> Worse, users might think it's some kind of "gold standard". That may be the worst unexpected consequence. Once onion services become more mainstream, I fear

> Worse, users might think it's some kind of "gold standard". That may be the worst unexpected consequence. Once onion services become more mainstream, I fear FB's example - no matter how well intentioned - will turn into an engineering nightmare. After all, after one of the best known online brands does something clever, you can expect copycats to follow. First, we'll get clueless PHB types demanding long vanity names. Second, some services will happen upon neat onion addresses and ride the wave. Their very existence will act as a goal post for the others. Third, a vocal segment of users becomes accustomed to seeing "perfect" vanity names. After all, such name means that the entity behind the name has enough resources to actually get a proper vanity name. Amidst all that, somewhere between stages #2 and #3, we will see (horribly misguided) vanity onion service name markets. A bit like domain name squatting from the late 90's, but with far worse consequences: at least with domain names the only thing transferred was the control over the DNS entry. Because onion service names are directly mapped to the private keys, selling a $VANITY.onion address is the same as selling a copy of the private key. Caveat emptor, indeed.