10 ms·
Web3 Domain Name Service Could Lose Web Address-Owner Who Can Renew Is in Prison
- radiojasper 4y agoHey thanks, GoDaddy for releasing a statement[0] instead of fixing the problem. They literally choose this over siding with the customer and their lawyer. [0] https://aboutus.godaddy.net/newsroom/company-news/news-details/2022/GoDaddy-Statement-on-eth.link-Domain-Registration/default.aspx https://aboutus.godaddy.net/newsroom/company-news/news-detai...
- smoldesu 4y agoThere is no problem to 'fix'. The people who paid for eth.link domains do not own them, so GoDaddy has zero obligation to even acknowledge their existence. Hell, they're lucky they even got a statement at all, if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down.
- csdvrx 4y ago> if I was them I'd just start selling off the domains slowly while I watch Twitter melt down. Why do something you know to be bad and will lead to many people being angry? Why not... be nice and helpful?
- svnpenn 4y agohttps://youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc https://youtube.com/watch?v=efHCdKb5UWc
- pessimizer 4y agoIt's against my libertarian ethos.
- smoldesu 4y agoBecause they're GoDaddy, not a crypto-charity. They run a business, nobody has any right to complain that they're not giving away their product free-of-charge. If they want their precious domain so badly then they can compete for it on the free market; that's the spirit of decentralization and deregulation, after all!
- zamadatix 4y agoI don't see enough information in the article or GoDaddy statement saying the ask was to do it free of charge just they won't allow anyone else do the renewal. As much as I dislike crypto-crap as the article points out ENS itself would handle this situation fine and GoDaddy reversing its position on this is pretty much the opposite of the argument for centralized services being better able to handle these scenarios.
- andreilys 4y agoHow does having someone else pay for the domain renewal imply charity?
- smoldesu 4y agoSomeone else can pay for the domain, they just have to wait for it to lapse first. This seems perfectly fine to me, and if the original owner agreed to the GoDaddy TOS then I see no reason why they should make a magical fairy dust exception for this case.
- charles_kaw 4y ago>Why not... be nice and helpful? Because there are rules around this stuff. Rules designed to maintain integrity of dns and trust in the system. They can't flaunt the rules, and if they did, they'd be at risk of losing accreditation.
- unknownaccount 4y agoRegistrars seem to flaunt the rules all the time and not lose accreditaion. CloudFlare cancels peoples domains prematurely due to "false positives" - gets away with it. NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it.
- detaro 4y agoWhat specifically do you mean by "cancels domains prematurely"?
- unknownaccount 4y agoI mean canceling the domain early, before the contractually agreed up expiration date. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31576353 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30504812
- detaro 4y agoThese are two quite different cases from "what happens to the domain" perspective, and for Namecheap I don't see the formal problem - I don't believe the accreditation requires them to never terminate a customer contract, and the domain remains active and can be transferred.
- charles_kaw 4y agoYou seem to be using "cancels" in a very loose sense. When you're talking about actions of these providers, and their duties/responsibilities, some precision is required. These companies are allowed to end a business relationship. They are not allowed to just "take away" a domain without just cause^. That domain is still registered and you are free to take it to another registrar. >NameCheap cancels peoples domains prematurely due to their country of origin - gets away with it. If you're referring to their actions about Russia, they didn't "cancel" a domain. They gave all of their users a time frame to transfer their domains out before they ended the business relationship. Now, personally, I believe their timeline was too short - but a week is a reasonable notification. This is very different from a more colloquially understood usage of cancel, which would imply that they immediately terminated service and did not allow the domain registrant to keep the domain. That is simply not the case, and also within line with ICANN policies. ^ im not an expert on the tos or legalities of this stuff, but things like fraud or spam can definitely get your domain "taken away" on most (if not all?) tlds
- nr2x 4y agoNot everybody deserves help.
