Transaction

j"1LAnZuoQdcKCkpDBKQMCgziGMoPC4VQUckMÎ<div class="post"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27456#msg27456">Quote from: ribuck on December 06, 2010, 08:16:02 PM</a></div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader"><a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg27451#msg27451">Quote from: RHorning on December 06, 2010, 08:02:35 PM</a></div><div class="quote">I would like to propose the following specification for actual name of the domain itself...</div><br/>OK, but not so fast! Is there an existing standard we can be compatible with? It will save us some time, and probably also save us from making some mistakes. I know the existing domain names use a weird encoding system ("punycode") for historic reasons, and I'm not suggesting to replicate that. But working with an existing list of valid unicode characters would make sense.<br/></div><br/>The existing standard is that ICANN is being very stingy on allocating top level domains.&nbsp; That, for myself, is a major mistake and if you read some of the links above written by Karl Auerbach he points out that this is completely artificial and arbitrary.&nbsp; There is no current reason to exclude any alphanumeric sequence for a domain name of any kind.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">Some possible domain names would be "excluded" from this schema and held in common such as excluding domains named "com", "net", "edu"</div>Hmm, can this work? I had assumed that the DomainChain names would all take some standard suffix so that they can integrate smoothly with the existing domain names. Just like .p2p is being used for the non-decentralized project. Otherwise, what if someone registers (say) foobar and next year InterNIC adds foobar as an official top-level domain?<br/></div><br/>So, who cares if there is a collision?&nbsp; If somebody registers that domain, somebody at InterNIC can try to find out who owns the domain with DomainChain and negotiate a price to transfer that domain to themselves.&nbsp; BTW, I think some sort of "comment" field could be put in with domain registration so you can attempt to contact the domain owner (completely optional BTW!) if they might be interested in "selling" the domain.&nbsp; That seems like InterNICs problem, not ours.<br/><br/>They are the competitors to this protocol and this is something they should have done from the beginning.&nbsp; That they aren't doing these things is more why this is something that should be done in this fashion.&nbsp; There is no reason a million or a billion TLDs can't exist.<br/><br/><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote"><div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">"Sub-domains" can also be established using a "dot" structure off of a previously established domain name</div>If you have registered a domain name, you automatically get the ability to create whatever subdomains you want. Subdomains are just records in your domain name server, under your control. The registrar doesn't need to know about them.<br/></div><br/>Yes, I realize that the current DNS structure allows you to use a "dot" off of the previously established domain.&nbsp; The only reason for sub-domains is to create a system where "ownership" of a sub-domain can be transferred and have that ownership be kept track of through the DomainChain rather than as something arbitrary which can be revoked by the domain owner.&nbsp; In other words, once "mtgox.btc" is registered as a sub-domain, it in effect becomes a full-fledged domain in its own right with the protections and controls that would go with a proper domain and would be recognized with a separate domain server for any of its sub-domains.&nbsp; Basically this is a way to create the notion of a "TLD" registration system too if you wanted to stick with the convention of &lt;server&gt; &lt;dot&gt; &lt;TLD&gt;.&nbsp; In practice I think such notions would eventually be dispensed with entirely, but perhaps there might be a reason to keep it going.&nbsp; This system also meshes in a bit better with the current DNS system where collisions would be avoided as a natural part of the protocol rather than a hard arbitrary exclusion of certain words and names... thus simplifying the overall protocol.&nbsp; Those TLDs currently operated by InterNIC and ICANN can be held in "escrow" by a member of the development community until such time as ICANN decides to pay up or take ownership of those "domains".<br/><br/>Note here that you can go to a domain server operator and "pay" them some money to create a subdomain off of say "mmorpg.org" for a game you made called "coolgame.mmorpg.org", but you are still at the mercy of the domain name server in the same way that everybody is at the mercy of ICANN and InterNIC (as well as the other domain registrars) for simply getting into the game.&nbsp; That sub-domain can be arbitrarily terminated for any reason at all and would force you to go through the judicial system to get the subdomain put back in.&nbsp; I think that is something the network philosophy is trying to avoid in the first place.&nbsp; This alternate method would imply that such sub-domains can't be arbitrarily shut off unless the sub-domain owner is willing to relinquish control.</div> text/html