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

A Hand Wavy Defense of Domaining

floverfelt.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–18 of 18 posts

Re: A Hand Wavy Defense of Domaining

#11

Post by JohnFen »

hakfoo wrote: post #10
JohnFen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. Why would being asked/answering this question result in that?

I think it needs to be tied to a consequence for it to all fit together. The stated price would be effectively a binding offer to sell at any time. It reminds me of the "24 Hours of Lemons" joke racing series. The rules require participants to send in a car worth less than $500. To enforce this, the operators reserve the right to buy any participating vehicle for $501. If you act in bad faith and under-price your ent…

I still don't understand how this would result in what the commenter says.

I have domain names that I've been using for 20 years or so. They are not for sale, and will never be for sale. If I'm forced to put a price on them, that price is binding, and I'm not allowed to set it so high that nobody would ever pay it, is that not the same thing as forcing me to relinquish my domain names? Doesn't that eliminate all of the value of a domain name?

Re: A Hand Wavy Defense of Domaining

#12

Post by amadeuspagel »

chrisbolt wrote: post #8
amadeuspagel wrote: post #2

Whenever you register a domain you should be asked what you would sell it for. That would increase the amount of domains available for sale and lower prices. It would also be a good business for domain registrars.

Why wouldn't everyone answer a million dollars? How does this account for domain value changing over time, as you depend on it more?

Because then no one would buy it.

Re: A Hand Wavy Defense of Domaining

#13

Post by amadeuspagel »

JohnFen wrote: post #7
amadeuspagel wrote: post #2

Whenever you register a domain you should be asked what you would sell it for. That would increase the amount of domains available for sale and lower prices. It would also be a good business for domain registrars.

I don't follow. Why would being asked/answering this question result in that?

When you register a domain, you are prompted to put it for sale. You don't have to. As the article points out, a lot of people register domains for optionality. Maybe one day I'll use that for a project. And that optionality isn't worth an infinite amount of money.

Re: A Hand Wavy Defense of Domaining

#15

Post by mike_d »

hakfoo wrote: post #10
JohnFen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. Why would being asked/answering this question result in that?

I think it needs to be tied to a consequence for it to all fit together. The stated price would be effectively a binding offer to sell at any time. It reminds me of the "24 Hours of Lemons" joke racing series. The rules require participants to send in a car worth less than $500. To enforce this, the operators reserve the right to buy any participating vehicle for $501. If you act in bad faith and under-price your ent…

I'll pay whatever the "buy it now" price is for your personal email domain. Within a few hours I can get password resets for all your accounts. Bank accounts I wire all your money out, sell off your short Twitter handle, scrape data from your other accounts and sell it off to a broker.

You've just invented fire sales for people.

Re: A Hand Wavy Defense of Domaining

#16

Post by floverfelt »

dogleash wrote: post #5
floverfelt wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the alternative if not based on commercial activity? Lottery?

Not what I’m saying. There’s two separate ideas in that paragraph. 1) allocation strategy and 2) measuring success of an allocation strategy. Our first-come with modest renewal + transferable + UDRP is a strategy. Complaining that someone ought not to have a certain domain based on their use is based, at least implicitly, on a measurement.

Yeah fair point.

Re: A Hand Wavy Defense of Domaining

#17

Post by floverfelt »

mike_d wrote: post #14

People who don't own $valuable_asset believe that it should be regulated and there should be mechanisms in place so that everyone has some $valuable_asset.

That is not what I’m saying at all though? The article is literally a defense of the existing system which allows those that own valuable assets to keep them and price them accordingly.

The closing paragraph was more to point out that if you do want to encourage development of domains and prevent squatting and overcharging - regulation could be a way to achieve that. I’m not endorsing the view just commenting that that’s a way real estate deals with the problem.

Post reply on HN