

An empirical study of Namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design - randomwalker
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/mcarlsten/an-empirical-study-of-namecoin-and-lessons-for-decentralized-namespace-design/

======
MCRed
This is an important topic, but I disagree with their results:

\-- Squatting is not a sign of failure of name coin or it being in
"disrepair". Despite it's unpopularity (mainly due to "someone got there
first!" jealousy) squatting is no different than any other form of
homesteading. The indignity that you might have to actually pay for a resource
that someone else invested time and effort into developing, does not exist
anywhere else. Do you think it's immoral for twitter, Facebook or google to
run ads? Do you think it's immoral for them to have their respective domains?
Do you think it's immoral for Apple to "Squat" on Apple.com? I mean, that's a
hell of a great domain name. Imagine all the orchards and Apple Juice makers
who actually make products that are Apples or Apple related who would want
that domain? Whether a domino has a website on it does not indicate whether
its use is "trivial". Domains are also used for email, FTP and any number of
other services. People seem to forget that. You may be a DJ with the name MC
Red, but if I have MCRed.namecoin and I'm just using it for email, am I really
"squatting"?

Having the vision and wherewithal to register a name early, going thru the
hassle of name coin, etc, is not a trivial matter. Therefore, holding a name
to sell it is not immoral or unreasonable, or even a sign of failure. These
names will be registered by somebody. How many people have a moral claim to
the word "mcdonalds"? Just because a restaurant chain has a trademark for its
use in food doesn't mean I can't register McDonalds computer company and try
to follow gateways business model. And, having done that and met the same fate
as gateway, do I lose the rights to that name? No, not really... the names and
trademarks are sold in bankruptcy filings all the time.

\-- Cloning content or offering content on the traditional DNS as well doesn't
mean that this is a "failure"... of course in a minority system where most
people don't have name coin access to resolve names, you'll provide a mirror
on the open net. That doesn't mean name coin isn't useful or a solution to
protect your content from censorship-- if the DoJ steals your .com (like they
have been increasingly doing lately) you still have your content accessible
from the alternative DNS. That's exactly what name coin is for.

Since their primary goal is to get rid of "squatters", their solutions are not
really useful and also serve to undermine the purpose of name coin. (Eg:
preventing transfer prevents you from securing a name when your key may have
been compromised or will be compromised in the future, for example.)

I believe name coin has failed because the browser makers are not integrating
alternative DNS schemes.

This is something we should press for in Chrome and Firefox and maybe then get
Safari and Explorer to follow suit.

