91–100 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.dev is available for public registration... I have one.
"vanity" domains are $200/yr or more Including "{firstname}.dev" Nonsense. If Google's worried about domain squatters, it controls the TLD rules and can come up with a less moneygrab strategy. Perhaps require a Github account and limit to one domain per customer? FCFS is fairer than extortion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We shouldn't be surprised. The whole TLD debacle has been a bit cash grab, which hasn't been beneficial to anyone but a few. Take the subsequent acquired domain of ".dev" by Google for instance, which then reserved it for internal usage only.
Well, I will say this about the TLD "debacle", when I recently went looking for a domain name made out of real words, but not in what you'd call the "A list" (i.e., not "drugs.com" or "money.com"), they have at least made it ineffectual now for squatters to squat on everything across all the useful TLDs. Someone wanted a couple $K for the .com variant but there were several other useful variants completely unregister…
Probably because those extended TLDs are shunned by many users. I know that I tend to avoid sites that use them, because such sites tend to be ones that I prefer to avoid.
There are a few such sites that I'm comfortable with, of course, but those TLDs are a bit of a red flag and sight unseen, I assume they're not for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I will say this about the TLD "debacle", when I recently went looking for a domain name made out of real words, but not in what you'd call the "A list" (i.e., not "drugs.com" or "money.com"), they have at least made it ineffectual now for squatters to squat on everything across all the useful TLDs. Someone wanted a couple $K for the .com variant but there were several other useful variants completely unregister…
Does anyone actually use or go to services on super-generic TLDs like that? I can't think of any billion-dollar businesses that exist at .com. I can't imagine they're as valuable as people make them out to be, because businesses have brands that aren't generic words like "money" or "drugs". There's "amazon" but the business has nothing do with rainforests, so it's not like they're benefitting from traffic from people…
I don't, because those names are almost always used by major corporations and the like, and I almost never am interested those websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
.dev is available for public registration... I have one.
"vanity" domains are $200/yr or more Including "{firstname}.dev" Nonsense. If Google's worried about domain squatters, it controls the TLD rules and can come up with a less moneygrab strategy. Perhaps require a Github account and limit to one domain per customer? FCFS is fairer than extortion.
That requirement would exclude most developers, including myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The .org owners should not be allowed to rent-seek, but instead continue to provide the same level of service and fees that we have come to expect. When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist. In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor. Handshake absolutely makes TLDs a free market. > The control and gove…
> When the centralized monopoly is all for raising prices, it becomes clear that market forces ceased to exist. > In free markets, pricing is controlled by the markets themselves, not by any single actor. I want .org name prices to remain capped at $10, and I want its stewards to take steps to ensure that there isn't a profit motive. That's a big part of what this uproar is -- lots of cash-strapped organizations whos…
Actually, this is the problem. Cash-strapped organizations should not be forced to pay rent for something that should be owned by them, or the people or the internet at large.
This is something Handshake addresses.
> If the problem was as easily solved as setting up and running an alternative DNS root, we wouldn't need Handshake. We'd just run an alternative DNS root, but with a governing charter that is less prone to corruption. No need to introduce a blockchain to solve a fundamentally social problem.
"Less prone to corruption" is an interesting phrase. We've tried, and tried, throughout the history of mankind to create organizations that are "less prone to corruption." Ultimately, it's hard to solve if you choose to do it a social way.
Blockchain uniquely solves the issue here and, for the world, the way Handshake approaches the replacement of the root zone, will be the birth of the first time, in mankind, a actual system used by all people is powered, at the core (root), by blockchain.
There are a lot of made up problems that people are trying to solve with "blockchain" projects, and then there's Handshake, a consensus driven decentralized dns root and certificate authority, that helps the coordination of the internet namespace which isn't owned by any one person, but the collective of us all.
Once the deal goes through someone from the ISOC will be getting a high-paying job at Ethos. Wait for it . . .
Already happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos_Capital
If this sale is successfully prevented, the next step needs to be to identify and purge ISOC and ICANN of anyone who negotiated or advocated for this deal. Not just because of the corruption issue, but the pure lack of good judgment. I keep thinking about the fact that first, ICANN was freed of it's tie to the US government, and since then, it's been business deal after business deal to corrupt the domain system.
We shouldn't be surprised. The whole TLD debacle has been a bit cash grab, which hasn't been beneficial to anyone but a few. Take the subsequent acquired domain of ".dev" by Google for instance, which then reserved it for internal usage only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I will say this about the TLD "debacle", when I recently went looking for a domain name made out of real words, but not in what you'd call the "A list" (i.e., not "drugs.com" or "money.com"), they have at least made it ineffectual now for squatters to squat on everything across all the useful TLDs. Someone wanted a couple $K for the .com variant but there were several other useful variants completely unregister…
Does anyone actually use or go to services on super-generic TLDs like that? I can't think of any billion-dollar businesses that exist at .com. I can't imagine they're as valuable as people make them out to be, because businesses have brands that aren't generic words like "money" or "drugs". There's "amazon" but the business has nothing do with rainforests, so it's not like they're benefitting from traffic from people…