Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The .blog Bait and Switch

chrisschidle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 186 posts

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#171

Post by zokier »

ygaels_armpit wrote: post #144
zokier wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be lovely, but I don't see any way of such change actually happening. The current hierarchy is extremely entrenched and heavily supported by the most powerful entities on the net.

I wonder if using the validation of the DNS record and all the surrounding nonsense is really a useful function though. I mean, if we created a new distributed system, and grandfathered the old one, how can the current incumbents stop it? The control over a name pointing to an address could be done with a blockchain, I'm hearing. So we move to a new naming convention. An arbitrary prefix on the end of a name shouldn'…

> I mean, if we created a new distributed system, and grandfathered the old one, how can the current incumbents stop it?

That's a weird way of putting it. Anyone can create DNS roots based on any hierarchy they want, no-one will stop you from doing that. The meaningful question is how do you get anyone to use your fancy new roots?

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#172

Post by Senji »

ygaels_armpit wrote: post #118
bagosm wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe then just prefer if reachable? Soon enough it's the new standard.

Yes I think any new system would have to see the old one grandfathered (give the current incumbents time to find something useful to do instead of jetting off to conferences all year). Browsers/OS would be reasonably easy in most circumstances, but there are embedded devices, load-balancing configurations, other esoteric uses for DNS (text records, mail etc) that'd have to be considered as well.

An attack surface is ISPs and Governments strongarming them to use their own DNS roots which can then be plugged into the "new" root servers conforming with the theoretical browser vendor, os vendor alliance.

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#173

Post by thefalcon »

joneholland wrote: post #147
pfooti wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is why I ended up with spherical.fish - memorable, my first name is buried in it, and cheap. also, there's no .cow gTLD so I can't do spherical.cow. Spherical.horse is squatted already.

I hope your name is Al and not Eric.

Why not Erica?

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#174

Post by captn3m0 »

gregmac wrote: post #70
pavel_lishin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad that someone snagged hoarse.horse and is doing more with it than I would have. not.horse is available, too, if someone wants to tell that joke via a TLD. And of course, bad.horse is exactly what you expect it to be.

Don't forget to traceroute bad.horse.

17 bad.horse (162.252.205.130) 274.138 ms 272.734 ms 271.442 ms

18 bad.horse (162.252.205.131) 281.595 ms 346.926 ms 277.790 ms

19 bad.horse (162.252.205.132) 321.686 ms 486.714 ms 288.551 ms

20 bad.horse (162.252.205.133) 280.425 ms 281.488 ms 314.627 ms

21 he.rides.across.the.nation (162.252.205.134) 296.891 ms 297.092 ms 297.880 ms

22 the.thoroughbred.of.sin (162.252.205.135) 380.358 ms 305.077 ms 312.953 ms

23 he.got.the.application (162.252.205.136) 308.228 ms 373.024 ms 334.579 ms

24 that.you.just.sent.in (162.252.205.137) 305.447 ms 452.741 ms 306.166 ms

25 it.needs.evaluation (162.252.205.138) 342.778 ms 317.674 ms 313.240 ms

26 so.let.the.games.begin (162.252.205.139) 387.610 ms 310.964 ms 482.971 ms

27 a.heinous.crime (162.252.205.140) 320.908 ms 455.232 ms 351.113 ms

28 a.show.of.force (162.252.205.141) 327.957 ms 328.891 ms 494.652 ms

29 a.murder.would.be.nice.of.course (162.252.205.142) 406.810 ms 379.742 ms 406.548 ms

30 bad.horse (162.252.205.143) 341.390 ms 341.207 ms 531.487 ms

31 bad.horse (162.252.205.144) 415.444 ms 412.884 ms 345.962 ms

32 bad.horse (162.252.205.145) 344.182 ms 345.273 ms 343.255 ms

33 he-s.bad (162.252.205.146) 539.652 ms 352.428 ms 354.169 ms

34 the.evil.league.of.evil (162.252.205.147) 354.151 ms 368.464 ms 409.535 ms

35 is.watching.so.beware (162.252.205.148) 412.046 ms 397.060 ms 377.321 ms

36 the.grade.that.you.receive (162.252.205.149) 369.120 ms 472.142 ms 369.329 ms

37 will.be.your.last.we.swear (162.252.205.150) 450.581 ms 584.539 ms 369.829 ms

38 so.make.the.bad.horse.gleeful (162.252.205.151) 443.618 ms 380.086 ms 430.089 ms

39 or.he-ll.make.you.his.mare (162.252.205.152) 409.878 ms 409.638 ms 376.659 ms

40 o_o (162.252.205.153) 394.767 ms 392.315 ms 394.865 ms

41 you-re.saddled.up (162.252.205.154) 470.925 ms 574.203 ms 390.227 ms

42 there-s.no.recourse (162.252.205.155) 399.117 ms 398.627 ms 418.105 ms

43 it-s.hi-ho.silver (162.252.205.156) 614.293 ms 407.711 ms 410.689 ms

44 signed.bad.horse (162.252.205.157) 419.605 ms 410.318 ms 538.911 ms

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#175

Post by wiseleo »

TheDrizzle43 wrote: post #75
intrasight wrote: post #33

I fail to understand the purpose of these non-standard TLDs. Nobody is going to remember or type in such a domain, so you stuff is only going to be found by a web search - where a standard domain would be better. So why not just register a .com - which are also cheaper?

