[runeks]

> 1. Handshake

This is what Namecoin[1] tried to do using the Bitcoin blockchain ten years ago without success. This gets reinvented about every year on top of every new blockchain, and none of these implementations have proven useful yet.

The main problem is that speculators become domain squatters, and buy all the popular domain names with the hope that they go up in price.

[1] https://www.namecoin.org/dot-bit/

[bawolff]

If only they also reinvented ICANN UDRP too...

almost as if the existing structures, as flawed as they are, were created for a reason.

[_3jh0]

> The main problem is that speculators become domain squatters, and buy all the popular domain names with the hope that they go up in price.

This is the worst part about any web3 project.

Though, there are some differences between namecoin, ens, and handshake.

Handshake lets you register the TLD while ens, namecoin, etc are limited to domain on a single TLD. The potential number of combination of domain + tld is enormous comparatively.

Secondly, handshake doesn't release all TLD at once. They are released slowly to stop speculators from gobbling up the initial supply.

I do agree speculation is a huge problem which happens in normal ICANN world as well. So nothing to miss except I can own the TLD for which I don't need to pay over 200k USD with chance of getting rejected from ICANN and ongoing cost.

[CuriousSkeptic]

> main problem is that speculators become domain squatters, and buy all the popular domain name

I like the geo-libertarian approach to this. Said squatters should need to keep paying the market value of the resource in rent to remain in control of it. Thus removing the benefit of just squatting and require you to provide additional value on top of being the current owner to not lose money.

[runeks]

How do you determine the market value of a domain? Just let the highest bidder win?

Should we let a bunch of black hats purchase google.com if they can extract more value from it than Google can (and are therefore willing to pay more for it than Google)?

[CuriousSkeptic]

I want to have a few different line if thoughts to that concern.

a) On black hats, and presumably the risk of being tricked. Perhaps this is an orthogonal problem to who controls the name. Then again it might not.

b) On who the name is valuable for. You hint at there being a public interest in who controls the name. The free market response would be that in theory if the black hats can extract more value its because the invisible hand provides that value to the public in unforeseen ways. Or it may be that we just exchange one rent extractor for another, in which case perhaps the public should be more directly involved in the value assignment. A democratically governed central authority is one approach, another might be a more direct decentralised trust/value assessment towards a particular assignment

c) On bidding. I can see different approaches but to avoid a takeover situation a bid would probably have to binding over some significant time making it implausible for a takeover to be profitable unless the calculated return can be sustained.

[sdenton4]

What keeps the name squatters from becoming landlords? Rent the name to those who want to use it at an inflated price to subsidize their other squats.

[CuriousSkeptic]

Im imagining that the renters could simply bid on controlling the name directly instead of going through the squatter