[EGreg]

You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to justify why web3 is not needed. Here you literally argue that one’s brand name recognition is irrelevant, and you can be constantly moving domain names with no impact to your bottom line or your community.

That requires more than just an assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[strogonoff]

> Here you literally argue that one’s brand name recognition is irrelevant

You argued that.

I argue the opposite: brand name recognition is what matters.

(And believe me, I am not the only one who makes that point and I certainly am not even remotely smart enough to have come up with it first.)

A domain name is merely one of the many things that may help you reach that recognition. These things evolve; domain names are less meaningful these days—an Instagram username runs circles around one—and all of those things are less critical the more recognition you achieve.

“If Coca-Cola were to lose all of its production-related assets in a disaster, the company would survive. By contrast, if all consumers were to have a sudden lapse of memory and forget everything related to Coca-Cola, the company would go out of business.” If you have your shiny domain name, but no one knows about you, you are as good as dead. If everyone knows about you, and your domain name gets taken over, you can’t really care less.

[EGreg]

Obviously the domain is a large part of the brand.

It's like saying "1800 flowers" can rename itself. Or Jacoby and Myers had a phone number that was all 8's. And then when they split up, they got other numbers like 800-800-8000 but it wasn't the same.

People type in the domain name when they think of chess.com or whatever. You're using examples which are the most ubiquitous companies in the world that spend the most on brand recognition. That's not a great way to support your point!

Consider "basecamp.com" or "hey.com" -- would they do just as well if they had to switch every month to basecamp.nl and basecamp.io ? Probably not. And why should they?

[strogonoff]

Domain name is completely distinct from public awareness about you. They exist on completely different conceptual levels. It is a key distinction I suspect you are incapable of seeing.

A domain name is one of the means that together can help achieve that awareness and/or deliver your product.

It is like saying an airplane is “a large part of being in New York”. It is useful if you want to fly there, but once you’re there you don’t need it much. You can also drive.

> Consider "basecamp.com" or "hey.com" -- would they do just as well if they had to switch every month to basecamp.nl and basecamp.io ? Probably not.

Again, if you are specifically in the business of subverting the law and expect the world to turn against you and your domain is the main means of delivery then it may be wise for you to do something like this (or simply be a Tor hidden service with the same outcome). For any normal product this does not matter.

Incidentally, public awareness about the pirate bay did not really go down since their domain seizures.

> People type in the domain name

No.

[EGreg]

No?

I do and people I know do.

You are way off. What do you think people do exactly?

> Again, if you are specifically in the business of subverting the law and expect the world to turn against you and your domain is the main means of delivery then it may be wise for you to do something like this (or simply be a Tor hidden service with the same outcome). For any normal product this does not matter.

Ah, that old chestnut! Yeah and you don’t really need end-to-end encryption, unless you’re a criminal who doesn’t want the government to find things out. Let them have the certificate so they can solve crimes easier and keep you safe! Same logic.

[strogonoff]

I type domain names sometimes, but generally I estimate 99% of people tap a link 99%+ of the time.

> Yeah and you don’t really need end-to-end encryption

I didn’t say you don’t need privacy, you are putting words in my mouth.

> Ah, that old chestnut!

The real chestnut are people who think the only way to go is to abolish institutions, grab a piece of land and guard it with shotguns and rocket launchers. A quick thought experiment would show that this is a dead end.

[EGreg]

Many of the same mindsets and people who deride blockchain as “you dont need it if you are not doing anything bad” are also going to do away with end-to-end encryption under the slogan “you don’t need it if you have nothing to hide”.

After all, it can be used to hide ANYTHING, including 2 billion dollar transfers, tax evasion, money laundering and of course supporting terrorism. At least the blockchain is public! The sentiment you express comes on one side of the freedom/security spectrum.

If you’re arguing in good faith, then you’ll have to think deeply why oppose blockchain but others shouldnt oppose end to end encryption for the same reasons of “nothing to hide”. Even I come down on the side of “if you are reduced to sneaking around, then your society is already in bad shape” and consider end-to-end encryption to be a bandaid that makes people complacent. But the war on end-to-end encryption is actually far more prevalent than that around the world, and far bigger than your silly war on blockchains and mere cryptographic signatures (which governments don’t oppose nearly as much):

https://community.qbix.com/t/the-coming-war-on-end-to-end-en...

Read it! And no, the strawman is that I’m talking about shotguns. I’m talking about open software and protocols eating the world if capitalistic for-profit corporations, just as they disrupted the Big Telcos, and then AOL/MSN etc. So will blockchain be the value layer and IPFS/Autonomi be the storage layer etc. And the Web will be increasingly outdated.