Rival protocols argue over name collisions.
A panel about blockchain domain names at NamesCon today devolved into a fight between Handshake proponents and Unstoppable Domains founder Brad Kam.
Unstoppable Domains recently sued a technology provider that introduced second level .wallet domains based on the Handshake system. Unstoppable offers a competing .wallet extension in its own system.
The fireworks began during introductions, when Chris Jeffrey, co-founder of the Handshake protocol, attacked Kam for filing the lawsuit.
The majority of the panel was about name collisions and conflicts between the protocols. Here’s an example of the confrontation:
Thomas Barrett, co-founder of Encirca, which supports many competing blockchain domains, finishing a comment about what blockchain domains are about: …so web3 is all about consumers taking back control of their privacy and personal data. So that’s the use case, very different from Web2, which is really about businesses getting online and doing e-commerce.
Chjango U., dWeb Foundation: [interjecting] —and suing people to create their territory.
Brad Kam: Can we keep it high level? I think we’re focused on Unstoppable too much. Let’s talk about the industry.
Jeffrey: [interjecting] —No, no, this is, this is the most relevant thing to be talking about right now because…
Chjango U.: [interjecting] —It is a precedent setter.
Jeffrey: [continuing] …these decentralized naming protocols are susceptible to these kinds of attacks. Someone like you [referring to Kam] will use a legacy naming system, like the trademark office, to go after somebody building on these protocols. The good news is I think in the long run you guys lose. And I say this without any sense of irony or levity: [Unstoppable] is the enemy.
This is the person [Kam] that these decentralized naming protocols are meant to protect you from. And in the long run, they will die out.
The parties disagreed on whether more than one blockchain top level domain can coexist. Kam argued that they cannot and that “social convention” will play a big part in determining which blockchain domain should be able to exclude the others:
Kam: Imagine what would happen if I have brad.crypto and somebody else gets a brad.crypto over there. And then somebody trying to send me a million dollars sends it to the wrong person. That is a nonfunctioning system. So what’s going to wind up having to happen here is there’s going to be a…you can’t have more than one TLD functioning in the wild of the same TLD. Otherwise, apps just won’t support it. So what’s going to happen is apps will say, “Hey, this is dangerous to my users. I can’t…I gotta shut this down.” So that’s the reason why naming is actually a social convention, not just a technology. So you have technology plus social convention.
Ray King, founder of both a registrar that sells Handshake domains (Porkbun) and a company that sells ICANN-approved top level domains, but who took a neutral stance during the panel, asked who decides which competing protocol gets exclusive rights to a string. Kam answered:
Kam: It’s the same as it would be for any IP. So essentially what happens is you have first commercial use, you have market penetration…you have all the same reasons why you can’t launch McDonald’s restaurant is the same reason.
At this point, an audience member asked how you can ever prevent these sorts of collisions given the inherent characteristics of blockchain technology.
Audience question: I’m just curious how you can prevent collisions in this space because at the end of the day, blockchain domains are NFTs. And this is a problem with NFTs generally, which is there’s no authentication, right? So you can create a million NFTs for the same thing, whether it’s a painting or an image or anything else. And there’s no way to authenticate that, which is basically a foundational characteristic of decentralized systems.
Kam reiterated that he thinks it comes down to social convention.
Another audience member asked Kam what would happen in the next ICANN round if someone applied for a top level domain that matched one that Unstoppable Domains already operates. Kam responded:
Kam: I think this is a big question for the industry. Ultimately what I hope happens is that…it’s not really about ICANN so much, right. It is about the company that tries to buy that TLD from ICANN or buy the rights of that TLD from ICANN. And what I hope happens is that companies understand that, you know, TLDs that have developed and have gotten real track traction in the market, that they should not collide. And what’s essentially the problem that we have here is very similar to the problem we had when .com launched. There was no ICANN when .com launched. But what happened was there was a new technology platform that changed the internet and changed the world. And I believe that NFT domains have the same ability to change the world.
Kam is arguing that no one should apply for .crypto, .bitcoin, .nft, or any of the other domains Unstoppable launched when the new ICANN round opens.
I left the session thinking that there’s a reason the existing domain name system works so effectively: because it’s centralized. For all of the promise of decentralization, people want the benefits of centralized systems that work how they expect them to.
“The existing domain name system works so effectively: because it’s centralized. For all of the promise of decentralization, people want the benefits of centralized systems that work how they expect them to.”
Well said and I agree.
“The existing domain name system works so effectively: because it’s centralized.”
– This sounds awfully similar to Justin Trudeau’s comment why he admire’s China so much, because “their dictatorship makes decision making faster”. ( source: https://youtu.be/tVusYrv2jIU )
You boomers are really borderline luddites stuck in the 90s, move with times or at least don’t annoy people with your stagnated regressive ideas.
Sounds like you reached the correct conclusion Andrew.
Yes, it’s the correct conclusion if one loves dictatorships. Just move to China, there you can join the CCP and be among like minded individuals.
Good luck selling domains that don’t work, bro.
They work perfectly well, educate yourself on how dns works before you join discussions just to demonstrate how utterly clueless you are, “bro”.
Meh. This conflict reminds me of watching two birds fighting between themselves over a morsel of food 10 feet away that for one reason or another neither bird is going to end up with.
Because the public will embrace such decentralization, neither of these blockchain “birds” are going to get traction. Ever.
