0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If BitShares DNS is to be adopted as widely as possible it must feel like it is unbranded, global and for the use of everyone. For this reason "bts" is an unsuitable name for the TLD. To someone browsing "bts" websites, it could seem like being in a small, restricted, proprietary corner of the internet.It is necessary to sacrifice BitShares brand awareness in favour of the wider adoption which may arise from using a TLD which sounds more far reaching and all inclusive (such as "p2p"). If DNS systems are created by many other parties using various blockchains, we want ours to come across not as one of many brand options, but as the new adopted standard.Does anyone think it's worth considering a re-branding of "BitShares DNS" itself? Imagine an average person or business wanting a domain with all the advantages offered by blockchain technology.Would they, for example, rather give their money to "BitShares DNS", "Peer-2-peer DNS" or "Open DNS"? I'm not sure...
Something I just thought of... although I know that "P2P" mostly has international recognition for its meaning, it pretty much only works in English. "Peer-to-Peer" = "P2P" because "to" sounds like "two". I don't think that this relationship exists in any other language.
.dac or .bts seem to be good options as they'll also serve as publicity for the bts/dac concepts.
Quote from: toast on March 18, 2014, 05:02:56 pmQuote from: bytemaster on March 18, 2014, 05:00:22 pm${YOUR_BITSHARES_DNS_NAME}.bitshar.esThere is no way I'm going to type that out every time, also .es is taken.We own bitshar.es so we could set this up as a backward compatibility layer... Perhaps I side tracked this thread...My vote is .dac or .bts
Quote from: bytemaster on March 18, 2014, 05:00:22 pm${YOUR_BITSHARES_DNS_NAME}.bitshar.esThere is no way I'm going to type that out every time, also .es is taken.
${YOUR_BITSHARES_DNS_NAME}.bitshar.es
Perhaps using a system such as the gTLD from ICANN: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/programAnd creating categories based on geography or industry.Ex: .newyork .restaurant
Meaning just "the" Bitshares TLD, or various TLD's that might be useful if implemented?.nomen.nm.key.ident.comp
We are not constrained in *any way* by the existing system, we just want to play nice with other namespaces and make it somewhat familiar to users.
.p2p
Unfortunately, .name is already in use since 2001:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nameThere are ICANN applications for .free:https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus.key looks pretty catchy and makes sense.Using two-letter name is problematic since those have always been reserved for ccTLDs.Storing names in UTF-8 can cause compatibility problems, it's safer to require that all names including non-ASCII characters be converted to punycode first. Many applications and standards assume that Unicode domain name is equivalent to its punycode representation, and BTS DNS resolvers should always treat them as equivalent. Spoofing names using homoglyphs can be a problem; traditional TLDs normaly solve that by restricting allowed characters to one or several writing systems, BitShares DNS is for global use and can't easily solve that (I think Firefox shows domain names in punycode when they are not considered safe).
My original idea was for a rather strict character set but this is something that needs to be discussed thoroughly.You should interpret my post in a way that still makes sense if you actually disallow periods in the name. That is, I was making a general argument about the role of TLDs and how "avoiding collisions" using TLDs is an artifact and not what would happen naturally if you remove the effect of the laws that are entangled with the current system.
Let's put it this way: DomainShares-the-namespace needs a name. No matter what, there is one DomainShares-the-namespace, no matter how you slice it. Bonus challenge: Make it under 4 characters.
Quote from: bitbadger on March 17, 2014, 10:08:10 pmQuote from: toast on March 17, 2014, 09:52:54 pmTLDs only exist to say, "which rules control this namespace"I understand, and I get why this is a benefit of decentralized DNS, but my real point was simply to state that conflict over a given name within a given TLD does not merely occur due to "squatting" but can also occur due to legitimate conflicts not predicated upon bad actors. These conflicts will arise in any system with a single TLD, and the existence of multiple TLD's can mitigate this problem somewhat. If you've got to have a single TLD, might as well have a few, IMO.Ok, as long as you acknowledge that what you are saying is basically "require everyone to pick one of the following suffixes" and "put in explicit logic for when there is a period in the name". Why not just let people register both "AAPL.web" vs "AAPL.org.web"? You don't want a "privileged" subset of the namespace which doesn't use periods?It's just like how the different files on your computer are treated the same way by the operating system. User-space programs can enforce extra rules upon you like "I won't open any file that doesn't end with '.txt'" or "I will display files that end in '.exe' with a special icon". In this case, "I won't attempt a trademark takedown if your name ends with 'org'".
Quote from: toast on March 17, 2014, 09:52:54 pmTLDs only exist to say, "which rules control this namespace"I understand, and I get why this is a benefit of decentralized DNS, but my real point was simply to state that conflict over a given name within a given TLD does not merely occur due to "squatting" but can also occur due to legitimate conflicts not predicated upon bad actors. These conflicts will arise in any system with a single TLD, and the existence of multiple TLD's can mitigate this problem somewhat. If you've got to have a single TLD, might as well have a few, IMO.
TLDs only exist to say, "which rules control this namespace"
Quote from: delulo on March 17, 2014, 10:03:37 pmFrom above: BM mentioned that before about someone not from I3 lacuning the chain. Is it that always someone not from the US will launch the chain because of legal implications? And what does that actually mean "launch the chain" other than putting the open source code out there? I3 will publish the source from the US. "Launch the chain" means run the first node and publish who to connect to.QuoteSay we use .dac, what if some one registers the .dac TLD with ICANN? Or does ICANN come up with the new TDLs that are coing out right now? If it happens while we're barely started, we sigh and switch to a different one.If it happens after we get momentum... what happened when someone tried to trademark Bitcoin?
