211–220 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you think a domain squatter would be deterred by high pricing and not just point every single domain to a VPS with a „Hey guys buy my domains“ page? Or even just point them to any random IP, since DNS is one of the legitimate uses you named?
I mean that's basically what most do now. I'm saying the domain should direct to an actual website, irrespective of how useful or large it is. See my example of turkeyonapig.com.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a tricky thing but not impossible to figure out. Good to hear. So after that you'll be sorting out world peace - right?
I really don't think eliminating domain squatters is some impossible task. you could probably just tax sales of domain names to death (90% sales tax on any resold domain names) to disincentivize it vs registration upkeep costs. Squatters are a massive blight on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't think eliminating domain squatters is some impossible task. you could probably just tax sales of domain names to death (90% sales tax on any resold domain names) to disincentivize it vs registration upkeep costs. Squatters are a massive blight on the internet.
Make the transaction in a country that doesn't have such a tax?
If you get caught, the domain is blacklisted. Ownership transfer is public, so there is little incentive for buyers to go with this route.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really don't think eliminating domain squatters is some impossible task. you could probably just tax sales of domain names to death (90% sales tax on any resold domain names) to disincentivize it vs registration upkeep costs. Squatters are a massive blight on the internet.
The problem goes way beyond domain squatting. You have a limited resource, say nissan.com, and you have several valid claimants. Who gets to decide what's fair? First past the post? Heaviest pocket book? Biggest stick? Popular acclaim? ... Is not unique to domains, this is why the world is uts.
First past the post is "good enough" for me if the intrinsic value of the domain to you is greater than the domain registration fee of like 3-10 bucks a month.
There shouldn't be a major reselling market, that would be like if the majority of space in the yellow pages was just advertisements that said "your business ad here!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make the transaction in a country that doesn't have such a tax?
The tax would be done by the registrar or ICANN or whatever (although throwing more money at them might increase corruption of their bureaucracy, oh well). You could burn the money for all I care. If you get caught, the domain is blacklisted. Ownership transfer is public, so there is little incentive for buyers to go with this route.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For millions of sites, including this one, that would just show "Let's Encrypt, US".
And that’s the problem. I know I’m talking to “someone who has convinced Let’s Encrypt, US that they are foobar.com”. I have no idea if I’m actually talking to Foobar, Inc. (incorporated in Delaware, US). There is a standard, reliable register of business entities (typically called “Secretary of State”) and it should be trivial to know if the domain I’m talking to is owned by/part of that entity, that the X.509 match…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Validation_Certificat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen the domains Microsoft uses? Half the time I am not sure if they are genuine or not, it's actually crazy. Sometimes they use .com, other times .ms. Sometimes Microsoft is in the top-level other times it's in the second-level. Sometimes they have no subdomain, sometimes they have two. It's utterly inconsistent and it's insane to me how close some of them look to actual phishing domains...
If you get credits for Azure they're accessed through microsoftazuresponsorships.com. Why not sponsorships.azure.microsoft.com or something like that? I checked it three times when I got the link, because it's exactly the kind of domain someone would use if they were going to steal your Azure credits.
The implication that gTLDs are bad and new ones shouldn't be introduced because of this is a bit silly to me. The argument that they somehow have lower registration requirements makes no sense, .shop .top and .xyz registrations involve the exact same amount of verification as .com (none). Prices aren't really that different and plenty of gTLDs are more expensive than traditional ones. Registering a domain is frustrat…
I think the issue is you can register a known company name on one of these and plenty of people will think it's legit. Companies have to register on all these random domain to protect themselves. dell.shop, that's probably the dell computer I know, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the issue is you can register a known company name on one of these and plenty of people will think it's legit. Companies have to register on all these random domain to protect themselves. dell.shop, that's probably the dell computer I know, right?
> Companies have to register on all these random domain to protect themselves. "Nice business you got there. Shame if a scammer bought your name on my new TLD."
The implication that gTLDs are bad and new ones shouldn't be introduced because of this is a bit silly to me. The argument that they somehow have lower registration requirements makes no sense, .shop .top and .xyz registrations involve the exact same amount of verification as .com (none). Prices aren't really that different and plenty of gTLDs are more expensive than traditional ones. Registering a domain is frustrat…
The implication that gTLDs are bad and new ones shouldn't be introduced because of this is a bit silly to me. That wasn't what the article stated. The article stated that the problem is that the new TLDs are so cheap as to be disposable, and the registration requirements are lax. The combination makes them attractive to criminals. It's literally the first sentence of the article: "Phishing attacks increased nearly 40…