DNS design decisions: 50m shares, one TLD (.p2p), DNS "family parent"

[donkeypong]

.P2P is great. I just wish we could buy the rights to it officially.

[toast]

50,000,000 shares:
It's just aesthetics. Open to alternatives.

Just make the number  such that the ‘namecoin drop’ you intend to makes yields about slightly more DNS shares per namecoin than average account has ( namecoins  in average account  < DNS shares  drop <7 x namecoins in average account)

LOL, I love it.

[tonyk]

50,000,000 shares:
It's just aesthetics. Open to alternatives.

Just make the number  such that the ‘namecoin drop’ you intend to makes yields about slightly more DNS shares per namecoin than average account has ( namecoins  in average account  < DNS shares  drop <7 x namecoins in average account)

[bennyliaa]

Why only one TLD?

There is a pretty good discussion here you might want to read first: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=3652.0

The short answer is, if you look at what distinct TLDs actually do in real life, it's to establish different *rulesets* for how the namespace is managed. The fact that it can be used to avoid name collisions is a *secondary effect* and an artifact of how traditional DNS is structured. AAPL.com and AAPL.org aren't just avoiding a collision - AAPL.org is utilizing the fact that it won't get sued on the .org namespace, while it would on the .com namespace. Sure you can make it so that two TLDs use the same ruleset and are on the same blockchain, but then the only thing that it accomplishes is to make an aesthetic difference between typing "yoursite-org / yoursite-com" and "yoursite.org / yoursite.com". One blockchain is one namespace, no matter how you slice it or mask it.

So the idea is, future DNS derivatives who want to have different rulesets for their namespace, or who want to prove me wrong and show how people are just willing to avoid collisions (would you register "yourname.dac" if "yourname.p2p" is registered and popular? maybe) can launch a DNS derivative a la BTS X.

So .key might have a ruleset that fits the supply/demand characteristic of having a namespace for public keys better than domainshares.

.intr could be the first namespace to support a full character set.

There might be another blockchain that handles migrating .com, .org, etc onto a blockchain.


Why .p2p?

Here were the good suggestion, IMO:
* .bts
* .dac
* .blk
* .we
* .p2p
* .key
* .dom

I don't want to do .bts or .dac because I find them slightly more awkward to say than .p2p, and I have a really strong aversion to people trying to sell me stuff (I know that's not what's happening, but I can't help but think .bts -> "BTS STANDS FOR BUY BITSHARES(tm)"). Furthermore I think .p2p does a much better job of marketing the advantages of a blockchain-based TLD than the others - people will instantly recognize what's up versus just thinking it's another TLD.

.key shouldn't be wasted on anything other than a namespace designed specifically for keys.

.we is risky because all two-letter TLDs are reserved by ICANN for country codes.

.blk is ok but worse than .p2p, fewer people know what a blockchain is

.dom is ok, maybe the first derivative with different namespace rules can grab it


50,000,000 shares:
It's just aesthetics. Open to alternatives.

.p2p sounds great and looks like a good TLD.
But the most thing I care about is that it is inconvinence for printing by keyborad.
You can have a try: .com, .net, .org, and try .p2p..... I feeling inconvinence and unhappy while typing .p2p in keyboard....

[jae208]

.p2p sounds great

[toast]

I think the number of people who want a peer-to-peer domain *far* exceeds the number of people doing anything related to DACs or *coins.

we could make a poll...

We did. .p2p won.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

poll was just an idea... but when .p2p did win ... why we need to discuss it again!? Sry, when asking, didn't follow discussion from scratch

This thread happened before the poll. Someone revived this thread

[cass]

I think the number of people who want a peer-to-peer domain *far* exceeds the number of people doing anything related to DACs or *coins.

we could make a poll...

We did. .p2p won.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

poll was just an idea... but when .p2p did win ... why we need to discuss it again!? Sry, when asking, didn't follow discussion from scratch

[toast]

Not that I endorse polling as a way of making decisions

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[toast]

I think the number of people who want a peer-to-peer domain *far* exceeds the number of people doing anything related to DACs or *coins.

we could make a poll...

We did. .p2p won.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[cass]

I think the number of people who want a peer-to-peer domain *far* exceeds the number of people doing anything related to DACs or *coins.

we could make a poll...

[toast]

I think the number of people who want a peer-to-peer domain *far* exceeds the number of people doing anything related to DACs or *coins.

[luckybit]

The problem is .dac or .coin are really specific, so while they are better in each specific utility they are not better in all cases.  because Nikolai specified he wants a single TLD, I think we need to pick something that can be applied to any circumstance like .p2p which defines the tranmission method rather than being suggestive of the content contained therin.

Open to other suggestions but I think they need to be non-specific so .coin and .dac are out.

This seems non standard though.

.org is the organizational type. .com is the organizational type. .mil is the organizational type. .net is really the closest thing we have which resembles .p2p at the moment.

I think .dac would catch on quite quickly, or .coin because everyone making a coin or making a dac would be able to use it. I think .p2p makes a lot of sense and is fine too but I just prefer .coin or .dac because it's more community specific and it promotes the meme of the new organizational model.

If other TLD's are in demand, it will be rather easy to create another chain once the first is done. ".coin" and ".dac" might have more specific business logic than .p2p, it will give people a chance to experiment with what works while letting us focus on rallying behind "THE peer-to-peer domain"

This could work. We gotta start somewhere and .p2p isn't a bad place to start. I think .coin and .dac are just so logical and catchy that people would actually use it. I think .p2p might be used by something but it's not community specific. Like for example I cannot imagine Bitshares.p2p but I could imagine Bitshares.dac and when you have Bitshars Me then you can make use of all those .coin domains.

[cass]

maybe something like

.dip

for "distributed pages"

idk

edti: i like the idea of .dac TLD ending

[betax]

The problem is .dac or .coin are really specific, so while they are better in each specific utility they are not better in all cases.  because Nikolai specified he wants a single TLD, I think we need to pick something that can be applied to any circumstance like .p2p which defines the tranmission method rather than being suggestive of the content contained therin.

Open to other suggestions but I think they need to be non-specific so .coin and .dac are out.

 

[onceuponatime]

The problem is .dac or .coin are really specific, so while they are better in each specific utility they are not better in all cases.  because Nikolai specified he wants a single TLD, I think we need to pick something that can be applied to any circumstance like .p2p which defines the tranmission method rather than being suggestive of the content contained therin.

Open to other suggestions but I think they need to be non-specific so .coin and .dac are out.