Thinking about domain name squatting

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

Re: Thinking about domain name squatting

Post by virtual_master »

domob wrote:
virtual_master wrote:
domob wrote: I fully agree! IMHO, the point of Namecoin is exactly that: Uncensorable and unseizable names.
So do you mean limiting value fields lead only by fear is no censorship(even if many possible applications wouldn't be available with this) and introducing auctioning/contesting of names lead by economic interest is a censorship ?
With encryption is the same question because this will also limit usability.
I think is exactly the opposite is the case. Acting lead by fear (without any technical or economical argument) we are only the prolonged hand of the government.
I don't think one can even compare those two instances of "censorship": In the first case, it is about limiting the values that can be stored in names; this can be circumvented and is not actually a vital "restriction" for this reason, at least in theory you can still store whatever you like with a proper encoding, and have your tools interpret it in the way you need. And if Namecoin is used the way it is intended (i. e., for instance DNS resolution), then there won't be any restriction at all; we are only talking about making it more difficult to store content into the blockchain that would be "invalid" under the defined use-cases anyway.
Can be circumvented but not by the most users, especially not by those with less technical knowledge.
The 'censorship' by contesting domain names can be also circumvented if the user pays the max amount(1 NMC or 100 NMC depending on the domain name length) of fee which was set for that length. And that would be even easier to circumvent it even for a IT professional not to speak about the average user.
domob wrote: In the second case, we are talking about stealing ownership of names, which is on a completely different level.
Since when is buying = stealing of something which is not owned just rented for a half of year ? Giving it to the highest bidder is just part of a disclaimer(if it wasn't payed for exclusive right). It is just if you are living in a cheap hotel and with 10 peoples in a room and somebody is renting the entire room, you are removed to another room. If you pay more you can have a better room exclusively. By stealing the money is taken and not given back if you don't receive the service. This is not the case because the locked fee would be returned entirely. We should use the proper words for it.
domob wrote: I think that in order to shield Namecoin in general from legal prosecution, it is prudent to implement necessary measures for plausible deniability (again, everyone who wants can circumvent restrictions on what can go into name values, and write tools to still implement their use whatever it is), but that we should not allow names themselves to be taken from their rightful owners for whatever reason. This would invalidate the whole purpose of Namecoin, as in this case, there's no way to circumvent it for the owners who lose the names. Of course, a government could make it illegal to possess the IP addresses or .onion names of Wikileaks, like it is illegal to possess, for instance, child pornography. (But even here value encryption will help.) Or make it illegal to provide an alternative DNS system at all that doesn't allow trademark owners to get their names; but if it comes to that, then every last bit of sanety failed already, and it probably doesn't make any difference at all anymore whether Namecoin is considered illegal under those rules or not.

Do you really think that the "restriction" imposed by requiring name/value pairs to be encrypted is comparable to the damage done to the freedom Namecoin provides if we allow arbitrary parties to steal names by paying more than someone may be able to afford in order to keep the name (although they are the rightful owners)? I don't. Maybe the comparison lacks a bit, but to me this sounds as if Bitcoin wanted to make transactions reversible because it would be of better economic use to the community to reverse, for instance, the pirateat40 payments. Any idea why they aren't talking about that?
Auctioning/contesting names can protect Namecoin also giving for the government and for Google(and for other trademark name owners also) a reasonable alternative.
Reversing BTC transactions in Bitcoin can only compared with reversing NMC transactions in Namecoin, anything else is manipulative word use.
And YES. I beleave if people cannot include their GPG signature and encryption keys to protect their privacy has a much higher damage then imposing a contesting system for names if not the full amount of fee was payed.
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

domob
Posts: 1129
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 11:27 am
Contact:

Re: Thinking about domain name squatting

Post by domob »

Since we are obviously of very different opinions here, I don't think that we can come to an agreement. It would be interesting to hear other opinions. Note that I never said that mine was "right" (or at least I didn't want to sound like this), it is just my own opinion of what Namecoin should be.
virtual_master wrote:
domob wrote:Maybe the comparison lacks a bit, but to me this sounds as if Bitcoin wanted to make transactions reversible because it would be of better economic use to the community to reverse, for instance, the pirateat40 payments. Any idea why they aren't talking about that?
Auctioning/contesting names can protect Namecoin also giving for the government and for Google(and for other trademark name owners also) a reasonable alternative.
Reversing BTC transactions in Bitcoin can only compared with reversing NMC transactions in Namecoin, anything else is manipulative word use.
And YES. I beleave if people cannot include their GPG signature and encryption keys to protect their privacy has a much higher damage then imposing a contesting system for names if not the full amount of fee was payed.
I'll just take this one up for further comment: As stated, I do not want to say that outbidding names is the same as reversing Bitcoin transactions. But what I meant is that if you say "put names to best economic use", then you should ask yourself whether it wouldn't also be "best economic use" to reverse transactions where lots of people lost coins to a scammer. For instance, by allowing "the community" to "invalidate" transactions by destroying an appropriate amount of coin-age. I know this is not exactly the same, but to me it seems similar.

