsibility for who gets what address. ICANN is now screwing that bigtime by spamming gTLD's. Maybe we'll abandon them completely in the future. I suspect the switch'll be quite painful.
Well that would be the problem of all these dns alternatives, nobody uses them. After the IPv6 will spread things will probably change slightly, as there will be more demand for cheaper yet safe dns. 2012/3/12 Karel BC-lek <kb@karelbilek.com>
I never understood how it works exactly, but what is wrong with namecoin?
(besides the fact that noone uses it)
2012/3/12 lodewijk andri de la porte <lodewijkadlp@gmail.com>:
Morlock Elloi wrote:
A complex discovery process itself is a great moron filter.
How do we earn the moron's cash? Put kindly the duplication of brand names will create confusion among non-technical users and from that confusion will result a loss of income.
Besides why would I want google.com to lead elsewhere than what I expect it to? Do I want to have to go through a DNS(-ish?) config procedure when I want to show nyan cat at my friends house? What else than a unique name do you want, 20Q? Good luck getting free from "slimy thugs".
Naturally we could don the DNS system and use onion-id style identifiers. Good luck making the usability plea on that one. "Don't worry Google can find it for you"? Not to mention we can already use IPv4/6 addresses without DNS. Why don't you?
The only thing that really fucking frustrates me is the requirement of "."'s in the name. Why not just accept any string as an ID? Why does Google have to register Google.[com|org|net|nl|co.uk|be|sp|hu|etc.]? Why not just "google" or "google"? Tie it right in with the brand-name protection stuff we've got going on. They should've done that from the beginning. You register your company, you get a unique address. Strip the "Inc", "AG", "BV" and stick to the company name. There is some cross-business-type problems, fix them by either appending a ".accounting" or by changing names. Allow people to register addresses but override them if a business comes in the way.
Why didn't they do it? Politics, man.
Seriously though, we should figure out a way of splitting the responsibility for who gets what address. ICANN is now screwing that bigtime by spamming gTLD's. Maybe we'll abandon them completely in the future. I suspect the switch'll be quite painful.
-- PGP pub key: http://keyserver.pgp.com/vkd/SubmitSearch.event?SearchCriteria=visgean%40gma... l.com http://www.abclinuxu.cz/lide/visgean/gpg A453 B7F3 33D9 3BE6 2B8A | F014 5347 EBAC 0A5A 3E92 Jabber: visgean@jabber.org | visgean@jabber.cz Github: http://github.com/Visgean
2012/3/12 Karel BC-lek <kb@karelbilek.com>
I never understood how it works exactly, but what is wrong with namecoin?
(besides the fact that noone uses it)
No domain name arbitration. If someone cybersquatted Microsoft.bit that'd really suck. Maybe they'd have the means to go after them but I likely wouldn't have. (and it doesn't solve the dumb users don't get it problem. There's been some really cool DNS providers integrating .bit to standard resolves though, I'd like to see more of that)
You cannot have it both ways. The domain system will either be centralized with name arbitration and without cybersquatting, but with domain ceisures; or decentralized, but with rampant cybersquatting. I can't imagine how to do decentralized DNS with domain name arbitration. You need to have a central power to do this. KB On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM, lodewijk andri de la porte <lodewijkadlp@gmail.com> wrote:
2012/3/12 Karel Bmlek <kb@karelbilek.com>
I never understood how it works exactly, but what is wrong with namecoin?
(besides the fact that noone uses it)
No domain name arbitration. If someone cybersquatted Microsoft.bit that'd really suck. Maybe they'd have the means to go after them but I likely wouldn't have.
(and it doesn't solve the dumb users don't get it problem. There's been some really cool DNS providers integrating .bit to standard resolves though, I'd like to see more of that)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:24:11PM +0100, Karel Bmlek wrote:
You cannot have it both ways.
The domain system will either be centralized with name arbitration and without cybersquatting, but with domain ceisures; or decentralized, but with rampant cybersquatting.
I can't imagine how to do decentralized DNS with domain name arbitration. You need to have a central power to do this.
How often do you enter the host names? Most people enter Google into the Google search windows to find, you guessed it, Google. There are multiple decentral models to avoid cybersquatting. Publishing at cost, credits gained by operating name resolution, using a network of reputation for registries to penalize flooders, and so on.
participants (4)
-
Eugen Leitl -
Karel Bílek -
lodewijk andré de la porte -
Visgean Skeloru