151–160 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is already ENS.
The adoption has basically been non-existent. I have a lot of theories on where they've gone wrong. Being so heavily tied to a blockchain (Ethereum being the worst due to its state bloat) is probably the biggest mistake I think they made.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> geez, dude, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning... 5 seconds on wikipedia or google would have stopped them spreading completely dangerous FUD about .co.uk.
What's so dangerous about it?
Implying lack of trust in `co.uk`
Implying `co.uk` may suffer the same fate at `.name`
Complete FUD.
It seems like the right thing they should do is discontinue new registrations but continue to honour existing ones (+ continuing to reserve any 2LD that has a 3LD registered on top). It’s a bit insane that they can decide to just terminate all existing 3LD registrations. One would hope that they’d at least continue to reserve the 2LDs for some period to avoid domain squatting, but this isn’t mentioned in the proposal…
That would be so cool and would make these limited hot commodities. .name was one of the very first expansions of gTLDs back in the very early 2000s. It's a shame that it's being shut down as it was spearheaded by the ICANN itself rather than some registrar / investor like Donuts, Inc. I suppose this is impractical as someone has to run the registry and there are costs associated with that. But don't the domain fees…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this says more about how the cookies security model is stupid. They should always have been scoped to the single, exact name they were set from and nothing else. Websites would have had to be designed a bit more thoughtfully.
It’s not nearly just cookies, and I think interpreting domain hierarchies as administrative structure generally does make sense. Maybe it could be opt-in or opt-out via some markers at the DNS level, though? The public suffix list having to exist at all is bizarre.
Ok I don’t get it. Why not register `fraser.nameˋ directly? Or pick any TLD and register ˋ a 2nd-level domain (ˋfraser.tld`)? It just feels easier, plus this way you don’t have to pay for any new member of your family?
At the beginning of the existence of the .name TLD you couldn't do that, you were forced to register firstname.lastname.name and provide an ID to justify registering this specific domain. With it you got an email redirection from firstname@lastname.name to the address of your choice. At some point this feature was discontinued (I assume when VeriSign took control of the .name TLD), a bit after it was decided (again b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean in the first place. Now it's too late indeed.
The post sounds like that wasn't possible; that this TLD operated by exception with third-level domains. It would be like asking why you don't just register smith.uk instead of smith.co.uk: because you can't ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk#Second-level_domains ) That's just my reading of the situation though. The person could now hope they're the first to claim their second-level domain once it becomes up for gra…
You can. Anyone can register a .uk, and you don't need to own the .co.uk
This is why I am building DNTLS. These organizations no longer deserve our trust and they have inadvertently gained too much power over the last two decades of massive internet expansion. Names need to be fully owned by individuals and a shared, decentralized trust system must be in place for resolution. The more I see actions like this, the more convinced I am that a solution is long overdue.
Still a crappy thing for people, but it does not affect owned second-level domains.
It seems like the right thing they should do is discontinue new registrations but continue to honour existing ones (+ continuing to reserve any 2LD that has a 3LD registered on top). It’s a bit insane that they can decide to just terminate all existing 3LD registrations. One would hope that they’d at least continue to reserve the 2LDs for some period to avoid domain squatting, but this isn’t mentioned in the proposal…
That would be so cool and would make these limited hot commodities. .name was one of the very first expansions of gTLDs back in the very early 2000s. It's a shame that it's being shut down as it was spearheaded by the ICANN itself rather than some registrar / investor like Donuts, Inc. I suppose this is impractical as someone has to run the registry and there are costs associated with that. But don't the domain fees…
This is why I am building DNTLS. These organizations no longer deserve our trust and they have inadvertently gained too much power over the last two decades of massive internet expansion. Names need to be fully owned by individuals and a shared, decentralized trust system must be in place for resolution. The more I see actions like this, the more convinced I am that a solution is long overdue.
Never heard of DNTLS, thanks for sharing. I skimmed the Website and am a bit uncertain what the ai angle is. Shouldnt naming be, well, just naming?
In short, AI identities were just a happy accident that comes with the system/architecture. It's not tied to AI at all.
But if anyone is interested in talking about what we're doing more, happy to connect at hn@sepositus.com.