Discussion for revised fees

indolering
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by indolering »

But that's why it's refreshed hourly, they could control it for ... an hour. Anyone could manipulate the namecoin market in X number of ways. This is about putting in a feedback mechanism that doesn't require manual patching.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

snailbrain
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:33 pm

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by snailbrain »

after thinking about past things i've said, i now think the price at 0.01 is actually ok at the moment?

it gives room for increase in price until becomes more stable, while we think of a better fee structure, Khal had some good ideas.

for now, if people want to spam the chain, they can, but eventually it will be pruned.. and will still be semi expensive?

georgem
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:46 pm
os: windows

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by georgem »

Yes, I think 0.01 is ok too...
might even scare some of the larger squatters away who now have to invest more money when they wish to hold 1000s of domains.

indolering
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by indolering »

That's still at 7 cents, right? Squatters will need to invest $70/1000 domains. I think we need to have it at $10, median price range for domain registrations.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by biolizard89 »

indolering wrote:That's still at 7 cents, right? Squatters will need to invest $70/1000 domains. I think we need to have it at $10, median price range for domain registrations.
virtual_master's proposal for an auction system with min/max price seems like the best way to handle squatters to me. Low-demand domains should be way cheaper than $10 IMHO.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

indolering
Posts: 800
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by indolering »

I'm all for the network dynamically charging more for potentially popular domains, I'd much rather have that than feed slime-ball domain-squatters. However, not charging an annual fee for domains is insane, cyber-squatters already use a 3-day loophole in the ICANN domain registration system to "taste-test" new domains, testing the accidental traffic the domain gets in the 3 days and multiplying it by their click-through rate to see if they will make any money. It's bullshit that ICANN allows it and it would be total irresponsible to adopt the same model.

Not having a moderately high-base price isn't acceptable either, just because a domain isn't worth much right now doesn't mean it won't be worth more later. Since you have removed the cost of renewal, they can just hold an arbitrary number of domains and be guaranteed to make money. $10 won't even get you a pizza, I only suggested it so that domain resellers would sell .bit domains.

But domain name squatters are the least of our concerns, this is what happens when you give out free domain names:
When the African nation of Mali announced that it was going to provide free .ml domains from July, their goal was to put Mali back on the map. It appears they have now succeeded, but perhaps not in the way they had intended — thanks to the free domains, Mali now has the most phishy top-level domain of any country in the world.

Nearly 6% of the .ml domains in Netcraft's survey are currently blocked for hosting phishing sites, making it by far the phishiest TLD. In comparison, the second most phishy TLD, .bt (Bhutan), has only 0.7% of its sites blocked for phishing.
Whoops.

To stay off of Netcraft's phishiest TLD list we need to keep our ratio below 1/3,000.

Given the $50 that many domains are going for, we should be targeting at least $20 resell value.
Last edited by indolering on Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by biolizard89 »

indolering wrote:I'm all for the network dynamically charging more for a domain I'd much rather have that than feed the slime ball domain-squatters. However, not charging an annual fee for domains is insane, cyber-squatters already use a 3-day loophole in the ICANN domain registration system to "taste-test" new domains, tracking the traffic the domain gets in the 3 days it owns it and multiplying it by their click-through x 365. It's bullshit that ICANN allows it and it would be total irresponsible to adopt the same model.

Not having a moderately high-base price isn't acceptable either, just because a domain isn't worth much right now doesn't mean it won't be worth more later. Since you have removed the cost of renewal, they can just hold an arbitrary number of domains and be guaranteed to make money. $10 won't even get you a pizza, I only suggested it so that domain resellers would sell .bit domains.
Miners can choose to charge higher fees for renewals already. Right now the tx fee is 0.005 NMC per tx, but if the market makes it profitable to charge a higher fee, that should solve itself. Spending $5-6 per year (or higher) on renewal fees might easily be fine under the market.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

georgem
Posts: 82
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:46 pm
os: windows

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by georgem »

So we pay for...

1)registration (once)
2)renewal (every 200 blocks)
3)everytime we change the domain settings (for example ip)

Isn't 3) a point that is not much talked about?

What's with the people who will change their settings 10 times a year... will that not create additional costs?

biolizard89
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:25 am
os: linux

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by biolizard89 »

georgem wrote:So we pay for...

1)registration (once)
2)renewal (every 200 blocks)
3)everytime we change the domain settings (for example ip)

Isn't 3) a point that is not much talked about?

What's with the people who will change their settings 10 times a year... will that not create additional costs?
Depends on the fee structure that the miners use. If the miners charge based on how old the name is, it could be arranged so that e.g. renewing a domain once per expiration period has, say, 10% lower cost than changing a domain every week for the expiration period (pick your favorite number). As far as I can tell, it's the fact that a name is stored in the system at all that adds storage cost, not how often the name is updated.
Jeremy Rand, Lead Namecoin Application Engineer
NameID: id/jeremy
DyName: Dynamic DNS update client for .bit domains.

Donations: BTC 1EcUWRa9H6ZuWPkF3BDj6k4k1vCgv41ab8 ; NMC NFqbaS7ReiQ9MBmsowwcDSmp4iDznjmEh5

virtual_master
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 12:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Discussion for revised fees

Post by virtual_master »

Thank you for your support to my proposal updating fees from a statical to a dynamic one where the users(and eventually miners also) decide about the value of a domain and how high should be a fee. Reusing (instead of destroying) network fees would also fit better to Namecoin's recycling energy concept.

Now an additional proposal:
Some users expressed their needs for some features which are connected to name trading and are going above the basic goals of Namecoin to protect informational freedom, privacy, environment and equality.
(to make an ID for everybody or a .bit domain to operate a site with an opposite opinion to the official for a human right activist should be always cheap)
This needs could be connected with the problem of lacking funds for development and solved together.
All name trading operations should have an additional development fee where the fee would come to an address controlled by the Namecoin Development Fond.
Trading(name or value field revealing) specific operations:
- updating all names at once - about + 9% fee additionally(to the renewal fee)
- trading names automatically - 9% fee of the traded amount
- contesting a name - 5% fee additionally(non returnable even if doesn't succeed) to the new amount of the locked network fee
- trading a value field content revealing (for ex for torrent tracker magnet link) - 15% fee from the traded amount

Other ideas ? What do you think about ?
(Of course if people would donate an amount which would cover all development costs then it wouldn't be necessary.)
http://namecoinia.org/
Calendars for free to print: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF Protect the Environment with Namecoin: 2014 Calendar in JPG | 2014 Calendar in PDF
BTC: 15KXVQv7UGtUoTe5VNWXT1bMz46MXuePba | NMC: NABFA31b3x7CvhKMxcipUqA3TnKsNfCC7S

Post Reply