- nominusllc 4y agoI wonder if there is a reason they felt compelled to reverse their decision and omit any details as to what contact initiated that. I'd imagine the nature of the service handling that type of traffic could be significant to some.
- Hamuko 4y agoI thought that the problem was the web3 people pretending to build decentralised services while in fact they're relying on a convicted criminal to renew a domain?
- bawolff 4y agoIts certainly not their responsibility to fix the stupidity of others
- riffic 4y agoseems like a reasonable statement, lol. big corp isn't going to lose its icann accreditation over an intervention that breaks their policies.
- jbirer 4y agoCrypto scam victim detected. Eth.link was lying about being decentralized.
- djbusby 4y agoActive discussion on this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32628182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32628182
- jefftk 4y agoWhat does "After eth.link was renewed, GoDaddy decided to ‘re-expire’ the domain" mean?
- aaaaaaaaata 4y agoRegistrars are just pass through to ICANN to some extent. So they began reporting it as expired after their client retroactively failed some heuristic that they previously let the client pass.
- luciusdomitius 4y agoIt is really interesting why he is in prison. Basically for attending a tech conference in North Korea. Frankly, this reminds me of the Soviet times.
- nibbleshifter 4y agoI personally know two people who were invited to that conference as speakers, but decided against it.
- houstonn 4y ago
- gregmac 4y ago"Basically" is doing a lot of work in that sentence: > In September, Griffith pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to violate international sanctions against North Korea. Griffith was arrested in November 2019 after giving a talk at a cryptocurrency conference in Pyongyang in April of that year. > “What you see here is an intentionality…and a desire to educate people on how to evade sanctions,” [U.S. District Judge Kevin] Castel said. > Judge Castel read a series of text messages and emails from Griffith in which the defendant admits to sharing information with North Korea for the express purpose of helping the repressive Kim regime evade sanctions. > What the judge found most damning, perhaps, was a photo of Griffith presenting at the conference, wearing a traditional North Korean suit and standing in front of a blackboard on which it read “No sanctions!” with a smiley face. https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum-developer-virgil-griffith-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-north-korea-trip/ https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/04/12/former-ethereum...
- mccorrinall 4y agoQuite a lot of jail time for what basically hosting a crypto party is. What’s next? Sending everyone to jail who published articles online on how to trade crypto?
- LewisVerstappen 4y agoIt's so funny how people are so happy to jump in defense of the US regime. Are international sanctions laws just? Should the US government have the right to bar other countries from transacting financially with the world? > Griffith has been limited to two or less meals a day, usually peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, because gangs in MDC control the kitchens and the commissary Gangs control US prisons because the US government is too incompetent to properly administer their prisons. The judge refused to send him to a lower-security prison (this guy is clearly not a physical security threat) because allowing him to avoid gang-conflict would "not be enough punishment".
- Traubenfuchs 4y ago"decentralized web3 nonsense crumbles the second there is some issue on the centralized web2 architecture its built on behind the scenes", more news at 11.
- charcircuit 4y agoThe web3 part didn't crumble. It's the web2 bridge that is crumbling.
- qeternity 4y agoWell, the web3 part is in jail so I'm not really sure that's accurate.
- charcircuit 4y ago>the web3 part is in jail You can't jail web3. Web3 is distributed. Anyone can spin up server.
- Canada 4y agoI like to keep important domains paid up many years in advance. Some TLDs don't allow this. I wonder if .link is one of those.
- wombat-man 4y agosome registrars let you keep a balance, so even if you can't pay in advance, you can load up your account balance so instead of trying to bill your card it just deducts your balance. Idk why godaddy wouldn't have this so I assume he just didn't keep an account balance.
- Canada 4y agoYeah, I try to also do that, as the domains are so important to me that I want to front-load as many things that could fail as possible. This one domain I have only allows me to renew it when it's less than 60 days to expiry and it's not possible to auto-renew, which really sucks.
- solarengineer 4y agoHave you explored shifting that domain to a Domain Registrar who _does_ allow you to auto-renew via a topped-up account that you maintain with them?
