U.S. aims to give up control over ICANN

[georgem]

Sounds like an incredible idea.

But somehow we must adjust namecoin protocol so whole namespaces belong to a person (or group)

That would imply something like a parent --> child foldersystem that namecoin completely lacks at the moment.

I mean, obviously... d/ doesn't really exist.

It's not like d/ is a folder... it's just the two first characters of the "name"

We discussed something similar here---> http://forum.namecoin.info/viewtopic.ph ... 4&start=10

Yes. The actual protocol doesn't allow such a structure, at least not so as discussed there.
But:
1. We could think about how could it be implemented if needed.
2. Then contact ICANN and ask them if they are interested.
3. Implementing the top level domain feature support in Namecoin(activated only by the ordered top level domains) for a contribution to the Namecoin development fond.
The development contributions should come in advance like by the ASICS order.
4. Hand over the top level domain control to the legitimate organization.

We must be careful with such adjustments.

If we build in a new functionality that lets a single entity control a complete namespace...
what stops an entity controling the d/ namespace?

Or will this be somehow ruled out?


And another thing is.... does anybody know how many tld domains exist, and how many million domains are registered worldwide?
A few million NMC are not going to be enough to handle that amount of registrations fees.
Fees would have to drop by a factor of thousand in this case.

[MWD]

I think contacting ICANN about anything is a really really bad idea.

I also think that making non-dot-bit alternate TLDs in Namecoin is a really horrible idea. Chances are anything anyone comes up with will already be in the works with ICANN. They LOVE that they added 1000 new TLDs, because they know that Pepsi and American Airlines and 10,000 other huge corporations will all buy their name in all 1000 of them. It's a rent-seeking scheme.

And the rent-seeking scheme is working so well, you have to assume they're going to roll out 10,000 new ones at some point. They probably have a bunch of them in a drawer, and if you came out with some of them on Namecoin, ICANN would probably successfully be able to sue everyone involved with Namecoin development to get it stopped.

They seem to be leaving dot-bit alone, it exists as "prior art" which would likely protect .bit.

ICANN is the antithesis of Appamatto's original idea with blockchain domains. Trying to contact ICANN and work with them is a deal with the devil.

And if ICANN started offering .bit, FreeSpeechMe and MeowBit already would not resolve them, by design. And I think that idea should be included in any future dot-bit resolving software.

MWD

[georgem]

Yeah, it would certainly be a strange marriage... but stranger bedfellows have existed.

What if ICANN just decides to use namecoin blockchain as it is?

What stops them?

They are open to do so, already they have laid their eyes on it.
Much like JPMorgan has probably already bought a few BTC... I wouldn't be surprised.

There are no restrictions as long as they follow the rules of decentralization.

But this whole discussion keeps reminding me that namecoin really lacks an important function:

The possibility to register your own namespace, so only you (your wallet etc) is allowed to register any child-names within that namespace.

What if I want to register georgem/....

so I will be the only one (and additional people who recieve my "keys") who can register any child domains in my georgem/... namespace
like for example:

georgem/data
georgem/websites
georgem/inventions
georgem/stronzogabagul

that would be a nice feature that adds value to the namecoin system, and gives ANY organization/person/entity the possibility to
reserve a whole adressroom /namespace region for his business.

Why? What would be the benefit of having a system like that?
Well I imagine that you will then have a cohesiveness and order with all the names that are within the same namespace...
so you would be able to do all kinds of commands like checking for free names, listing the complete name_list, do operations on all the members of the namespace...
etc

It also hinders others from interfering with your namespace, for whatever reason... I don't even know at the moment why that would really be a bad thing... hm..
I am just thinking out loud, I have no idea if I am not just extremely drunk at the moment or not.

[virtual_master]

We must be careful with such adjustments.

If we build in a new functionality that lets a single entity control a complete namespace...
what stops an entity controling the d/ namespace?

Or will this be somehow ruled out?


And another thing is.... does anybody know how many tld domains exist, and how many million domains are registered worldwide?
A few million NMC are not going to be enough to handle that amount of registrations fees.
Fees would have to drop by a factor of thousand in this case.

Yes. They are also serious considerations.
Some namespaces could remain totally decentralized as they are now like d/ and id/ others could have other rules.
For ex namespaces with length 10 characters or longer could be registered and this way having control over the entire namespace.

My proposal was not really an alliance with the ICANN but only to create for them the space to be a player in the Namecoin economy, so that ICANN domains are a subset of the Namecoin names.

But there is another reason also to create registrations of namespaces, which are controlling the issuing of the names under their namespace.
It would be easyer to create shares and bonds in Namecoin with a better overview.
For example in googleshares/ could be only shares issued by Google if they control that namespace.
Or a country could issue virtual currencies of his own national currency.
usd/ - maybe this would be not so realistic but for some smaller countries maybe yes
The issuer of an asset could have a better overview and control over his emitted assets and nobody can spam in his namespace or scam others because the blockexplorer shows clearly.

[georgem]

But there is another reason also to create registrations of namespaces, which are controlling the issuing of the names under their namespace.
It would be easyer to create shares and bonds in Namecoin with a better overview.
For example in googleshares/ could be only shares issued by Google if they control that namespace.
Or a country could issue virtual currencies of his own national currency.
usd/ - maybe this would be not so realistic but for some smaller countries maybe yes
The issuer of an asset could have a better overview and control over his emitted assets and nobody can spam in his namespace or scam others because the blockexplorer shows clearly.

Very good examples... this really makes sense...

Sometimes I forget that namecoin is not only about bitdomains but a hell of a lot more additional interesting stuff...

