Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing squatters

[biolizard89]

Any method of contesting ownership or auctioning domain introduces a method of censorship. This fundamentally breaks namecoin.

I'd rather see domain costs increased to reduce speculation or namespace expanded to other TLD's - and perhaps all names at initial registration are auctioned off as previously described.

Once a domain is owned, that's it. No contesting it, period. Sorry Google, Microsoft, etc. This is why namecoin will succeed. Otherwise, why not just stick with ICANN and what works? Faster DNS lookups isn't much of a selling point to the vast majority.

The domain is only contestable if (1) it is contested within a certain time after registering, AND (2) the original owner has not paid the maximum fee, AND (3) assuming hashing/encryption is implemented, the domain is findable via a dictionary attack. So, if you don't want your domain to be contested, you should EITHER pay the max fee (200 NMC may be high at current exchange rates; this discussion was held when exchange rates were lower), OR pick a domain that doesn't show up when someone runs a dictionary attack (e.g. using the trademark database) on the blockchain. If your domain doesn't show up in a dictionary attack, then presumably you came up with the name yourself and are entitled to own it for a low price. And once you are selected as the legit owner of your domain (e.g. after 2000 blocks), no one can contest it for any amount of money. I'm not going to go into the semantic argument of whether this is censorship, but it certainly doesn't sound to me like censorship would be a problem in practice.

[sugarpuff]

The domain is only contestable if (1) it is contested within a certain time after registering, AND (2) the original owner has not paid the maximum fee, AND (3) assuming hashing/encryption is implemented, the domain is findable via a dictionary attack. So, if you don't want your domain to be contested, you should EITHER pay the max fee (200 NMC may be high at current exchange rates; this discussion was held when exchange rates were lower), OR pick a domain that doesn't show up when someone runs a dictionary attack (e.g. using the trademark database) on the blockchain. If your domain doesn't show up in a dictionary attack, then presumably you came up with the name yourself and are entitled to own it for a low price. And once you are selected as the legit owner of your domain (e.g. after 2000 blocks), no one can contest it for any amount of money. I'm not going to go into the semantic argument of whether this is censorship, but it certainly doesn't sound to me like censorship would be a problem in practice.

Perhaps I skipped over the text that explained this, but I didn't see it. This sounds somewhat reasonable to me, however, its reasonableness depends on: (1) the "max fee", (2) the length of this "window of contestability" (2000 blocks? is that ~ 14 days?), and (3) whether owners have to deal with this window ever again.

It would help if you could clear that up or link to a post that does.

[domob]

The domain is only contestable if (1) it is contested within a certain time after registering, AND (2) the original owner has not paid the maximum fee, AND (3) assuming hashing/encryption is implemented, the domain is findable via a dictionary attack. So, if you don't want your domain to be contested, you should EITHER pay the max fee (200 NMC may be high at current exchange rates; this discussion was held when exchange rates were lower), OR pick a domain that doesn't show up when someone runs a dictionary attack (e.g. using the trademark database) on the blockchain. If your domain doesn't show up in a dictionary attack, then presumably you came up with the name yourself and are entitled to own it for a low price. And once you are selected as the legit owner of your domain (e.g. after 2000 blocks), no one can contest it for any amount of money. I'm not going to go into the semantic argument of whether this is censorship, but it certainly doesn't sound to me like censorship would be a problem in practice.

Perhaps I skipped over the text that explained this, but I didn't see it. This sounds somewhat reasonable to me, however, its reasonableness depends on: (1) the "max fee", (2) the length of this "window of contestability" (2000 blocks? is that ~ 14 days?), and (3) whether owners have to deal with this window ever again.

It would help if you could clear that up or link to a post that does.

I'm personally against any kind of auction system. I think Namecoin isn't the actual solution for sites like google.bit or apple.bit, and so that it isn't really a critical point for us to ensure those domains can be owned by the TM-owning companies. TMs are based on a central register, and thus they are best served by ICANN domains, not Namecoin. In any case, even if we have such an auction system, would the 2,000 block waiting period make it any different in reality than the initial start with high registration prices? I don't think so. If we started tomorrow with the auction system, do you really believe that all companies owning a TM would know about Namecoin and contest their domains within 2,000 blocks? In the end, you would just have squatters overbid each others for names they find good, with most of the "real" owners not noticing that Namecoin exists for years to come when it will be too late.

