Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing squatters

[Ben]

I think it's unwise to modify the protocol for different characteristics in specific namespaces (d/ in this case). If there's a solution it should apply to names in general over every namespace.

[sugarpuff]

- 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

That doesn't fix the problem, that just moves it from one group to another, and it makes Namecoin unattractive.

Sorry, but I don't want to participate in a domain system that requires that I have to watch my back for random rich people trying to steal my property. No thank you, that is not what Namecoin should be about. That is worse than today's system.

Today's trademark owners wouldn't be happy with such a system either. They don't want to have to constantly outbid and waste money on such nonsense.

[namecoiner]

Sorry, but I don't want to participate in a domain system that requires that I have to watch my back for random rich people trying to steal my property. No thank you, that is not what Namecoin should be about. That is worse than today's system.

Oh no please. Don't leave us.
What would we do without your negative comments ?

[domob]

Sorry, but I don't want to participate in a domain system that requires that I have to watch my back for random rich people trying to steal my property. No thank you, that is not what Namecoin should be about. That is worse than today's system.

Oh no please. Don't leave us.
What would we do without your negative comments ?

While I can't comment on sugarpuff's comments in general, I generally agree with his statement above. I think that Namecoin shouldn't be (in the first place) for owners of trademarks and big companies, but that its most important properties should be censorship resistance and resistance to seizures, which means that names should be unconditionally owned by the original user after registration. No contesting for whatever amount of money, period. Don't you think, for instance, that the US government would be able to trivially outbid Wikileaks on their domain if they desired? Just from the pocket change of one of their agencies? And at least I see Namecoin's promise in preventing exactly such seizures.

[sugarpuff]

Oh no please. Don't leave us.
What would we do without your negative comments ?

Get to enjoy yours, which are oh so full of substance.

[namecoiner]

Get to enjoy yours, which are oh so full of substance.

You just criticized every proposal without presenting any alternative.

[namecoiner]

Sorry, but I don't want to participate in a domain system that requires that I have to watch my back for random rich people trying to steal my property. No thank you, that is not what Namecoin should be about. That is worse than today's system.

Oh no please. Don't leave us.
What would we do without your negative comments ?

While I can't comment on sugarpuff's comments in general, I generally agree with his statement above. I think that Namecoin shouldn't be (in the first place) for owners of trademarks and big companies, but that its most important properties should be censorship resistance and resistance to seizures, which means that names should be unconditionally owned by the original user after registration. No contesting for whatever amount of money, period. Don't you think, for instance, that the US government would be able to trivially outbid Wikileaks on their domain if they desired? Just from the pocket change of one of their agencies? And at least I see Namecoin's promise in preventing exactly such seizures.

Do you think that reserving hundred thousands of good domain names for 2 cent is correct ? That destroys only the DNS system.
Namecoin should resist censorship and seizure but should keep the fungibility also. It doesn't matter if the coins are coming from a private person, company or a government. Who bids the highest price should take the domain.
If a government will invest money to buy domains for 6 million Namecoins we should be happy because the market cap will rise above one billion USD.
As more money is invested in a domain as more secure will be. A very good concept.

[domob]

While I can't comment on sugarpuff's comments in general, I generally agree with his statement above. I think that Namecoin shouldn't be (in the first place) for owners of trademarks and big companies, but that its most important properties should be censorship resistance and resistance to seizures, which means that names should be unconditionally owned by the original user after registration. No contesting for whatever amount of money, period. Don't you think, for instance, that the US government would be able to trivially outbid Wikileaks on their domain if they desired? Just from the pocket change of one of their agencies? And at least I see Namecoin's promise in preventing exactly such seizures.

Do you think that reserving hundred thousands of good domain names for 2 cent is correct ? That destroys only the DNS system.
Namecoin should resist censorship and seizure but should keep the fungibility also. It doesn't matter if the coins are coming from a private person, company or a government. Who bids the highest price should take the domain.
If a government will invest money to buy domains for 6 million Namecoins we should be happy because the market cap will rise above one billion USD.
As more money is invested in a domain as more secure will be. A very good concept.

IMHO, your reasoning is correct if you indeed want to get the "highest economic usage" out of a name, i. e., focus on businesses and trademarks. But I still don't think it is correct if applied to NGOs and organisations doing possibly controversial things. To revisit my Wikileaks example, do you really believe that it is in the interest of all Namecoiners to allow the US government to "buy" wikileaks.bit for some (high) amount of money (which no private donor could ever match up to)? They can just print as much as they want, and possibly make Namecoiners rich in the process, but it totally defeats the initial and much-needed purpose of Namecoin.

[virtual_master]

The basic idea is that Namecoin should be neutral and shouldn't show a static withstand to any major force.
But should absorb such a force and use it to become stronger.
Some governments have anyway a lot of alternative methods if they become angry. Isn't the Wikileak founder on the top wanted Interpol list ?
Let them bring by to speak Namecoinish, to play after our rules and fuel our network. If they will do that then we have won and the network will become more secure and better developed and we will have the best working censorship resistant system over the world.
To do that we cannot ignore the laws of the nature and the laws of economy. Let them all fuel our system. Who has more power shouldn't use that power to undergrab or to destroy our system but to strengthen it.
Wikileaks.bit is anyway probably by a name-squatter and doesn't bring anything to anybody.
If an auction/contesting system would be active then they could take it with 1000 NMC for ex.
A government could eventually take it over and secure with 100 000 NMC. Then wikileaks can still register wikileaks2.bit.

[Ben]

The problem may solve itself. As Namecoin becomes more well known and used the value of NMC will likely rise, making hoarding 1000s of names very costly.