Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

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

Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

Post by indolering »

Has there been any discussion regarding refactoring d/name etc -> d/name.bit?

I would like to outline a proposal, but I can't imagine that this hasn't been pitched before. However, it's not a very google-able concept, I've only found some really old discussions relating whether we should enable multiple TLDs or not.
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

John Kenney
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:20 pm
os: linux
Location: Sheffield, England
Contact:

Re: Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

Post by John Kenney »

It'll be hard enough to get one TLD recognised. Is there much use for more than one?

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

Re: Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

Post by indolering »

John Kenney wrote:It'll be hard enough to get one TLD recognised. Is there much use for more than one?
Ahh, that's off topic for now : )
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

phelix
Posts: 1634
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:59 am

Re: Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

Post by phelix »

indolering wrote:Has there been any discussion regarding refactoring d/name etc -> d/name.bit?

I would like to outline a proposal, but I can't imagine that this hasn't been pitched before. However, it's not a very google-able concept, I've only found some really old discussions relating whether we should enable multiple TLDs or not.
why? Should we like to add a tld some far time in the future it would get it's own namespace.

.bit is not fixed, could be we will be forced to use .b or something should ICANN not play along nicely. Support for alternate endings instead of .bit like ".b" for the same namespace were recommended by Vinced I think. Actually it would be nice if all implementations would work with .b today.
nx.bit - some namecoin stats
nf.bit - shortcut to this forum

John Kenney
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:20 pm
os: linux
Location: Sheffield, England
Contact:

Re: Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

Post by John Kenney »

I think I agree with phelix, if we add another tld it should be for some subtly different purpose to .bit & get it's own namespace. It'll be easier than refactoring the blockchain to make it larger, adding '.bit' to every existing name in the blockchain.

Just use tld/name rather than d/name.tld

I think it should be a goal to get icann recognition for .bit. If we add too many other tlds needlessly it'll make that job harder, especially if they might conflict with any of the other new tlds that icann adds.

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

Re: Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

Post by domob »

I also agree with the previous posters. The .bit ending should not be part of the name. If we want to have, as you mentioned, ICANN-compatible TLDs in the future, it makes sense to have them in their own name space anyway (so that we have different name spaces for purposes with different rules (ICANN vs decentralised)).
BTC: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/

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

Re: Refactoring Namespace: d/name -> d/name.bit

Post by indolering »

Aghh! I haven't made the proposal yet, I promise it will be a bit more compelling than "it makes more sense when you look at the API"
:P
DNS is much more than a key->value datastore.

Post Reply