- Canada 4y agoAuto-renew is fine with all my other domains, it's an issue with that particular ccTLD, I don't see a way around it.
- em-bee 4y agoi register all my domains and especially those that belong to a community or a company with a registrar that allows anyone to pay the renewal fee. like gandi does. for a community that means that any member of the community can pay the fee, and for small communities this is a nice way to make an effortless donation. for a company it means that any office assistant can manage the payments without needing administrative access.
- gchamonlive 4y agoGiving a totally new dimension to "bus factor". No organization should tie their infrastructure maintenance to individuals, but processes are really hard to consolidate and automate and knowledge is not easily shared either. Curious as to how other people approach reducing their bus factor.
- Macha 4y agoNot even the first such high profile case (see also resierfs)
- soco 4y agoBut this is not a problem with a decentralized system! ...oh wait...
- aaaaaaaaata 4y agoIt actually isn't, with proper backups and/or social recovery types of auth.
- opvasger 4y agounreadable title - jesus! :P
- TekMol 4y agoWill domains have to be renewed at all in the future? When you put a transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain, it will stay there forever. You don't have to renew it. Why not the same for domains? You put "mydomain > 111.222.333.444 signed: me, the mydomain owner" on a blockchain and as long as you do not put another signed message that overrides it, it points to 111.222.333.444 forever.
- GoOnThenDoTell 4y agoWhat would incentivise the creation/migration/maintenance of such a system?
- charcircuit 4y agoHaving a name system improves the UX of a bunch of products. Products want to provide the best UX so they would be willing to pay for it as without it their product will be worse.
- HideousKojima 4y agoThen certain domains would become impossible to change as soon as someone loses their keys or dies etc.
- unixbane 4y agoThat's not a grounded argument.
- HideousKojima 4y agoWhat in the world are you talking about? That's the entire point of blockchains, to have immutable records. And short of forking the blockchain or breaking the underlying encryption, there's literally no way to transfer a DNS record (in a world using DNS built on top of a blockchain) without the private key.
- 4y ago
- WheelsAtLarge 4y agoIf it's so important, why doesn't someone just pay the fee. Anyone with an interest.
- tomlogic 4y agoBecause unlike other registrars, GoDaddy only allows the domain registrant/owner to pay for the renewal.
- WheelsAtLarge 4y agoThat sounds harsh on GoDaddy's side. I wonder why they would do that? Usually, changes like this get implemented because of a big problem in the past.
- lizardactivist 4y agoEasyDNS CEO Mark Jeftovic had previously struck a deal to renew the domain address for another year before the domain provider allegedly decided to stop honoring the deal “suddenly” and “without notice.” Another one in the great pile of reasons to avoid GoDaddy and other US American domain name services -- you don't own your domain name, you're just an authorized user as long as the US government allows it.
- blueflow 4y ago> you don't own your domain name You never do, authority over a DNS zone is a service that is provided to you.
- woojoo666 4y agoI think with web3 naming services (like ENS), regular people can actually own domains, since there is no service provider besides the blockchain
- dsimmons 4y agoThis. Regardless of how you feel about "web3", I think most people (especially in technology) should see this as a problem and aspire to a brighter future where governments/corporations aren't making decisions about what people can and can't see on the web, especially when they're inherently biased.
- 4y ago
- dsimmons 4y agoI can't help but wonder if this is in any way motivated by the fact that ENS could be viewed as a threat/competitive in a hypothetical future where web3 becomes more mainstream.
- unixbane 4y agoWhat the actual hell is with blockchainers and using centralized CRAP like Discord, Google, Amazon, and a decentralized naming system that nobody actually uses the decentralized way because they are not aware of the concept of running code on your own machine.
- LinAGKar 4y agoThis doesn't seem like a real sentence
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dhiggdyjkb 4y ago
- alberth 4y agoDumb question: what make this domain “Web3”?