From above: BM mentioned that before about someone not from I3 lacuning the chain. Is it that always someone not from the US will launch the chain because of legal implications? And what does that actually mean "launch the chain" other than putting the open source code out there?
Say we use .dac, what if some one registers the .dac TLD with ICANN? Or does ICANN come up with the new TDLs that are coing out right now?
Quote from: bitbadger on March 17, 2014, 09:38:56 pmQuote from: toast on March 17, 2014, 09:02:39 pmThis project is only after one namespace: Domains. The fact that there are many TLDs is an artifact of how traditional DNS works. When have you ever actually thought of "ah yes, xxx.org and xxx.com are two totally independent places on the internet"? The only times people use anything other than ".com" is to avoid a squatter or to use a clever pun ("invict.us hurr hurr")Namecoin's "all namespaces on one blockchain" approach isn't right. This is because each namespace has different supply/demand characteristics. BTS DNS should only be used for resolving names to IP addresses.No, there are valid reasons to use other TLDs. Yes, I think of the .org and .com as (usually) being two totally different organizations, although some companies may set up their own nonprofits and give the nonprofit a .org domain name. Of course, this may have to do with my being involved in web development and domain names for over a decade now, but yes, I always think that, although I recognize that the general public might not."Squatter" isn't always the best way to look at things. Sometimes there might be namespace collisions between perfectly valid entities that have no problem with each other in the real world, but in the limited space of a particular TLD, they do have a problem.To give an example, there is AAPL, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. There is AAPL, American Association of Petroleum Landmen. There is AAPL, American Association of Private Lenders. There is AAPL, American Artists Professional League. There is AAPL, the Apple stock ticker on the NASDAQ. Most of these could have valid claims to AAPL.org, while any of them could reasonably claim AAPL.com.The fact that independent, non-infringing companies/names can exist in different locales/businesses in real life, but come into conflict in the DNS namespace (or similarly exclusive namespaces such as nationally recognized trademarks), is not a new idea. See the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps) issue from back when Apple first started selling music in iTunes.Meh, that all seems like an artifact of a previous age to me.Remove the legal element and suddenly the name-collision-within-domain issue returns in full force. At that point different TLDs are just a different aesthetic for different names (AAPL-org vs Apple).
Quote from: toast on March 17, 2014, 09:02:39 pmThis project is only after one namespace: Domains. The fact that there are many TLDs is an artifact of how traditional DNS works. When have you ever actually thought of "ah yes, xxx.org and xxx.com are two totally independent places on the internet"? The only times people use anything other than ".com" is to avoid a squatter or to use a clever pun ("invict.us hurr hurr")Namecoin's "all namespaces on one blockchain" approach isn't right. This is because each namespace has different supply/demand characteristics. BTS DNS should only be used for resolving names to IP addresses.No, there are valid reasons to use other TLDs. Yes, I think of the .org and .com as (usually) being two totally different organizations, although some companies may set up their own nonprofits and give the nonprofit a .org domain name. Of course, this may have to do with my being involved in web development and domain names for over a decade now, but yes, I always think that, although I recognize that the general public might not."Squatter" isn't always the best way to look at things. Sometimes there might be namespace collisions between perfectly valid entities that have no problem with each other in the real world, but in the limited space of a particular TLD, they do have a problem.To give an example, there is AAPL, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. There is AAPL, American Association of Petroleum Landmen. There is AAPL, American Association of Private Lenders. There is AAPL, American Artists Professional League. There is AAPL, the Apple stock ticker on the NASDAQ. Most of these could have valid claims to AAPL.org, while any of them could reasonably claim AAPL.com.The fact that independent, non-infringing companies/names can exist in different locales/businesses in real life, but come into conflict in the DNS namespace (or similarly exclusive namespaces such as nationally recognized trademarks), is not a new idea. See the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps) issue from back when Apple first started selling music in iTunes.
This project is only after one namespace: Domains. The fact that there are many TLDs is an artifact of how traditional DNS works. When have you ever actually thought of "ah yes, xxx.org and xxx.com are two totally independent places on the internet"? The only times people use anything other than ".com" is to avoid a squatter or to use a clever pun ("invict.us hurr hurr")Namecoin's "all namespaces on one blockchain" approach isn't right. This is because each namespace has different supply/demand characteristics. BTS DNS should only be used for resolving names to IP addresses.
Quote from: toast on March 17, 2014, 08:15:00 pmQuote from: delulo on March 17, 2014, 08:10:12 pm.dns .we.dns is being used by the guy making DNSchain as a meta-tld to resolve blockchain domains. Not sure exactly how it works but I think he will register .dns with ICANN so that example.bit can exist "officially" as example.bit.dnsNo, I was afraid that would case this confusion.You would use it like normal, "example.dac" or whatever.Just ignore that post.So i still have to ask to get that... All URLs that have a domain from BTS DNS will look like this: ....name."what we are looking for here".dns ? BM mentioned that before about someone not from I3 lacuning the chain. Is it that always someone not from the US will launch the chain because of legal implications? And what does that actually mean "launch the chain"?
Quote from: delulo on March 17, 2014, 08:10:12 pm.dns .we.dns is being used by the guy making DNSchain as a meta-tld to resolve blockchain domains. Not sure exactly how it works but I think he will register .dns with ICANN so that example.bit can exist "officially" as example.bit.dns
.dns .we