BitShares Forum
Other => Graveyard => KeyID => Topic started by: toast on March 19, 2014, 09:19:51 pm
-
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.
-
plus.p2p would stand out because of the number which makes it unique and would thus be great as a brand and symbol for the p2p movement and the technology used within BTS DNS...
-
Sounds good to me. Although I might have made different decisions, your reasoning is sound, and this is a decision that I can stand behind. +5%
-
p2p is great
-
Considering that Dan coined the term DAC and that it is widely used by people, many of whom are unfamiliar with BitShares, I'd vote for homesteading .dac .
Although most everyone here understands what true p2p means, that term has been around for many years, and it often is used to refer to systems that are p2bottleneck2p. It's lost its purity through misuse.
-
If you can't say it on a phone call without clarification, it's not a great choice IMHO. IE, is it .p2p or .ptwop? While this wouldn't be a real issue with early adopters and users of this forum, I still see people try to put a .com at the end of a TLD they don't recognize. Left up to me, I would definitely avoid using a number in there.
Limiting myself to the already existing list of suggestions, I like .dom the best. Then again, rhyming with .com might be a concern. For .dac, is it .dac, .dak, or .dack
-
I replied in the other forum, but don't know if that one is closed and continued here, so I'll restate my question again.
Why do we even need an extension? Especially if we can have only a single extension anyway, does that not equal not needing one at all?
If we need a 3 character reference for this name space, would it not be more logical to append it to www, so we get something like www.bts.YourURLHere?
-
I replied in the other forum, but don't know if that one is closed and continued here, so I'll restate my question again.
Why do we even need an extension? Especially if we can have only a single extension anyway, does that not equal not needing one at all?
If we need a 3 character reference for this name space, would it not be more logical to append it to www, so we get something like www.bts.YourURLHere?
The short answer is, that's just not how it works. WWW is not the top level, it's a subdomain under bts.org which is registered on the .org TLD. There will be sites that could do something like xxxxx.dot-p2p.org and display xxxxx.p2p. The browser extension is if you want to skip the default name resolution your browser does via centralized DNS and look up the IP directly on the blockchain or a blockchain host.
-
Just did a google for ".p2p" and noticed that there is a post describing a .p2p TLD proposal last modified in 2011 that is #1 on google, whereas this thread is like #5 and http://dotp2p.io is not even on the first page. Flow, SEO juice! Also be sure to mentioned dotp2p.io *where it is natural to do so* elsewhere on the internet.
-
I am sure this issue will be solved once the chain is released and media catch the idea
-
Can we reserve alternative TLDs and redirect to p2p?
I'm thinking pwp and ptp due to the frustrating delay of typing numbers on most mobile keyboards.
-
Can we reserve alternative TLDs and redirect to p2p?
I'm thinking pwp and ptp due to the frustrating delay of typing numbers on most mobile keyboards.
We're bypassing the existing DNS system so there's nothing to "reserve" from anyone. We could build it into our access tools though, I think .ptp wouldn't be a bad idea.
-
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.
I request a .coin domain. I predict that in the future we will all have our own coins and will need this domain so that people can search for our coin.
So for example toast.coin, luckybit.coin, etc. Can we have that feature?
-
I'm in favor of .p2p
-
*.dac
-
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.
-
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.
+5%
I'd go with .p2p or .ptp, or possibly something even more generic, but not more specific.
-
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"
-
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.
+5%
-
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.
+5%
+5% +5%
-
maybe something like
.dip
for "distributed pages"
idk :)
edti: i like the idea of .dac TLD ending
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
Not that I endorse polling as a way of making decisions
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
-
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
-
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
-
.p2p sounds great :)
-
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....
-
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)
-
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.
-
.P2P is great. I just wish we could buy the rights to it officially.