Author Topic: Agent86 wins again  (Read 10069 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
To me it sounds like this lease + auction system completely destroys the usefulness of BitShares DNS as an actual domain name system, while making squatters' wet dreams come true.

IMO the concerns raised by Empirical1 and gamey in the thread referenced above are valid and were not addressed (at least not in *that* thread).
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline bytemaster


Agent86, what life situation can you possibly be in that it doesn't make sense for you to join I3 as a developer ASAP?

We discussed that this week. 
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline CLains

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2606
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clains
Agent86, what life situation can you possibly be in that it doesn't make sense for you to join I3 as a developer ASAP?

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile

I can imagine the use of the domains for actual websites to be very moderate, but the market flipping domains could very well end up being rather lively.

Sure, but the system has to be adopted first.  Who is going to buy domains using this system ?  I'm just a lowly tech type, but I would think you need some form of network effect/adoption for these domains to have value. 

The domain flipping market has to be bootstrapped by actual demand from users.  No one has explained where these people will come from or what they will be looking for.  This should not be hard to explain.  I'll gladly change my mind.

Initially it made sense because although not huge, there is a demographic out there that does not want their domain censored/seized.

I do not understand Toast's comment on 'scorched earth' policy of keyID so I hope there is something redeeming in that direction of thought.

Quote
Gamey, I think you are way off base here, I'm not sure how best to convince you, maybe on a mumble sometime.  Even toast opposed the idea at first, I think if you look carefully at the proposal it doesn't have the bad outcome you imagine.

You could explain it here so that everyone could read your arguments.  I am not sure what "bad outcome" I am expecting.  I think your approach could work well in a different place and a different time.

However, I think we will be fighting to get people to adopt this system.  While your approach has some definite merits to it, I think it will do next to nothing to advance adoption which needs to be our primary goal.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2014, 08:40:54 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline mint chocolate chip

We're switching to his great cost-carrying model for domains

Ugh, so no guaranteed-ownership namespace at all? I do appreciate simplicity, but I really don't know about this. At least we can always use the KeyID namespace and the DAC can't do anything about it. Also, please at least reserve the "own", "key", and legacy TLD names in the cost-carrying namespace to give us future flexibility.

I agree.  As I pointed out, (perhaps not eloquently) this makes no sense to me.  The idea here is that you get rid of squatters and you have more authority in the domains because people bid/rent them and some form of a market rate is formed.

The issue is that anyone who wants a domain with authority will already have their domain and it is well protected by ICANN without any unknowns.  Up and comers won't want this domain system for obvious reasons.  So who are the customers?  No one has ever answered that.

Furthermore you'll alienate crypto people.  I can't wait to hear the arguments against the DNS DAC over this system.. good grief.
Gamey, I think you are way off base here, I'm not sure how best to convince you, maybe on a mumble sometime.  Even toast opposed the idea at first, I think if you look carefully at the proposal it doesn't have the bad outcome you imagine.

I can imagine the use of the domains for actual websites to be very moderate, but the market flipping domains could very well end up being rather lively.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
We're switching to his great cost-carrying model for domains

Ugh, so no guaranteed-ownership namespace at all? I do appreciate simplicity, but I really don't know about this. At least we can always use the KeyID namespace and the DAC can't do anything about it. Also, please at least reserve the "own", "key", and legacy TLD names in the cost-carrying namespace to give us future flexibility.

I agree.  As I pointed out, (perhaps not eloquently) this makes no sense to me.  The idea here is that you get rid of squatters and you have more authority in the domains because people bid/rent them and some form of a market rate is formed.

The issue is that anyone who wants a domain with authority will already have their domain and it is well protected by ICANN without any unknowns.  Up and comers won't want this domain system for obvious reasons.  So who are the customers?  No one has ever answered that.

Furthermore you'll alienate crypto people.  I can't wait to hear the arguments against the DNS DAC over this system.. good grief.
Gamey, I think you are way off base here, I'm not sure how best to convince you, maybe on a mumble sometime.  Even toast opposed the idea at first, I think if you look carefully at the proposal it doesn't have the bad outcome you imagine.

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
There are a lot of different good ways to do the ownership model. I agree that it will be valuable to have this, we will have to fo this or else keyid namespace will be used for this and the "scorched earth" keyid namespace policy will backfire. So dont worry.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
We're switching to his great cost-carrying model for domains

Ugh, so no guaranteed-ownership namespace at all? I do appreciate simplicity, but I really don't know about this. At least we can always use the KeyID namespace and the DAC can't do anything about it. Also, please at least reserve the "own", "key", and legacy TLD names in the cost-carrying namespace to give us future flexibility.

I agree.  As I pointed out, (perhaps not eloquently) this makes no sense to me.  The idea here is that you get rid of squatters and you have more authority in the domains because people bid/rent them and some form of a market rate is formed.

The issue is that anyone who wants a domain with authority will already have their domain and it is well protected by ICANN without any unknowns.  Up and comers won't want this domain system for obvious reasons.  So who are the customers?  No one has ever answered that.

Furthermore you'll alienate crypto people.  I can't wait to hear the arguments against the DNS DAC over this system.. good grief.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2014, 03:15:04 am by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline arhag

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
    • My posts on Steem
  • BitShares: arhag
  • GitHub: arhag
We're switching to his great cost-carrying model for domains

Ugh, so no guaranteed-ownership namespace at all? I do appreciate simplicity, but I really don't know about this. At least we can always use the KeyID namespace and the DAC can't do anything about it. Also, please at least reserve the "own", "key", and legacy TLD names in the cost-carrying namespace to give us future flexibility.

Offline emski

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1282
    • View Profile
    • http://lnkd.in/nPbhxG
Is there a short summary of the key features for the lazy people unwilling to read long .pdf files.

UPDATE:

What I understood:
1 Auction is held for each name.
2 Highest bidder takes the lease for limited period of time.
3 New auction (sort of) for the same lease starts as soon as the lease is obtained. Highest bidder (from 2.) controls the lease until it expires (with option to re-lease it).
4 Go to 2

Am I correct?

PS: I think the variable cost of the lease might drive people away (my opinion).
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 10:41:48 pm by emski »

Offline toast

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
We're switching to his great cost-carrying model for domains as described here:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=6561.0

Expect a test net on Monday.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.