Has anyone looked into getting .bit added to the opendnsproject's portfolio of top level domains?
http://ideabank.opendns.com/story.php?title=NameCoins_as_a_DNS_Lookupyeah, vote this up so we get into the popular box (~10)
Topic: Namecoin and Economic Rent - page 2. (Read 4414 times)
yeah, vote this up so we get into the popular box (~10)
Has anyone looked into getting .bit added to the opendnsproject's portfolio of top level domains?
http://ideabank.opendns.com/story.php?title=NameCoins_as_a_DNS_Lookup 
Has anyone looked into getting .bit added to the opendnsproject's portfolio of top level domains?
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
please note that name ops were rather expensive at the start of namecoin and price dropped slowly over a couple of months. you could see this as a kind of reverse auction. i think the namecoin inventors (vinced and others) put quite some thought into this.
with me it worked, the system prevented me from squatting early on.
maybe some day there will be another namecoin tld and more people will join the auction.
Has there every been something like that with an ican tld?
with me it worked, the system prevented me from squatting early on.
maybe some day there will be another namecoin tld and more people will join the auction.
Has there every been something like that with an ican tld?
The design of auctions is a science in and of itself. If the various goals are clearly articulated, there's no reason some sort of auction protocol couldn't be designed to meet those concerns.
George and Gesell used taxation and central authority because that was the framework within which they worked. They were statists/nationalists, and a product of their times. But their basic concept of land ownership could certainly be applied to a decentralized system with a free market approach.
George and Gesell used taxation and central authority because that was the framework within which they worked. They were statists/nationalists, and a product of their times. But their basic concept of land ownership could certainly be applied to a decentralized system with a free market approach.
Indeed. But I don't want to rely too much on the land analogy. Competition for land and the cost of keeping it aren't a problem when the "land" can be forked for free and strong property rights are enforced with crypto.
At least the land analogy tells us one thing: underpriced names are fixable if this ever becomes a huge problem. My biggest fear was that I had found a problem and hit a dead end.
The design of auctions is a science in and of itself. If the various goals are clearly articulated, there's no reason some sort of auction protocol couldn't be designed to meet those concerns.
George and Gesell used taxation and central authority because that was the framework within which they worked. They were statists/nationalists, and a product of their times. But their basic concept of land ownership could certainly be applied to a decentralized system with a free market approach.
George and Gesell used taxation and central authority because that was the framework within which they worked. They were statists/nationalists, and a product of their times. But their basic concept of land ownership could certainly be applied to a decentralized system with a free market approach.
A perhaps better alternative would be to have namecoin domains leased instead of owned, and come up for renewal somewhere on the order of 6 mo - 2 yr. They could be renewed by auction with the winner committing the highest (or second-highest) sum, or perhaps by some other means.
An outright auction wouldn't be fair to non-squatters who built up the value of their domain. Maybe if current name owners only needed to beat X% of the highest outsider bid, but bidding in general is complicated and could undermine faith in Namecoin.
Still, it's a good idea - market-based and objective.
EDIT: or maybe have all outsiders bid first, and then provide a grace period for the domain owner to match X% of the winning price and renew.
In terms of economic principals though, there's been a lot of work done in this area. Googling "land reform" should get you plenty of perspectives. Georgism or Silvio Gesell's "free land" proposals probably best address your concerns.
I am a Georgist, that's part of the reason I thought about it this way.
The big difference is that we don't have a central authority for name value assessment, nor would we want to... inefficiency is preferable IMHO. The land reform proposals I'm familiar with (like land taxes) won't help Namecoin.
I don't think this is about scalability so much as perceived fairness & solving the domain squatter problem.
A perhaps better alternative would be to have namecoin domains leased instead of owned, and come up for renewal somewhere on the order of 6 mo - 2 yr. They could be renewed by auction with the winner committing the highest (or second-highest) sum, or perhaps by some other means.
Looking forward-- and the off chance of widespread Namecoin adoption would certainly be way in the future-- do you really think user-friendly domain names are going to be such a priority that an imagined scalable Namecoin is going to be worth the coal it burns?
I know domain names are still awfully valuable to the companies that buy them, but so is network advertising. (Hey, maybe a proof-of-work block chain could be used to re-implement network tv in a decentralized way, too!)
A perhaps better alternative would be to have namecoin domains leased instead of owned, and come up for renewal somewhere on the order of 6 mo - 2 yr. They could be renewed by auction with the winner committing the highest (or second-highest) sum, or perhaps by some other means.
In terms of economic principals though, there's been a lot of work done in this area. Googling "land reform" should get you plenty of perspectives. Georgism or Silvio Gesell's "free land" proposals probably best address your concerns.
In terms of economic principals though, there's been a lot of work done in this area. Googling "land reform" should get you plenty of perspectives. Georgism or Silvio Gesell's "free land" proposals probably best address your concerns.
I normally hate "OMG I discovered an econ flaw!" threads and can't be the first person to think of this, so please point me in the right direction if it has already been discussed.
Namecoin has a different "early adopter" effect than Bitcoin. Specifically, the only objects with value in Bitcoin are the coins themselves, which are fungible, while Namecoin also has domains which are non-fungible. "google.bit" is worth FAR more than "googlesearch.bit". In this respect names behave similarly to land; there are infinite spots available, but some are worth a lot more than others.
In part because of its fungibility, the market for Bitcoins has nearly perfect competition. Since names are not fungible and "rent" is extremely low, used Namecoin domains may experience monopoly pricing. So I can buy Bitcoins/Namecoins from Alice if Bob charges too much, but if I want Bob's Namecoin domain he can dictate the price.
As with any monopoly this incurs a deadweight loss, and is less efficient than if we magically knew the economic rent of a name and required name owners to pay it in their transaction fees (or whatever). Unfortunately, I have no idea how to determine the economic rent of a name without a central authority.
Namecoin has a different "early adopter" effect than Bitcoin. Specifically, the only objects with value in Bitcoin are the coins themselves, which are fungible, while Namecoin also has domains which are non-fungible. "google.bit" is worth FAR more than "googlesearch.bit". In this respect names behave similarly to land; there are infinite spots available, but some are worth a lot more than others.
In part because of its fungibility, the market for Bitcoins has nearly perfect competition. Since names are not fungible and "rent" is extremely low, used Namecoin domains may experience monopoly pricing. So I can buy Bitcoins/Namecoins from Alice if Bob charges too much, but if I want Bob's Namecoin domain he can dictate the price.
As with any monopoly this incurs a deadweight loss, and is less efficient than if we magically knew the economic rent of a name and required name owners to pay it in their transaction fees (or whatever). Unfortunately, I have no idea how to determine the economic rent of a name without a central authority.
Jump to: