3 ms·

> Are we just going to keep creating new tlds over and over for eternity? Yes. The "easily memorable global namespace" is a limited natural resource, there is

> Are we just going to keep creating new tlds over and over for eternity? Yes. The "easily memorable global namespace" is a limited natural resource, there is no definitive fix and there can't be - unless you accept the totalitarian single gatekeeper scheme Cyde describes. In an open system, you always need to deal with the Sybil attack and the only solution is proof of work, resources - money. This means domain squatters will always capture a rent, by guessing domain names that will be valuable latter on. The way to minimize that rent on the long run is to periodically reset the game by bringing new TLDs into existence, thereby devaluing the investment in older TLDs, thereby making squatting a more risky activity. The GTLD liberalization greatly diminished the price pressure on .com .org and the like. Keep in mind the web has seen exponential increase in the last decades; the upside now is much more limited, maybe another order of magnitude until complete worldwide market saturation and web growth figures get more inline to global economic growth numbers. Once that is achieved the problem becomes much less serious.

Borealid 8y ago
Wouldn't it be easier to just raise domain registration /renewal prices, making squatting a poor return on investment?
- cornholio 8y ago
  I think that would hurt small businesses more than it would dissuade squatters of truly valuable domains. The trick is to move money from the squatters to the public and domain owners, not to the registry itself, that is basically just another big squatter. Maybe a TLD like .app could increase the annual renewal fee to something like $100 while bundling premium features like business Gmail, Adwords credits or Google Cloud services, all usable only on that domain name. This way, low level owners get their money back, big corporations don't care and squatters are hurt since they can't make use of the services.
- icebraining 8y ago
  That's what Google did here, by having an early period during which domains cost more. And this is the predictable response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972813
- danShumway 8y ago
  That would effectively be introducing a gatekeeper, just one that's not particularly good at filtering bad actors (money). There are a lot of benefits to allowing hobbyists and students to cheaply (or even freely) register domains.
danShumway 8y ago
> there is no definitive fix and there can't be - unless you accept the totalitarian single gatekeeper scheme Cyde describes. Zooko's triangle is a triangle - decentralization is not the only thing we could sacrifice. We could even start to layer multiple naming schemes on top of each other to mitigate some of those sacrifices. What OP (makecheck) was getting at was that the .app tld doesn't really solve any problems except to block one very specific injection attack, and it's problematic for Google to market it as significantly more secure than any other namespace. I agree with that. The problem isn't that new tlds are unsustainable in the long term (although they are), it's that they don't even solve anything in the short term. Right now, at this moment, I can't credibly tell my parents that they should trust a .app domain more than a .com domain. Within a month of its release, people will be using it to phish older websites - because malicious actors will always be faster than regular users and developers. If you're trying to block Sybil attacks, I wouldn't be that surprised if introducing new namespaces ironically ends up making the problem even worse.

Borealid 8y ago

Wouldn't it be easier to just raise domain registration /renewal prices, making squatting a poor return on investment?

cornholio 8y ago
I think that would hurt small businesses more than it would dissuade squatters of truly valuable domains. The trick is to move money from the squatters to the public and domain owners, not to the registry itself, that is basically just another big squatter. Maybe a TLD like .app could increase the annual renewal fee to something like $100 while bundling premium features like business Gmail, Adwords credits or Google Cloud services, all usable only on that domain name. This way, low level owners get their money back, big corporations don't care and squatters are hurt since they can't make use of the services.
icebraining 8y ago
That's what Google did here, by having an early period during which domains cost more. And this is the predictable response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972813 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16972813
danShumway 8y ago
That would effectively be introducing a gatekeeper, just one that's not particularly good at filtering bad actors (money). There are a lot of benefits to allowing hobbyists and students to cheaply (or even freely) register domains.

danShumway 8y ago

> there is no definitive fix and there can't be - unless you accept the totalitarian single gatekeeper scheme Cyde describes. Zooko's triangle is a triangle - decentralization is not the only thing we could sacrifice. We could even start to layer multiple naming schemes on top of each other to mitigate some of those sacrifices. What OP (makecheck) was getting at was that the .app tld doesn't really solve any problems except to block one very specific injection attack, and it's problematic for Google to market it as significantly more secure than any other namespace. I agree with that. The problem isn't that new tlds are unsustainable in the long term (although they are), it's that they don't even solve anything in the short term. Right now, at this moment, I can't credibly tell my parents that they should trust a .app domain more than a .com domain. Within a month of its release, people will be using it to phish older websites - because malicious actors will always be faster than regular users and developers. If you're trying to block Sybil attacks, I wouldn't be that surprised if introducing new namespaces ironically ends up making the problem even worse.