
Transitioning the web to Namecoin by addressing name-squatters - itistoday2
http://dot-bit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1439
======
lukifer
Here's a crazy notion: maybe the squatters don't matter?

DNS isn't going away anytime soon; maybe not ever. Dot-bit domains can exist
alongside the old domain system, competing by being cheaper, resistant to
censorship, more flexible, etc.

Can't get mycooldomain.bit? No problem, grab mycoolerdomain.bit, or go old-
school with mycooldomain.com. Apple can't get apple.bit? No biggie, they've
still got the .com, and if they want the .bit bad enough, they'll pony up the
cash. (It would also greatly help if a way to make purchase offers was baked
into NameCoin itself.)

The posted idea is an interesting one, and it's worth considering, but from
where I sit, the significant roadblock to adoption is implementation in
browsers and/or operating systems.

------
lawl
This is a great proposal. DNS is probably internet's biggest weakness and
making it decentralized should be a top priority.

I haven't adopted Namecoin yet, but i still will when this is implemented.

~~~
kybernetikos
I don't really see why dns shouldn't just be a personal address book of names
-> ips plus pointers to address books of other people you trust.

I don't think it's such a big deal to have names that aren't agreed by
everyone across the world.

~~~
gibybo
Because it's really convenient to communicate them to people in contexts where
they can't just click a link. Perhaps telling someone a URL in conversation,
or on a billboard or magazine.

------
jval
Is there any way to enforce a use requirement?

One idea would be to have an agent[0] with its own Bitcoin wallet purchase
server time that it uses to index the web and compute a uniqueness factor of
each page. The agent then calculates a tax based off a blended index of the
website's size and uniqueness. Because squatters don't have the resources to
make all of their sites unique they will get taxed hard. Big websites like
Facebook and Twitter are unique but they are also large, so they could be
levied a larger amount to support the agent which will presumably require a
lot of server power. Small, unique sites would barely get taxed at all.

Just an idea.

[0] [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Agents](https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Agents)

~~~
mikro2nd
You seem to have forgotten that there are many legitimate uses for domain
names that do not involve using them to run websites. How do you propose to
index a domain that gets used only for (say) mail, or only for CDN
provisioning, or only for reserving namespace for a public API?

~~~
jval
Ahh yes, good point. Could the agent learn how to recognise each of these use
cases and tax accordingly? Or could people learn to put up a unique website
for any domain they use, or risk being taxed?

------
eof
This is too late since all the domains are squatted and there is little to no
incentive for those squatting these domains; and these domains have been
available to apple, etc for as long as anyone else.

Unless they are just going to reset the blockchain; the I don't really see how
this type of "rule" will be implemented or supported by the namecoin hash
power.

There might be more support for

\- A .bit pool bounty to companies that become early adopters of .bit

\- A .bit pool bounty to companies if some number of major DNS server support
the .bit domain directly

\- A sort of 'emminent domain' reward to the 'squatters' in a way that relates
the "price" (paid in namecoin or bitcoin, probably) to the (alexa, or other)
ranking of the domain with a time table for these companies to purchase.

~~~
itistoday2
You seem to have not understood the proposal.

The proposal is about introducing new namespaces that map today's DNS into
namespaces that can be looked up in the Namecoin blockchain.

.bit domains are stored in the "d" namespace. These would go into others (that
don't exist yet) based on their extension.

~~~
eof
Oh; you are right I obviously missed the crux of the proposal.

However, I still think the proposal is flawed but for a different reason.

How do you determine who owns the .com domain? When a domain is seized by the
government does the com/piratebay domain respect the blockchain or the
centralized DNS now updated signtaure? If it's the latter.. what's the point
of using the blockchain version at all?

~~~
dangero
Good point. The entire value of NMC blockchain is to remove reliance on the
current DNS system which this would kind of nullify.

Another related topic is that a judges ruling is meaningless in regards to
NMC, so for example, if someone were to steal google.com by stealing the
private key, google.com would have no recourse besides paying a ransom. They
cannot get a judge to force the address to be given back. Their domain name
would be hijacked forever. In the case of bitcoin, it's great that you can't
revert a transaction. In the case of domains on NMC blockchain, I'm not so
sure.

------
mediocregopher
I like that they're addressing this issue and think this is a good way to do
it. My only concern is a semantic one: currently "d/ __" is the prefix for
domains, "a/ __" for alias information (basically a global address book),
etc... It doesn't make sense to create another prefix for domains (actually,
many more prefixes for domains, since I imagine this won't just apply to com).
I think instead they should consider something like "d/com/*" or something
long those lines. It keeps DNS information all under the same prefix, and
still conveys that the information is for the "legacy" com tld.

