3 ms·

You know domain sniping already happens right? There is extensive auctioning infrastructure. And most of the good names were claimed a long time ago. The only

by from 4y ago

You know domain sniping already happens right? There is extensive auctioning infrastructure. And most of the good names were claimed a long time ago. The only way to get an existing domain name without paying the owner for it is to sue over trademark violations or stuff like that which often will cost more than just buying it.

jeroenhd 4y ago
Domain sniping already happens, sure. However, squatters need to invest time and energy into registering these domains whereas a cryptographic system can do all that offline inside the data centers of the cryptosquatter. Some TLDs have provisions against domain squatters and in case of copyright disputes, you can sue the squatters (or request ICANN to release the domain if that isn't possible for some reason). If you have a good reason to demand a domain currently unused, there are ways to get it. With crypto-TLDs, nike.com and microsoft.com would be registered by a malicious player without any kind of recourse. The lack of enforceability makes the entire system pretty useless the moment it takes off.
- kelthuzad 4y ago
  > However, squatters need to invest time and energy into registering these domains whereas a cryptographic system... The auction system is actually fairer since it gives enough time for every party to bid the highest amount according to their interest instead of relying on sniping services like in the current legacy systems. > whereas a cryptographic system can do all that offline inside the data centers of the cryptosquatter. what does this even mean? >Some TLDs have provisions against domain squatters and in case of copyright disputes, you can sue the squatters Sure, but this is also a double edged sword, since it also opens up abuse i.e. reverse domain hijacking which is a real and common problem. Just this week Charles Schwab tried to rob the legitimate owner of a domain that contained "Schwab", while they tried to hide the fact that the owner's name is also Schwab. [0] >With crypto-TLDs, nike.com and microsoft.com would be registered by a malicious player That's why good builders put in the time and effort to reserve these names from the start. >The lack of enforceability makes the entire system pretty useless the moment it takes off. Sovereignty has its price. No system is perfect, everything has its trade-offs, but I see a lot of people highlighting the best properties of the legacy system while ignoring the best properties of the new systems. The comparisons should be fair and compare the full range of positives and negatives instead of picking and comparing in a bad faith manner. [0] https://domainnamewire.com/2023/01/24/charles-schwab-tries-to-reverse-hijack-domain-name/ https://domainnamewire.com/2023/01/24/charles-schwab-tries-t...

by from 4y ago

jeroenhd 4y ago

Domain sniping already happens, sure. However, squatters need to invest time and energy into registering these domains whereas a cryptographic system can do all that offline inside the data centers of the cryptosquatter. Some TLDs have provisions against domain squatters and in case of copyright disputes, you can sue the squatters (or request ICANN to release the domain if that isn't possible for some reason). If you have a good reason to demand a domain currently unused, there are ways to get it. With crypto-TLDs, nike.com and microsoft.com would be registered by a malicious player without any kind of recourse. The lack of enforceability makes the entire system pretty useless the moment it takes off.

kelthuzad 4y ago
> However, squatters need to invest time and energy into registering these domains whereas a cryptographic system... The auction system is actually fairer since it gives enough time for every party to bid the highest amount according to their interest instead of relying on sniping services like in the current legacy systems. > whereas a cryptographic system can do all that offline inside the data centers of the cryptosquatter. what does this even mean? >Some TLDs have provisions against domain squatters and in case of copyright disputes, you can sue the squatters Sure, but this is also a double edged sword, since it also opens up abuse i.e. reverse domain hijacking which is a real and common problem. Just this week Charles Schwab tried to rob the legitimate owner of a domain that contained "Schwab", while they tried to hide the fact that the owner's name is also Schwab. [0] >With crypto-TLDs, nike.com and microsoft.com would be registered by a malicious player That's why good builders put in the time and effort to reserve these names from the start. >The lack of enforceability makes the entire system pretty useless the moment it takes off. Sovereignty has its price. No system is perfect, everything has its trade-offs, but I see a lot of people highlighting the best properties of the legacy system while ignoring the best properties of the new systems. The comparisons should be fair and compare the full range of positives and negatives instead of picking and comparing in a bad faith manner. [0] https://domainnamewire.com/2023/01/24/charles-schwab-tries-to-reverse-hijack-domain-name/ https://domainnamewire.com/2023/01/24/charles-schwab-tries-t...