4 ms·
For a select few, this will be an awesome branding opportunity (hoover.sucks, dyson.sucks). Ultimately, this is not a matter of free speech, which has always b
by lukifer 12y ago
For a select few, this will be an awesome branding opportunity (hoover.sucks, dyson.sucks).
Ultimately, this is not a matter of free speech, which has always been a negative right: if you're not facing criminal charges or government harassment, your free speech rights are intact.
Rather, this racket highlights why the web deserves a decentralized naming protocol, rather than an institution that combines the worst elements of arbitrary federal beauracracy and predatory, rent-seeking capitalism.
- chii 12y agohow do you do decentralized naming properly? bitcoin-like mechanism (where if you use more computing power, you get to own more names - on the average anyway)?
- shawabawa3 12y agoThere's already namecoin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
- chii 12y agoas i said: > where if you use more computing power, you get to own more names
- lukifer 12y agoIt is admittedly a tricky problem both in terms of engineering and social policy. NameCoin is one solution, although it has flaws that encourage squatting. I rather like the BitShares DNS [1] approach, where names are treated as scarce real estate, with an open bidding period before ownership is assigned. The major downside of a crypto solution is that names can be permanently and irrevocably lost or stolen if the key is mismanaged. But until OSs and browsers actually implement anything besides ICANN DNS, it's a moot point anyway. [1] http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/.p2p_%28BitShares_DNS%29 http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/.p2p_%28BitShares_DNS%29