[sugarpuff]

I'm personally against any kind of auction system. I think Namecoin isn't the actual solution for sites like google.bit or apple.bit, and so that it isn't really a critical point for us to ensure those domains can be owned by the TM-owning companies. TMs are based on a central register, and thus they are best served by ICANN domains, not Namecoin. In any case, even if we have such an auction system, would the 2,000 block waiting period make it any different in reality than the initial start with high registration prices? I don't think so. If we started tomorrow with the auction system, do you really believe that all companies owning a TM would know about Namecoin and contest their domains within 2,000 blocks? In the end, you would just have squatters overbid each others for names they find good, with most of the "real" owners not noticing that Namecoin exists for years to come when it will be too late.

I'd be also interested to hear your thoughts about the original proposal (in the first post).

[domob]

I'd be also interested to hear your thoughts about the original proposal (in the first post).

It sounds like an attempt at making every domain Namecoin-based, i. e., replacing ICANN completely in the DNS. I also don't think that this should be the (mid-term) goal, Namecoin should stay in .bit at least for the forseeable future, IMHO. I also share the criticism someone made above that such rules would make blockchain validation dependent on local DNS resolution, which is a no-go in my opinion. Instead, if we really wanted to have also ICANN-TLDs in Namecoin, I would suggest to create a new chain and "premine" the initial ownership status of those domains where the community only has to agree once about the current DNS situation.

BTW, another thing that came to my mind about squatters and the various proposals: Isn't the main point for someone squatting google.bit to sell the domain to Google at some point in the future for a profit? In this scenario, Google has a possibility to get its domain name, by simply paying the squatter. Overbidding in an auction isn't really that different. And if I would squat google.bit and someone would overbid me with 200 NMC, I just learned that google.bit is worth at least 200 NMC to them. So I would pay them happily (especially if I could get them back later when I change my mind and let the domain expire) and presume they would pay me even 400 NMC or more for a nice profit to actually get the name in the end. So I don't really see how this system could prevent squatting of google.bit?

[biolizard89]

BTW, another thing that came to my mind about squatters and the various proposals: Isn't the main point for someone squatting google.bit to sell the domain to Google at some point in the future for a profit? In this scenario, Google has a possibility to get its domain name, by simply paying the squatter. Overbidding in an auction isn't really that different. And if I would squat google.bit and someone would overbid me with 200 NMC, I just learned that google.bit is worth at least 200 NMC to them. So I would pay them happily (especially if I could get them back later when I change my mind and let the domain expire) and presume they would pay me even 400 NMC or more for a nice profit to actually get the name in the end. So I don't really see how this system could prevent squatting of google.bit?

That's a good point domob -- if someone squats google.bit, Google can buy it from them at a fair price (assuming they can agree on a good price).

Is anyone able to provide any research on what squatted domains actually sell for in the real world? Is trademark law typically used to seize them, or are they just sold as standard goods to the company who owns the trademark and wants the domain? A quick Startpage search suggests that parked generic nouns (which aren't subject to trademark seizures) can occasionally sell for 5-figure amounts. Let's be really generous and say that the market value of google.bit was 6-figure, let's say $900,000. That's really not a threat to Google's business model, where they made 50 billion dollars in 2012. It made an early adopter some money that's probably significant to the early adopter's budget, but don't early adopters always get rich on successful technologies? The guys who CPU-mined tens of thousands of bitcoins when they were worthless are now rich, but I don't see anyone saying that's unfair to the other users.

Your point about strategic bidding based on what a competitor reveals by bidding 200 NMC is also a good one, which I hadn't thoroughly thought about.

Thanks for analyzing.

EDIT: http://domainvalue.congland.com/ is claiming that www.google.biz is worth $250, for what it's worth. I find this highly unlikely, but I can't find any better analysis.

[Ben]

Is anyone able to provide any research on what squatted domains actually sell for in the real world? Is trademark law typically used to seize them, or are they just sold as standard goods to the company who owns the trademark and wants the domain?

A squatted domain does not sell in the real world. The trademark owner files an infringement claim against the domain owner, and ICANN has a system in place for dispute resolution and to facilitate the take over. If you try to sell a TM domain on any of the big domaining forums (such as DNF.com or NamePros.com) you will be shunned and likely banned.

EDIT: http://domainvalue.congland.com/ is claiming that http://www.google.biz is worth $250, for what it's worth. I find this highly unlikely, but I can't find any better analysis.

You can't use any automated tools to appraise domains, they are all give useless results.

[biolizard89]

Is anyone able to provide any research on what squatted domains actually sell for in the real world? Is trademark law typically used to seize them, or are they just sold as standard goods to the company who owns the trademark and wants the domain?

A squatted domain does not sell in the real world. The trademark owner files an infringement claim against the domain owner, and ICANN has a system in place for dispute resolution and to facilitate the take over. If you try to sell a TM domain on any of the big domaining forums (such as DNF.com or NamePros.com) you will be shunned and likely banned.

