4 ms·

> NFT's for domain ownership makes a lot more sense than paying monthly. How do handle domain squatters and legal disputes? > whole trustless thing means user

> NFT's for domain ownership makes a lot more sense than paying monthly. How do handle domain squatters and legal disputes? > whole trustless thing means users can provide compute for each other rather than tolerating an ad-riddled central point of failure. What compute? If you exchange money, you explicitly trust that person to provide you with services or goods (and/or explicitly trust the "smart" "contract" running the transaction to be correct which, you know ... [1]) [1] https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=almost-300000-stolen-from-olympus-dao-later-returned https://web3isgoinggreat.com/?id=almost-300000-stolen-from-o...

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago
1. You don't. But if you choose to use an nft domain it's probably because you think these are lesser evils when compared to broken references when domain ownership lapses or changes hands. 2. I'm talking about providing compute in lieu of money. I want to be able to tell users of a service: you can pay me $5 per month for access via my node, or you can run your own node on that phone you have lying around with a cracked screen, and then you don't need to pay anything.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  > You don't. But if you choose to use an nft domain it's probably What if I chose NFT domain to scam people, impersonate someone or squat? > I want to be able to tell users of a service: you can pay me $5 per month for access via my node If you exchange money, you explicitly trust that person to provide you with services or goods (and/or explicitly trust the "smart" "contract" running the transaction to be correct which, you know ... [1]
  - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
    > What if I chose NFT domain to scam people, impersonate someone or squat? Well that's a shitty thing to do, and a limitation of the technology, but it doesn't make all uses of that technology invalid. > If you exchange money... You're missing my point. It's the case where no money changes hands that I'm interested in. If we have technology that can function without custodial trust, then I can pay my subscription fees by helping host the site that I'm subscribing to. I wanna turn everybody's pile of phones with bad batteries or busted screens into a distributed datacenter which we can use as a cheaper alternative to aws & friends provided we're willing to cooperate with each other.
    - dmitriid 4y ago
      > Well that's a shitty thing to do, and a limitation of the technology, but it doesn't make all uses of that technology Yes, it's a shitty thing to do. And yes, it's a limitation of technology. I never said anything about "all uses". All I asked is, quote: How do handle domain squatters and legal disputes? > It's the case where no money changes hands that I'm interested in. If we have technology that can function without custodial trust, then I can pay my subscription fees by helping host the site that I'm subscribing to. So, no money is changing hands but at the same time you "can pay your subscription fees". So money is changing hands. > I wanna turn everybody's pile of phones with bad batteries or busted screens into a distributed datacenter. And to do that you: a) find enough phones with bad batteries and busted screens because there aren't that many: people tend to repair them or change them b) motivate people to run your software on them So with b), people are going to run your software just because they, ahem, trust you?
      - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
        And my answer is that you don't. If you want content moderation (via a judge upholding the law, or a registrar admin who would prevent squatting) then use a stack that respects those authorities. If you chose to participate in one that doesn't, then you don't get those protections. Engineering is full of trade-offs. -- Well if they're paying (in terms of the use of their hardware, electricity, and internet connection) to keep the distributed service running so that they can use it, then presumably they trust its author (and its dependencies) to some degree, right? Otherwise they wouldn't want to use it. Trust is a necessary ingredient to most cool things, and as long as it's explicit trust I got no problem with it. People trust that folding@home or bitcoin mining is not going to open their network up to attack or some other malicious thing, so I don't see how this would be any different. The question is not do they trust me (an author of a dependency of the service that they want to use). That happens all the time. The question is can that service's author offload "hosting" to the users without requiring that they trust each other? For certain very restrictive applications, the answer is clearly yes. IPFS users host each others' content all the time. But can "hosting" here be safely expanded to a wider and more useful set of actions? Because if it is, I think that at the very least we could all deal with less downtime, pay less for remote compute, and see fewer ads.

__MatrixMan__ 4y ago

1. You don't. But if you choose to use an nft domain it's probably because you think these are lesser evils when compared to broken references when domain ownership lapses or changes hands. 2. I'm talking about providing compute in lieu of money. I want to be able to tell users of a service: you can pay me $5 per month for access via my node, or you can run your own node on that phone you have lying around with a cracked screen, and then you don't need to pay anything.

dmitriid 4y ago
> You don't. But if you choose to use an nft domain it's probably What if I chose NFT domain to scam people, impersonate someone or squat? > I want to be able to tell users of a service: you can pay me $5 per month for access via my node If you exchange money, you explicitly trust that person to provide you with services or goods (and/or explicitly trust the "smart" "contract" running the transaction to be correct which, you know ... [1]
- __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
  > What if I chose NFT domain to scam people, impersonate someone or squat? Well that's a shitty thing to do, and a limitation of the technology, but it doesn't make all uses of that technology invalid. > If you exchange money... You're missing my point. It's the case where no money changes hands that I'm interested in. If we have technology that can function without custodial trust, then I can pay my subscription fees by helping host the site that I'm subscribing to. I wanna turn everybody's pile of phones with bad batteries or busted screens into a distributed datacenter which we can use as a cheaper alternative to aws & friends provided we're willing to cooperate with each other.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    > Well that's a shitty thing to do, and a limitation of the technology, but it doesn't make all uses of that technology Yes, it's a shitty thing to do. And yes, it's a limitation of technology. I never said anything about "all uses". All I asked is, quote: How do handle domain squatters and legal disputes? > It's the case where no money changes hands that I'm interested in. If we have technology that can function without custodial trust, then I can pay my subscription fees by helping host the site that I'm subscribing to. So, no money is changing hands but at the same time you "can pay your subscription fees". So money is changing hands. > I wanna turn everybody's pile of phones with bad batteries or busted screens into a distributed datacenter. And to do that you: a) find enough phones with bad batteries and busted screens because there aren't that many: people tend to repair them or change them b) motivate people to run your software on them So with b), people are going to run your software just because they, ahem, trust you?
    - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      And my answer is that you don't. If you want content moderation (via a judge upholding the law, or a registrar admin who would prevent squatting) then use a stack that respects those authorities. If you chose to participate in one that doesn't, then you don't get those protections. Engineering is full of trade-offs. -- Well if they're paying (in terms of the use of their hardware, electricity, and internet connection) to keep the distributed service running so that they can use it, then presumably they trust its author (and its dependencies) to some degree, right? Otherwise they wouldn't want to use it. Trust is a necessary ingredient to most cool things, and as long as it's explicit trust I got no problem with it. People trust that folding@home or bitcoin mining is not going to open their network up to attack or some other malicious thing, so I don't see how this would be any different. The question is not do they trust me (an author of a dependency of the service that they want to use). That happens all the time. The question is can that service's author offload "hosting" to the users without requiring that they trust each other? For certain very restrictive applications, the answer is clearly yes. IPFS users host each others' content all the time. But can "hosting" here be safely expanded to a wider and more useful set of actions? Because if it is, I think that at the very least we could all deal with less downtime, pay less for remote compute, and see fewer ads.