"There are only two hard things in Computer Science..." I guess some people think the purpose of 301 is more like that of 410: update references so you don't t

"There are only two hard things in Computer Science..." I guess some people think the purpose of 301 is more like that of 410: update references so you don't try to go there again. The difference is that with 301 you additionally instruct the client to not even attempt to go there again in the future. But the article does raise an interesting point: if I own somedomain.example and set it up with a 301 redirect to myotherdomain.example and enough people visit it that most people will have cached the redirect, doesn't that basically mean I now own it for perpetuity (or until enough people have cleared their cache) even if I don't renew the domain and new requests to the domain are no longer served (by the same IP)? Or do browsers have some kind of protections against this, at least based on DNS? It's a bit too convoluted for a proper DOS attack (because you need to own the domain long enough and make it popular enough to poison everyone's caches) but a naive implementation seems like it would effectively render domains unusable if someone set up a 301 on them at some point in the past.