~~~
GigabyteCoin
It's all fairly preliminary at the moment, and I imagine it will be worked
over for weeks by the great minds that keep namecoin running.

You should setup an account on the dot-bit.org forums and voice your opinion
there. It is a good suggestion, and I'm sure you'll have others!

~~~
itistoday2
I also like mediocregopher's suggestion and second the call for folks to share
their thoughts on the dot-bit.org forum. :)

------
tlrobinson
I don't know exactly how Namecoin works, but I assume it's pretty similar to
Bitcoin in that all clients must agree on which transactions are valid or
invalid, otherwise they risk forking the blockchain and disagreeing on which
transactions are included.

The problem I see with this proposal is each client needs to check the DNS
record independently to ensure a transaction is valid. What happens if the DNS
server happens to be unreachable or the owner accidentally or maliciously
removes the signature in a DNS record after their transaction has been
included in a block?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding things and Namecoin works differently?

~~~
sliverstorm
_What happens if the DNS server happens to be unreachable_

This is not a problem with Namecoin, right? Traditional DNS has the exact same
problem, namely general intolerance to failure.

~~~
tlrobinson
I don't think you understood my concern. The problem is if a signature stored
in a legacy DNS record is used to verify a "registration" of a Namecoin
domain, every Namecoin client needs to see the exact same "view" of that
record, otherwise some Namecoin clients will consider it valid and some will
consider it invalid, forking the Namecoin blockchain.

~~~
sliverstorm
You're right, I didn't pick up on that. Sorry.

------
steveklabnik
Namecoin is one place where crypto-currencies get really interesting. I'm
really excited to see what people can actually DO with blockchain technology,
not just create a speculative financial instrument ;)

~~~
amalag
I think Ripple is a another good idea. They are put down because I think they
control their blockchain, but it really applies the blockchain technology.
Maybe they are looking to be acquired, but I think it is useful.

~~~
DennisP
Ripple doesn't actually use a blockchain, as I understand it. They use another
consensus mechanism based on asking peers you trust for data.

I like Ripple's general idea but I'm not convinced they've actually come up
with another solution to distributed consensus. So far they're sticking with a
master list of trustworthy peers, which suggests they're not convinced either.

Bitcoin's colored coins might accomplish similar objectives though.

