111–120 of 210 posts
> individuals should be able to have and own their own domain names We should probably remember that no-one "owns" a domain, at least not in the traditional sense of ownership.
Something something blockchain! I believe for "real" ownership of domain names, a blockchain would actually make sense.
I’m involved with a URL shortener service. Service had to ban this domain as sub-domains from this domain seem to be loved by spammers/scammers to host their scams…
And what about URL-shortener services, such as the one you work with? Should they be banned all together? They seem to be popular with spam and scammers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something something blockchain! I believe for "real" ownership of domain names, a blockchain would actually make sense.
No. It doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would the blockchain saying that you "own" a domain make you own it more than currently? It is impossible for the blockchain to prove anything about anything that originates from outside of that particular blockchain. This is the reason why wanting to apply blockchain to everything such as land ownership is laughable and shows how little blockchain fanatics understand about the very technology they praise.
When you accidentally lose it (by losing your private keys), it will be impossible for anyone else to get it back for you. In a sense, this will prove to you that you did really own it and no-one else did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And? Since they're on the public suffix list, they might as well be issuing domains. Subdomains work differently in a browser compared to a domain and since the eu.org stuff is handled as domain by browsers I see no issue describing it as such.
As far as I can tell I can visit eu.org (which redirects) but not .com . How are browsers handling it differently?
A few years ago I tried all two-letter ([a-z]) TLDs and found some others that were able to handle HTTP requests, but they were either just redirecting to another domain name (the ones I noted down back then don't seem to work anymore) or returning 500 errors (http://uz/).
These examples should at least demonstrate that there shouldn't technically be some special case for resolving TLDs. They work in normal web browsers, and presumably a lack of A records for other TLDs would just be some sort of convention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It doesn't.
Why? Consider the scenario of a domain name owner dying and his relatives not caring/not knowing he/she owned a domain. With the current system the domain will be eventually available again. What alternative to you suggest?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would the blockchain saying that you "own" a domain make you own it more than currently? It is impossible for the blockchain to prove anything about anything that originates from outside of that particular blockchain. This is the reason why wanting to apply blockchain to everything such as land ownership is laughable and shows how little blockchain fanatics understand about the very technology they praise.
> It is impossible for the blockchain to prove anything about anything that originates from outside of that particular blockchain True, but instead of having to trust a central authority for insertion, updating, removal and constant maintenance of your "ownership", the trust would only be required for insertion. Once you purchased a domain and it's inserted in the blockchain, no one (outside of yourself) should be ab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It doesn't.
Why? Consider the scenario of a domain name owner dying and his relatives not caring/not knowing he/she owned a domain. With the current system the domain will be eventually available again. What alternative to you suggest?
Why is that a problem? Do you even understand how physical property IRL is owned at a legal or philosophical level?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my parents lease a car. I would regard it as their car, and possibly go so far as to say they own it, if I wasn't thinking too hard about it, and maybe even if I was. it's in their possession.
> I would regard it as their car, and possibly go so far as to say they own it, if I wasn't thinking too hard about it, and maybe even if I was. it's in their possession. Thought experiment: If they were to damage their vehicle (but assuming it's still legal to drive), who gets to decide whether it should - or indeed must - be repaired? Your parents, or someone else? (Full disclosure: I recently added some scratches…
This is all true for a leased car as well. The only difference is that when you turn the leased car in at the end of the term, you may get charged by the leasing company for any damages that are currently on the car.