[georgem]

For ex namespaces with length 10 characters or longer could be registered and this way having control over the entire namespace.

Yes, I imagine you said 10 characters for "private" namespaces... in contrast to the open namespaces (like d/ id/ p/ etc) who are very short by design.

If I continue your trail of thought I would say, wouldn't it be the best thing to have an NMC address act as a namespace directly???

for example I have this adress in my wallet, and it acts immediately also as a namespace:

MxaHiSRuPredGTFNJefG1AcevsgdHX5gWU/

this way we will have no problem with squatters trying to steal interesting namespaces...
and the important thing to understand is that the name of a namespace is completely arbitrary anyway...
As d/ demontrates.
The name d/ doesn't imply that it is used for bitdomains. Additional knowledge/specification is necessary to understand the application of a namespace anyway.
It's not the name that is determining... it's the protocol and the software that interprets the blockchain.

Therefor I would find it cool if people could reserve a namespace (or maybe it would be the standard) with every single NMC address they own.

It MUST be easy as that, and self-explanatory

What do you guys think?

[domob]

That's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if people will be content with having their shares issued under such a non-readable namespace name. After all, when you send me a share, I would still have to look up whether the namespace is the correct one for the company I'm interested in. Then I could as well look up whether "shares/google/105" is indeed a valid name issued by Google and not someone else. Of course, one could solve this problem by registering "sh/google" and storing the correct namespace address there or something like this.

[virtual_master]

If I continue your trail of thought I would say, wouldn't it be the best thing to have an NMC address act as a namespace directly???

for example I have this adress in my wallet, and it acts immediately also as a namespace:

MxaHiSRuPredGTFNJefG1AcevsgdHX5gWU/

this way we will have no problem with squatters trying to steal interesting namespaces...
and the important thing to understand is that the name of a namespace is completely arbitrary anyway...

A Namecoin address can hold more name entries.
Similarly if we implement namespace registration that will be associated to a Namecoin address.
As you can transfer name entries to another address why you shouldn't transfer namespace entries ?
And having MxaHiSRuPredGTFNJefG1AcevsgdHX5gWU/ namespace controlled by a different address would be confusing.
The name/namespace transferability is an important feature and allows name entry trades(later automatic trades).

That's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if people will be content with having their shares issued under such a non-readable namespace name. After all, when you send me a share, I would still have to look up whether the namespace is the correct one for the company I'm interested in. Then I could as well look up whether "shares/google/105" is indeed a valid name issued by Google and not someone else. Of course, one could solve this problem by registering "sh/google" and storing the correct namespace address there or something like this.

This is true but it is not the same if somebody can make a site news.google.com or only news.goog.com.
Scammers will always try to find a way to mislead others but having assets which belong together separated in an exclusive namespace would improve visibility and security.
However this should be not the only security measure for an asset.
Other security measures:
- signature of the namespace/emitter in every name entry
- higher fee for a namespace registration(for ex. 500x of a usual name entry fee as basis fee - actually 10 NMC, and for every name entry the usual 0.02 NMC)
This would be also an efficient method to avoid registration of misleading namespaces.

[georgem]

That's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if people will be content with having their shares issued under such a non-readable namespace name. After all, when you send me a share, I would still have to look up whether the namespace is the correct one for the company I'm interested in. Then I could as well look up whether "shares/google/105" is indeed a valid name issued by Google and not someone else. Of course, one could solve this problem by registering "sh/google" and storing the correct namespace address there or something like this.

non-readablilty is not an issue.

Is it an issue with bitcoin addresses, or PGP hash?

No, they just have to be identifiable and assignable.

If readability is your choice of checking validity you are in danger of becoming a victim of a scammer who will use similar names to decieve you.

As you can transfer name entries to another address why you shouldn't transfer namespace entries ?
And having MxaHiSRuPredGTFNJefG1AcevsgdHX5gWU/ namespace controlled by a different address would be confusing.

The owner of an address is the only one who has power over the corresponding namespace.

If I want to transfer that power to you, I would need to transfer the whole address to you.

Hm... how does one do that at the moment? Is this even possible, or does this completely go against the protocol rules?

What would I have to do if I wanted to transfer the NMC address MxaHiSRuPredGTFNJefG1AcevsgdHX5gWU to you, virtual_master?

Is it not doable because I must simultaneously give you my secret keys, and also "forget them" myself? (Which ofcourse is ridiculous)

Hm, come to think of it... this is not an allowed procedure with ANY cryptocurrency, is it?
To be able to transfer a complete address (ofcourse with attached content, money, etc) to a new owner?

It's not what anyone is supposed to do.
Even a thief, never steals a single address, but always your whole wallet....

[georgem]

- signature of the namespace/emitter in every name entry
- higher fee for a namespace registration(for ex. 500x of a usual name entry fee as basis fee - actually 10 NMC, and for every name entry the usual 0.02 NMC)
This would be also an efficient method to avoid registration of misleading namespaces.

But is it really?

There are not many misleading name possibilties for any given namespace.

If I have the namespace google/
a scammer will squat googel/ and probably gogle/ and his scheme should work.

It will cost the scammer 20 NMC (about 50 dollars at the moment) to do the scam.
Not much of a hurdle.

Well, that's the problem with short readable namespaces... that's why I figure we should use something akin to NMC addresses.

MxaHiSRuPredGTFNJefG1AcevsgdHX5gWU forces the user to check validity character by character, and base58 already works against the most common scammer-tactics like the similarity between O and 0 and I and l, etc..