Something something blockchain! I believe for "real" ownership of domain names, a blockchain would actually make sense.
If the money were to be used to secure the network somehow, it would make sense.
If the money just goes to the creators... it was all just a money grab.
However most of the potential token supply (like 50%) was premined/airdropped to ssh keys of Github users with >15 followers.
That's not necessarily fine if the fee is in custom tokens. By burning they are just reducing supply, locking in the amount paid and increasing the value of their huge holding. It's pretty terrible.
Ofc in this case the Devs and the "sponsers" have 10% of it, so yea.
the registration fee does prevent someone from squatting the entire Library of Babel though
What is your suggestion for those of us who can't spare an angel investment of "just" ten dollar a year until we die or sell the domain?
It is impossible for the blockchain to prove anything about anything that originates from outside of that particular blockchain.
This is the reason why wanting to apply blockchain to everything such as land ownership is laughable and shows how little blockchain fanatics understand about the very technology they praise.
Imagine somebody suddenly "owns" my house because they pickpocketed my house keys, without any recurse. Then I really don't own the house, do I.
True, but instead of having to trust a central authority for insertion, updating, removal and constant maintenance of your "ownership", the trust would only be required for insertion. Once you purchased a domain and it's inserted in the blockchain, no one (outside of yourself) should be able to revoke, change or question your ownership of the domain itself.
Honestly it would be a pretty good use case for a blockchain, but it lacks a money incentive for any part involved so it will probably never happen
E: Honest question, comes off as snark a little - would they be able to just take it somehow or would they need to use jailtime and or broken kneecaps to get it off you? Either way the blockchain's concept of ownership seems like it would be broken easily by law and companies with lots of money
Or more likely, in partnership with other big tech with similar concerns, they develop an infrastructure that permits blocking/revoking/overriding specific domains, that most clients would refer to in preference to the blockchain. This would be fairly easy to justify on grounds of security and crime.
Or they just don't support the blockchain stuff in the first place, because the current system mostly works and provides a legal process for disputes which they are content with.
This is a given, it's strictly hypothetical.
> they develop an infrastructure that permits blocking/revoking/overriding specific domains, that most clients would refer to in preference to the blockchain
Luckily we already have something similar to fall back on already, that's a time saver!
There would have to be consensus that the particular blockchain is the source of truth for who owns which domain.
> It is impossible for the blockchain to prove anything about anything that originates from outside of that particular blockchain.
Yes, and this is something that wouldn't be necessary with blockchain-based domain names. It would not need to know about anything that originates from the outside.
> This is the reason why wanting to apply blockchain to everything such as land ownership is laughable and shows how little blockchain fanatics understand about the very technology they praise.
I'm far from a blockchain fanatic and using blockchain for land ownership is obviously laughable to me.
Why is that a problem? Do you even understand how physical property IRL is owned at a legal or philosophical level?
Edit: as I wrote in another comment, I got confused with indentation and assumed that the comment I was replying to was saying that it doesn't make sense to have a recurring fee for domains. I'm sorry. I do agree that a blockchain isn't a good alternative.