------
brianbreslin
Can someone give me an idiots guide to how namecoin works, and why we as
consumers should care? I get that its some sort of de-centralized name server
protocol, that uses coins to fund/drive use, but who gets paid in this value
vs who doesn't eludes me. Also if I want to register a domain on top of
namecoin, how do I do that? Who can even see the domain later if the dns zones
haven't been accepted by all the ISPs?

~~~
SwellJoe
Namecoin is very early in its development. As a consumer, you probably
shouldn't care. Yet.

But, as a software developer working in the systems management space, I care.
And, as someone that has always been uncomfortable with the centralized
control of the DNS system and the horribleness of most registrars, I care.
Namecoin is one potential solution to the latter problem, and it's something
that I need to have on my radar for the day when it may become relevant to the
users of the software I work on.

To answer your specific questions:

Who gets paid in this value vs who doesn't? The miners who maintain the
Namecoin network get paid. They validate and secure your transactions when
registering domains. Right now, the cost to someone registering a domain with
Namecoin is very low...a few cents to register a .bit domain. And, it is
expected to remain low, as it is not an expensive network to maintain
(relative to Bitcoin, for example; at least for the time being).

To register a domain with Namecoin, you install a Namecoin client, and make a
transaction, as documented here: [http://dot-
bit.org/HowToRegisterAndConfigureBitDomains](http://dot-
bit.org/HowToRegisterAndConfigureBitDomains)

You need a tiny amount of Namecoin to do this. It can be purchased with
Bitcoin on many exchanges, or can be mined with Bitcoin ASIC mining equipment
(it is merge-mined with Bitcoin, so it doesn't require resources to be
diverted to mining Namecoin...but it also means it is not effectively mine-
able with consumer hardware because a large percentage of the Bitcoin network
is also working on Namecoin).

As for who can see the names? Anyone who has a DNS server that has .bit
information. There are a few out there: [http://dot-
bit.org/How_To_Browse_Bit_Domains](http://dot-
bit.org/How_To_Browse_Bit_Domains)

But, it is mostly theoretical. There's little reason for clients to configure
this, and until their are lots of clients, there's little reason to have a
Namecoin based domain. But, maybe that'll change. I'm tinkering with it, and
will likely launch some services around it before too long, as I think it's a
really cool idea. And, while the implementation has had some hiccups, it's the
best we've got...and the chain hard fork a couple weeks back (to fix some
problems with name registration) was successful, so we're probably on a pretty
solid footing now.

I, personally, find Namecoin to be one of the most interesting Bitcoin
derivatives...it has a very clear purpose, and solves a problem that has been
a minor thorn in every IT admin's side since the beginning of the Internet.
It'll likely never see the kind of speculation that Bitcoin has seen, and
that's probably a good thing. Domain names should be cheap, and responsibly
used and managed by the Internet community as a whole.

------
jyu
I haven't seen this idea anywhere, but it'd be great if Namecoin hindered
domain squatters.

One way you could hinder them is geometrically increasing cost of registering
additional domains from existing accounts.

Examples:

\- Adam wants to set up his personal site. It costs him X to register.

\- Bob wants to set up his personal site, and 3 hobby sites. It costs him X +
2X + 4X + 8X = 15X or (2^4 - 1)X.

\- Carl the domain squatter wants to register 100 domains. It costs him (2^100
- 1)X. This could be defeated by changing Carl's business name, or other
details, which creates extra hassles for him.

 _Edit: Didn 't know that registering new accounts is near 0 effort. Guess
that nixes this idea._

~~~
dangero
There is no way to stop people from having multiple accounts.

~~~
jaredsohn
Couldn't you limit it based on credit card number, a corresponding phone
number, a Facebook ID, verified address, etc.? Even if it doesn't fully limit
it, it perhaps makes it harder.

~~~
rdmckenzie
No. That would defeat the entire user model, which is purpsoefully derived
from Bitcoin's anonymity structure.

~~~
lukifer
To be pedantic, BitCoin (and most other cryptocoins) are pseudonymous, not
anonymous. But yes, one user can have multiple pseudonyms.

------
kaoD
Not sure if NMC already does this, but why not auction the domains? Whoever
"bids" the largest value owns the domain.

~~~
steveklabnik
It does not currently do this. I'm not sure that the BTC protocol really has
support for auctioning transactions.

~~~
maaku
It could though. My associate Jorge Timon and I have worked out a protocol by
which this could occur whithout increasing the storage requirements of
validation nodes. Applying the principles of Henry George's land tax, you
could then charge a percentage fee based on the highest bid value.

But then again, for domains there's something to be said for first-come-first-
serve protection.

~~~
DennisP
Have you written up that protocol? Sounds pretty interesting.

~~~
maaku
I described it on the developer IRC channel. It'll get written up eventually.
It's a simple application of this data structure:

[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=317705...](http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=31770569)

With some new opcodes.

------
gambler
I don't see a good explanation of how Namecoin works and how exactly it fixes
DNS issues. (The biggest one is squatters. I would rank centralization as #2.)
Is there a quality document free from marketing hype that describes that?

~~~
itistoday2
_I don 't see a good explanation of how this works and how it fixes DNS
issues._

How this particular proposal works was outlined in the thread. It assumes that
the reader knows enough about how Namecoin and DNS work for it to be obvious
how an implementation would be carried out.

Re: "how it fixes DNS issues", you might find this document interesting (about
a Namecoin-based DNS system called DNSNMC):

[http://okturtles.com/other/dnsnmc_okturtles_overview.pdf](http://okturtles.com/other/dnsnmc_okturtles_overview.pdf)

------
rch
This seems like a misguided effort to me. I'd prefer something that eliminates
domain naming conventions entirely, but provides features along the lines of a
certificate authority.