Regarding GPG keys: I didn't ever intend to disallow GPG keys; they are an appropriate use of the blockchain, and if someone stores a GPG key in an id/ name as specified by the ID spec this is nothing we should prevent. If they abuse the GPG key and store offensive content disguised as GPG key, then it also isn't really our problem, since it needs special tools to extract the value, and as long as the block explorer doesn't display images directly, I think we are fine and don't need to worry.
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/

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

Re: Thinking about domain name squatting

Post by virtual_master »

domob wrote:Since we are obviously of very different opinions here, I don't think that we can come to an agreement. It would be interesting to hear other opinions. Note that I never said that mine was "right" (or at least I didn't want to sound like this), it is just my own opinion of what Namecoin should be.
Anyway thanks for listening my opinion and I didn't forget that you have implemented the id/ applications.
:) :) :)
In this particular application field I recognize anyway your authority. I also didn't proposed contesting system for IDs. That wouldn't be proper. That proposal was just for the domain system. May be it was not used the proper name there also.
Paying full fee or partial fee(as expression) for short-domains could have maybe better acceptance..
domob wrote: I'll just take this one up for further comment: As stated, I do not want to say that outbidding names is the same as reversing Bitcoin transactions. But what I meant is that if you say "put names to best economic use", then you should ask yourself whether it wouldn't also be "best economic use" to reverse transactions where lots of people lost coins to a scammer. For instance, by allowing "the community" to "invalidate" transactions by destroying an appropriate amount of coin-age. I know this is not exactly the same, but to me it seems similar.

Regarding GPG keys: I didn't ever intend to disallow GPG keys; they are an appropriate use of the blockchain, and if someone stores a GPG key in an id/ name as specified by the ID spec this is nothing we should prevent. If they abuse the GPG key and store offensive content disguised as GPG key, then it also isn't really our problem, since it needs special tools to extract the value, and as long as the block explorer doesn't display images directly, I think we are fine and don't need to worry.
You have spoken well.
I also hope the best for the Namecoin system and community and I hope that Khal can also store his 3.2 KB key.
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

indolering
Posts: 801
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 8:26 pm
os: mac

Re: Thinking about domain name squatting

Post by indolering »

Way to hijack a thread people! Let me be clear: none of my suggestions force anyone off of a domain as long as they are paying some minimal amount. They simply allow for a heightening of the cost for squatters.

The only proposal I included in there that mentions other people challenging the ability to own a domain was from Khal. This proposal would only allow for others to contest for a few weeks. If they contested, the price simply goes up for the person buying the domain. That price should not be subject to an uncontrolled bidding war as an attacker could simply threaten a bidding war unless the owner paid them protection money.

But I doubt that this would be used much and I wouldn't bother implementing it until we try everything else first. The VAST majority of the problem would be gone if we just implemented yearly renewal fees and upped the price per domain.

We can cut into the profit margin of the remaining players by developing a voluntary auction system. We would take as large of a cut as we could before it becomes profitable for Sedo their buddies show up (which is apparently 15% +/- 5% and a $50 minimum). But I would also shy away from this until we start to see professional brokerage houses swooping in.

All of the other ideas involve increasing the cost for squatters and some community-policing of the registrars. So, as much as I hate squatters, trust me: no-one is going to take your domains away! :D
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

khal
Site Admin
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 5:09 pm
os: linux

Re: Thinking about domain name squatting

Post by khal »

domob wrote:Regarding GPG keys: I didn't ever intend to disallow GPG keys; they are an appropriate use of the blockchain, and if someone stores a GPG key in an id/ name as specified by the ID spec this is nothing we should prevent. If they abuse the GPG key and store offensive content disguised as GPG key, then it also isn't really our problem, since it needs special tools to extract the value, and as long as the block explorer doesn't display images directly, I think we are fine and don't need to worry.
I have the same opinion.
And we shouldn't make choices based on fear.
virtual_master wrote:I also hope the best for the Namecoin system and community and I hope that Khal can also store his 3.2 KB key.
Thanks, but for now, I stored the fingerprint + an url (+ my key is publicly available on GPG servers) :p
If people really need to store full GPG keys one day, they'll ask for bigger values, or split them and write a spec.
indolering wrote: The VAST majority of the problem would be gone if we just implemented yearly renewal fees and upped the price per domain.
The fees are making me crazy since several years :D. One day we'll decide something...
NamecoinID: id/khal
GPG : 9CC5B92E965D69A9
NMC: N1KHAL5C1CRzy58NdJwp1tbLze3XrkFxx9
BTC: 1KHAL8bUjnkMRMg9yd2dNrYnJgZGH8Nj6T

Register Namecoin domains with BTC
My bitcoin Identity - Send messages to bitcoin users
Charity Ad - Make a good deed without paying a cent

Post Reply