4 ms·

The website is basically an image of a wormhole. The owner is using the domain for an email address, but I imagine they could reach an agreement where he kept t

The website is basically an image of a wormhole. The owner is using the domain for an email address, but I imagine they could reach an agreement where he kept the email address(es). Maybe squatting isn't exactly right, because he's not trying to sell it, but it seems closer to squatting than using it to me.

packetslave 5y ago
He would be well within his rights to host no website at all on the domain. Using it solely for email is 100% "using the domain". Period. The end. Not squatting. Just became some crypto bros want the domain does not change that.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  First, owning a valuable domain that you don't use is basically the definition of squatting. Second, I never wrote that it was outside of his "rights", I wrote that it was obnoxious.
  - Wowfunhappy 5y ago
    > First, owning a valuable domain that you don't use is basically the definition of squatting. But he is using it. For email. It's just an MX record instead of an A record.
  - LocalH 5y ago
    Say you buy a shed. However, you never get around to using it. So you’re squatting on that shed, and I demand you relinquish it to someone who will make more use of it.
    - btheshoe 5y ago
      Yes, that's how it should work
      - LocalH 5y ago
        Do you feel that nobody should own anything that they're not actively using, and that such things should be removed from their possession?
      - kadoban 5y ago
        What about if someone with more expensive tools than yours wants it? Do you just give it up?
resoluteteeth 5y ago
Do you think that for any given domain, if there's someone who can make better use of that domain than the current owner, they should be allowed to take it? For example, soup.com is just a redirect to https://www.liptonkitchens.com/ https://www.liptonkitchens.com/ right now, without any specific content of its own, so they're using it even less than this person is using wormhole.com, since he's using it for his email address. If I am prepared to start an actual soup related blog should lipton be forced to give the domain to me?

packetslave 5y ago

He would be well within his rights to host no website at all on the domain. Using it solely for email is 100% "using the domain". Period. The end. Not squatting. Just became some crypto bros want the domain does not change that.

ALittleLight 5y ago
First, owning a valuable domain that you don't use is basically the definition of squatting. Second, I never wrote that it was outside of his "rights", I wrote that it was obnoxious.
- Wowfunhappy 5y ago
  > First, owning a valuable domain that you don't use is basically the definition of squatting. But he is using it. For email. It's just an MX record instead of an A record.
- LocalH 5y ago
  Say you buy a shed. However, you never get around to using it. So you’re squatting on that shed, and I demand you relinquish it to someone who will make more use of it.
  - btheshoe 5y ago
    Yes, that's how it should work
    - LocalH 5y ago
      Do you feel that nobody should own anything that they're not actively using, and that such things should be removed from their possession?
    - kadoban 5y ago
      What about if someone with more expensive tools than yours wants it? Do you just give it up?

resoluteteeth 5y ago

Do you think that for any given domain, if there's someone who can make better use of that domain than the current owner, they should be allowed to take it? For example, soup.com is just a redirect to https://www.liptonkitchens.com/ https://www.liptonkitchens.com/ right now, without any specific content of its own, so they're using it even less than this person is using wormhole.com, since he's using it for his email address. If I am prepared to start an actual soup related blog should lipton be forced to give the domain to me?