Have you ever tried to buy a .com domain dude? There's hardly any useful names left.

All 60+ domains I own are .com although I have a .net and a .org for a couple of words. I only paid premium price of $2000 on one of them. My company name is Sendlinks and getting Sendlinks.com kind of makes sense. ;)

In particular, I have a 5-character easy to spell meaningless name that I am reserving for some large scale service I will build in the future.

Getting an unregistered .com is tough, but many are available at a reasonable price on secondary market. I define reasonable price as under $1000. When I decided on the Sendlinks name, the seller originally wanted $5000. I made the decision to buy it at that price once I was ready to re-brand.

Since no one else would likely buy the name, I wasn't too concerned about someone taking it. Fast forward a few months later, I was at the point where I had money and so I decided to just buy it then and cross that item from my launch checklist. Luckily for me, the price dropped to $2000.

I own the .com domains of my Internet nickname and my last name among other properties.

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#176

Post by collinmanderson »

captn3m0 wrote: post #174
gregmac wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget to traceroute bad.horse.

17 bad.horse (162.252.205.130) 274.138 ms 272.734 ms 271.442 ms 18 bad.horse (162.252.205.131) 281.595 ms 346.926 ms 277.790 ms 19 bad.horse (162.252.205.132) 321.686 ms 486.714 ms 288.551 ms 20 bad.horse (162.252.205.133) 280.425 ms 281.488 ms 314.627 ms 21 he.rides.across.the.nation (162.252.205.134) 296.891 ms 297.092 ms 297.880 ms 22 the.thoroughbred.of.sin (162.252.205.135) 380.358 ms 305.077 ms 312.953 ms 23 he…

What a waste of precious ipv4 addresses! :)

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#177

Post by pfooti »

joneholland wrote: post #147
pfooti wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is why I ended up with spherical.fish - memorable, my first name is buried in it, and cheap. also, there's no .cow gTLD so I can't do spherical.cow. Spherical.horse is squatted already.

I hope your name is Al and not Eric.

it's al.fi

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#178

Post by nikolay »

Same happened to me. They should expect a class action lawsuit as even though the list was not finalized, they should have said something.

I had something like this happened before with WordPress.com - I have nikolay.wordpress.com, and then an employee took it way from me. After making a long discussion on TechChrunch about it, the employee decided to give it back to me.

So, my point is, there's nothing new under the sun here - obviously Matt is the old Matt having double standards, and not knowing what's acceptable and what is not in the digital world.

Also, he's going against his investor's interested, because some of these domains could've brought in millions of dollars, but he wants to do his buddies favors, and not honor what was promised.

Edit: Maybe if there are several of us, we should try to see if we can have a class action lawsuit. Our hundreds of dollars were used by the Automattic for 3 months, that's a lot of money collectively, and they should not get away - there was no mentioning of any Founders when they took our money!

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#179

Post by andrewaylett »

logfromblammo wrote: post #58

At this point, this looks ever more akin to charging people to have their phone numbers listed in a phone book. If you don't know what a phone book is, it was the DNS-equivalent of the 1960s. You know those plastic-wrapped bricks of yellow paper that sometimes appear on your doorstep, that you just drop right into the recycling bin? Those things are actually phone books. The phone book is rather simple. Your individu…

Look up the rules for `.ltd.uk` :).

Also, for that matter, .plc.uk, .ac.uk, .sch.uk, .nhs.uk, .police.uk and .gov.uk. All of them are available only to organisations that already exist in a particular context, and only with their 'real' name.

That doesn't prevent some collisions around characters that are legal in business names but not in DNS, of course, and it also doesn't mean that anyone actually uses the .ltd.uk and .plc.uk domains: I don't think I've actually ever seen one in the wild. I've seen all the others, though.

Re: The .blog Bait and Switch

#180

Post by ayh »

echelon wrote: post #11

This seems to have become the de facto pattern with the new gTLD system. A company swoops in and buys a namespace for $200k (or more if there is a competitive bid), and they effectively turn into the cartel equivalent of the domain squatter. You can register your new gTLD for anywhere between $1 and $100, depending on what I suppose they expect their target demographic to be willing to pay. Dot horse is more expensiv…

There is a process when a failed TLD is handed off to a stable domain registry. It's only for a few years though.

Many of these new TLDs will disappear. There is no demand.

Post reply on HN