Later:
Sure looks monetized:
https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/handshake
Is this just someone stealing the Handshake project's name, or does the Handshake project really believe that a piece of Internet infrastructure will be run off a trading cryptocurrency --- and, not just that, but their trading cryptocurrency?
Perhaps if you're really short on time (aren't we all?), you might at least find it amusing that the Handshake developers took $10 million of VC money and donated it to Free and Open Source foundations [2]. That was actual cash donated, not just magical internet money.
It doesn't even matter what I think about this design. Speaking positively, not normatively: this is never going to happen. Everyone from billion dollar corporations to academic research labs to inexplicably influential Internet curmudgeons working out of basements will recoil from this.
With that aside, to answer your question regarding monetized/cryptocurrency, here is an excerpt from the notes and there are far more details that can be found therein:
A blockchain is proposed which optimizes for correcting prior weaknesses around acknowledging stakeholders such as existing top-level domain (TLD) holders and optimizes for decentralization (while still allowing for n-of-m attestations). Users use the native token (coin) to register TLDs which are pinned to a specific certificate as the identity. A committed merkelized proof of all top-level names allow for compact, shareable inclusion and exclusion proofs. This blockchain exists to attempt to resolve the need for a globally unique namespace which is necessary to have an association with unique names and certificates. While it's possible to create a singular centralized globally unique association (DNSSEC), a decentralized system can be resolved by creating a blockchain with its own cryptoeconomic incentives (coin), including name auctions of a unique namespace and block creation. Scarce resources require sybil protection, usually managed by a central trusted authority (CAs, ICANN), but can be resolved by having a blockchain based mechanism for global consensus and resource allocation.
[1] https://handshake.org/files/handshake.txt (# Project Summary)
If so: it's a dead project. I don't know why anyone would take it seriously. I'm skeptical of the entire model for any application. But for Internet infrastructure? Never going to happen.
Handshake is based on the ideal that the internet belongs to the people.
> If so: it's a dead project. I don't know why anyone would take it seriously. I'm skeptical of the entire model for any application. But for Internet infrastructure? Never going to happen.
People will always strive for better. I believe it will be Handshake, but if not, something else will come. People find a way, that's how we all got here today. This very thread itself is proof that the current system doesn't fulfill the wishes of humanity and there is a need for change.
If you believe Handshake has faults, let's all work together and improve it!
The step seemed like it lacked any understanding of the mechanism design of handshake, and I realized it's because we skipped a step here. I like to start my count with 0:
Step 0: Please read the design notes document. Let's be constructive here.
Later:
In all seriousness, though, I urge you to read and understand how Handshake works and how different it is from these other 'cryptocurrency' projects that I am (and I'm sure many in the hn community) on the exact same page as you about. I trust you'll see why the community is moving in this direction.
Later 2:
Just incase you don't read the paper, the coin, and auction process, helps prevent sybil attacks among other things.
It’s clear you believe the usage of blockchain technology in Handshake is justified. But throughout this thread, whenever the question of ~“is your project backed by a cryptocurrency which is traded speculatively” has been posed, you’ve dodged answering it outright.
Later: My first response [1] included a direct answer pasted from the design notes - and it’s very clesr. Unfortunately, it won’t help if you don’t know what a Sybil Attack is. I incorrectly assumed that was basic knowledge in 2020 for anyone on Hacker News [2].
Instead, you’re deflecting by insinuating that we haven’t read the spec, and thus refusing to answer the question we’re posing to you.
If you're saying B) I didn't explain to you what a sybil attack is, you're right, albeit I did provide a link.
In a global unique namespace that has no centralized control, there needs to be constraints and scarcity built into the system itself in order to prevent someone from launching a "sybil attack" which, in this context, means someone could register a trillion names without anything stopping them. By introducing a coin that in itself is a limited resource and including an auction process, essentially, there are a limited number of names since there are a limited number of coins, and, in addition, the auction process itself helps to prevent someone from getting a lot of coins and registering many names.
This explanation really just touches the surface as all the intricacies of the architecture are better detailed in full, in our project design notes [1] as I have continued to urge you to read.