EDIT: http://domainvalue.congland.com/ is claiming that http://www.google.biz is worth $250, for what it's worth. I find this highly unlikely, but I can't find any better analysis.

You can't use any automated tools to appraise domains, they are all give useless results.

Good to know, thanks.

[sugarpuff]

I'd be also interested to hear your thoughts about the original proposal (in the first post).

It sounds like an attempt at making every domain Namecoin-based, i. e., replacing ICANN completely in the DNS. I also don't think that this should be the (mid-term) goal, Namecoin should stay in .bit at least for the forseeable future, IMHO.

Thank you very much for sharing your opinion. It would be even more helpful though, to hear your reasoning for it (I assume you have some?).

I also share the criticism someone made above that such rules would make blockchain validation dependent on local DNS resolution, which is a no-go in my opinion.

Yes, I remember that discussion, and it was a very good point they brought up. Solutions to it were brought up, however, so I'm not convinced that it's a "no-go". If it works, it ends up significantly improving the state of the internet.

Instead, if we really wanted to have also ICANN-TLDs in Namecoin, I would suggest to create a new chain and "premine" the initial ownership status of those domains where the community only has to agree once about the current DNS situation.

Could you elaborate on this?

If this suggestion means that existing domain owners might lose their names, then I think that's a terrible result. As others have stated, there should be no reason for anyone who legitimately owns a domain today to have to worry about losing it if they can afford the minor renewal fees (which should be inconsequential, merely a statement that you're still alive and interested in the domain).

BTW, another thing that came to my mind about squatters and the various proposals: Isn't the main point for someone squatting google.bit to sell the domain to Google at some point in the future for a profit? In this scenario, Google has a possibility to get its domain name, by simply paying the squatter. Overbidding in an auction isn't really that different. And if I would squat google.bit and someone would overbid me with 200 NMC, I just learned that google.bit is worth at least 200 NMC to them. So I would pay them happily (especially if I could get them back later when I change my mind and let the domain expire) and presume they would pay me even 400 NMC or more for a nice profit to actually get the name in the end. So I don't really see how this system could prevent squatting of google.bit?

The goal of this proposal is not to prevent squatting google.bit, but rather to make that squatting completely irrelevant.

People know google.com. They are familiar with gmail.com. It is in their address books for all their contacts. They are used to seeing it and typing it, and Google has no incentive or interest in switching to google.bit or to buy it off of anyone. It is us that needs to convince Google (and, potentially everyone else) that they should eventually switch over to Namecoin, and so it is our responsibility to make that as painless as possible for them.

You want to be able to keep your phone number when switching to another provider, right? And you don't want to have to pay a dime for it, right? Same thing.

[virtual_master]

Let me make an alternative proposal how to create a balance between the interests of simple users, name investors with ideas(or name squatters) and trademark name owners.
- by a new name registration it is an auction where anybody can make a higher bidding until 1000 blocks are passed without a new bid / no upper limit would be fixed
- if 1000 blocks are over the name entry is belonging to the highest bidder and that can be contested only if somebody offers the 10X of the name owner investiture in that name without upper limit

Now let us see how are the different interests protected:
Standard user
- He can register a name with a very low investiture and that is good because Namecoin is for everybody.
As long he is not using this name and it is not a well known name it is very secure because registration entries would be encrypted and it would be not possible to list all registered names.
- When he is starting his business the name will become more and more known and he must invest at least 1/10 of the value of his name to protect it. That can he do step by step.
It is not wrong as the Namecoin network would also profit from his work.

Name investor and squatter
(it is not possible to differentiate between this two as there is no technology to recognize somebodies intentions)
Name owner which already registered a name and passed 1000 blocks are protected if they invest in the name at least 1/10 of the intended selling price. But it will protect against excessive squatting.
If somebody will invest 1 NMC in his domains(as blocked coins which will be released) then he can still sell them for 5 NMC.
(for 10 NMC anybody can contest it)
That will however make difficult for somebody to reserve hundred thousands of valorous domains.
Name investors/squatters will be only protected with the 10x bid necessity (after the 1000 blocks are over) so they will still need to invest something in the Namecoin network to do efficiently their business.

Trademarked name owner
Trademarked name owners generally have the most financial potential also so they will be able to take over any tame their name if they wish for the 10X of the name owners investiture in NMC.
Let us say somebody will register google.bit for 0.02 NMC. Yahoo could take it with 100 000 NMC investiture and redirect to yahoo.com. Then Google could become angry and take it with one million NMC investiture and that would be impossible to take it any more. Yahoo's 100 000 NMCs would be released in this situation.(only the miners will keep their fee)

So everybody will be happy: users, miners, name investors, trademark owners and the Namecoin network would also profit when any of them invest in it.