281–290 of 309 posts
A reminder: just because you don't see any meaningful activities happening on www., don't assume that the owner is domain squatting. Folks make use of their domains in a variety of ways, not just for hosting a website on www.
What's the reasoning or history behind why domain prices A) vary between TLDs and B) are allowed to be sold at any price (think huge markups from domain speculating)?
Once you have enough users, you can raise the price and they can't easily flee. For example, I (regrettably) have a .io domain with my own email, and moving away from it would be super painful. I'd have to make sure that I update my email *everywhere* (or risk my accounts getting hijacked), and even reach out to people with whom I communicate very infrequently. TBH, I _should_ do it, but I can image that taking aroun…
And even then, it will probably feel bad to let it expire just because you might have forgotten an account. That's why I still have my very first email. And it's a lot of effort for saving a few bucks a year (at least in the US and the EU, for poorer countries the story might be different). Unfortunately, that's exactly what Ethos is exploiting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I like the idea of using blockchain-determined name ownership; there's a few problems. First, you have the problems that you get just because of how blockchains work[0]. But moreso there are specific chicken-and-egg problems with migrating away from standard DNS: - Because DNS is well-established and everyone uses it, most websites want to be registered in DNS, and blockchain names provide little to no value to…
I think big tech and entertainment will actively fight against blockchain domains if it comes to it. Their brands are massively squatted on from what I've seen. Here's a single ETH wallet that's squatting on a solid 40 .eth domains with high value trademarks: https://app.ens.domains/address/0x140eF05a724CA161d49ffE8D97... Do you think `microsoft` or `disneyland` or `amazonprime` or `barclays`, etc. are going to be on…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I like the idea of using blockchain-determined name ownership; there's a few problems. First, you have the problems that you get just because of how blockchains work[0]. But moreso there are specific chicken-and-egg problems with migrating away from standard DNS: - Because DNS is well-established and everyone uses it, most websites want to be registered in DNS, and blockchain names provide little to no value to…
I think big tech and entertainment will actively fight against blockchain domains if it comes to it. Their brands are massively squatted on from what I've seen. Here's a single ETH wallet that's squatting on a solid 40 .eth domains with high value trademarks: https://app.ens.domains/address/0x140eF05a724CA161d49ffE8D97... Do you think `microsoft` or `disneyland` or `amazonprime` or `barclays`, etc. are going to be on…
How do we create an incentive model that kills the “parked domain” industry without out pricing people who want to host a legitimate non-commercial personal site? At first glance I was happy to see the headline because it means it’ll be more expensive for squatters to profit, but then I do sympathize with people using these domains for legitimate non-commercial purposes.
In some countries, if you want to register a domain that's parked, you may appeal to the registrar, and they will take it away from the parker (unless they're legitimately planning to use it). The conditions of use of the domain state that you will give them _some_ use. "Planning to resell it" it is not considered a valid use. It's a public resource after all. As an analogy, imagine someone buys all the housing in to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all navigation is through links.
What non-link navigation needs a domain name? IP addresses work fine, like phone nmbers and street addresses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about hiding the address bar? Would make domain names irrelevant
That's awesome for phishing.
I highly doubt showing the domain prevents any meaningful amount of phishing attempts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about hiding the address bar? Would make domain names irrelevant
Not all navigation is through links.
I was only half joking previously. Why require a solution when you can remove the problem instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any objective reason (performance, reliability, etc) to avoid certain TLDs?
The $1 TLDs like .top .xyz .fun etc will be blocked in a lot of places due to heavy spam and malware distribution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you suggest one? I'm interested in a gTLD that won't raise its prices suddenly and is of good reputation - so FB and co. won't block it.
.org is controlled by a non-profit and I believe it has reasonable controls on price increases. (Private equity recently tried to obtain .org and jack up the prices, but the acquisition was blocked by ICANN https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/icann-blocks-con... )
Putting it that way is very charitable towards ICANN. They only blocked it after much public outcry and after the CA attorney general started an inquiry [0]. There is no reason to believe that they won't try again after the frog is sufficiently boiled.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2020/04/17/icann_california_org_...