[dmitriid]

> Or you can buy it off of them, just like you do anywhere else

Domain squatting is a thing, is a problem, and it surprises me not at all that web3/crypto shills pretend it isn't.

[thebean11]

There's a difference between pretending it doesn't exist, and acknowledging that it's inevitable (especially in a system where there's nobody who can unilaterally reassign other parties' domain names). What would your solution here be?

[dmitriid]

> There's a difference between pretending it doesn't exist

No one is pretending it doesn't exist

> and acknowledging that it's inevitable

What you and the sibling comment are proposing is bot acknowledging it, but making it the normal, and possibly only way to do it, and to incentivize people to do it.

[thebean11]

It is already the norm with the current domain registration system, so I'm not sure what your point is. I recently tried to purchase a domain with some version of my name. There is nothing hosted there (domain name lookup fails). I offered them a few grand for it which I thought was reasonable, no response.

Would be interested in your solution to this problem if you have one (seriously, I don't know how to solve it).

[dmitriid]

I don't know what the solution is. But a "pay-to-win" scheme on an irreversible ledger isn't it.

[thebean11]

Both current and blockchain solutions are pay to win in the exact same ways. The blockchain solution solves other problems.

If we agree that there's no known solution for the "pay to win" part, I'm not sure what your criticism of this even is?

[dmitriid]

> Both current and blockchain solutions are pay to win in the exact same ways

They don't.

> The blockchain solution solves other problems.

It doesn't. As in there are no problems blockchain solves, period, and it makes most existing problems worse.

> I'm not sure what your criticism of this even is

You want to normalise and incentivise the behaviour. And pretending that by simply appending "blockchain" to it it is okay.