4 ms·
It isn't. Unless you want a long incomprehensible string. Someone is always going to want a short, unique, and memorable name. And when two people share the sa
by edent 3y ago
It isn't. Unless you want a long incomprehensible string.
Someone is always going to want a short, unique, and memorable name. And when two people share the same name (McDonald, Nissan, etc) there needs to be a way to disambiguate them.
If people die and are unable to release a desirable name, that just makes the whole system less desirable.
I know one of the canonical hard problems in Computer Science is "naming things" and this is a prime example!
- bombcar 3y agoAnd if you want a long incomprehensible string we already have that .onion sites work without a blockchain, too.
- null0pointer 3y agoENS (which is what the GP refers to) has human readable names. But it doesn't have support for A/AAAA records today (does anyone know why? A-record support was in the original spec). Aside from that the only reason you wouldn't be able to type "mycoolsite.eth" into your browsers URL bar and have it resolve to an IP is because no browser has an ENS resolver built in. Yet.
- dazaidesu 3y agoBrave does right?
- null0pointer 3y agoI didn't know that. That's good if it does.
- patmorgan23 3y agoNamecoin has existed for a long time. It acts just like a traditional domain registar. First person to register a name gets it, and they have to pay a maintenance fee to keep it. Don't pay the maintenance fee and then someone else can register the name.
- acdha 3y agoYes, but statistically nobody uses it due to those problems. Squatters quickly snapped up the most popular DNS names but since nobody uses it there’s no financial benefit from paying Danegeld, and that’s a vicious cycle of irrelevance. This is the core flaw of most of these systems: people hype them up selling the idea that it’ll become huge later, but without some link to real value or authority there’s no reason to favor one implementation over another or doing nothing at all. This comes up a lot in the case of IPFS because the core problem is that most people won’t host anything on the internet. It’s expensive and legally risky, which forces you to vet who you host and then you have a less revolutionary pitch which has to be based on cost, performance, etc. and that’s a tough market.
- int_19h 3y agoIt might not be popular in general, but surely IPFS crowd specifically would be a lot more receptive to such a thing? IPFS itself is similarly niche.
- acdha 3y agoPerhaps, but that doesn’t mean they’re suckers. If you’re going to have to deal with bootstrapping an alternate root anyway you probably aren’t motivated to pay off a speculator for the privilege of making their holdings more valuable.