Reminds me of new gTLD’s (Shilling) vs .COM (Schwartz). But this time there is no winner.
Frank Schilling vs Rick Schwartz
Sorry: . . . the public will never embrace . . .
Kam, there is real history here:
.BIZ was an ALT root, then ICANN put it into the canonical root with no obvious regard for the existing ALT root. All we have seen of ICANN is the willingness to transfer the work of others to someone under its hierarchy which then pays a tribute tax to ICANN.
Many years ago I predicted that ICANN would move out from under US control and become effectively an unaccountable international organization after it released the first round of nTLDs and that is what happened. The prediction was easy, look at .XXX which was approved by ICANN then govs said no and ICANN in effect unapproved .XXX. ICANN always acts like a proxy, with governments being in control.
ICANN exists to control naming at the TLD level, with governments around the world influencing that control. It is not a free market that serves endusers. ICANN will always be used to bring ALT TLDs under its control. The more successful an ALT root is, espically in regards to freedom and privacy, the more likely it is to be pulled into the canonical root, and then ICANN’s policies and procedures that will negate that privacy and freedom.
I don’t like it either and I very much support ALT roots. But ICANN’s behavior makes clear the roll it plays in preventing ALT root freedom.
Now that having been said, recall when Obama tried to kick Russia out of SWIFT? What happened other than Obama getting laughed at for making such a request? Three critical things:
1) China and Russia began to trade in their own currencies, eliminating the USD intermediary
2) Russia built a copy of the ICANN root, and was demonized for it, and it has been up and running
3) Russia built their own SWIFT alternative and it to is up and running. My research suggests that Russia’s recent demand to pay Gazprom bills in rubles (until June) was actually to force those countries to sign up for its SWIFT alternative … Consider the effect that would have on inflation if USD is not needed as the reserve / intermediary for settlement …
So I think where we are going here is mirror copies of the ICANN root, at first with no ambiguity … But also recall China used IDNS to split the ICANN root by offering Chinese IDN’s of .COM and .NET which finally forced ICANN to implement IDN’s. So we see other governments have “commented” on ICANN’s control of the root by root splitting AKA implementing ALT roots ….
I think the real breakthrough here might well be governments implementing their own root copies and then starting to editing them as they wish. We are there, but no reports yet of those edits … But we are not going to have a seat at those tables.
It’s very curious to see someone that causes collisions be bothered by them. By filing a lawsuit, this in effect moved the competition for those TLDs at the next ICANN gTLD round to ones with big pockets (like Identity.Digital) which won’t mind litigating the topic.
“The existing domain name system works so effectively: because it’s centralized.”
– This sounds awfully similar to Justin Trudeau’s comment why he admire’s China so much, because “their dictatorship makes decision making faster”. ( source: https://youtu.be/tVusYrv2jIU )
You boomers are really borderline luddites stuck in the 90s, move with times or at least don’t annoy people with your stagnated regressive ideas.
All name registrants want uniqueness. This is true for boomers, gen X, gen Y and gen Z… so it’s not a matter of being progressive or regressive.
Handshake has reserved the 100k most popular sites, which is more than enough. The uniqueness is preserved. So, yes Alexis is right, these boomers are stuck with their regressive dictatorship models
Have you tried to tell mom-and-pop-shop.com that since they are not that popular, they don’t deserver uniqueness ? This sounds a lot like influencer culture.
mom-and-pop-shop.com will still be unique, it keeps its domain mom-and-pop-shop.com, but if they want mom-and-pop-shop tld, they have to start the auction for it themselves, because reserving million of unpopular domains would be nonsense.
educate yourself before engaging in discussions and illustrating that you didn’t do your homework on the topic
>>these boomers are stuck with their
>>regressive dictatorship models
Its has been that way through the entirety of human existence. Even small tribes of 100,000 years ago had their shaman who was in a position of leadership, its just a question of if they were selfish or selfless …..
That is not the issue.
The issue is if a viable alternative exists, and so far it does not seem so for domain names. Building the “solution” on top of the “problem” will never solve the problem. The solution must be standalone and independent, thus unable to be corrupted by, the canonical root. We are being offered these current solutions as if they satisfy this requirement, if they did we would not be having this discussion …
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
– Albert Einstein
I recorded nearly the entire panel and uploaded it to YouTube.
https://youtu.be/HZLrqhKpy9Q
>> https://youtu.be/HZLrqhKpy9Q
Thank you very much for posting that Alex!
It is nice to see multiple acknowledgements in the recording that “collisions” can in fact exist, they just don’t desire it. The difference is in who defines the authority, the supplier or the users. Wish they had thrashed that issue out more to better understand their mindsets.
I also think pre ICANN and while ICANN was just spinning up, that we had far more innovation than we have had since and I can’t stress that enough. Through the years to every peer I have mentioned this to they agree innovation just died and ICANN always seemed to be involved in some way. True innovation is messy, that is the nature of it and its beauty. Just look at the “mess” the internet created, oh that’s right the politically correct term is “disruption” …
Having ideas and companies crash and burn is a sign of people really pushing envelopes. People have to be treated as adults and recognize we might lose, but at the same time recognize those losses create fertile ground for amazing new things, like the internet itself. Fear of failure is not an option, failure a tool of advancement.
Having collisions leaves the decision to the marketplace as to who will ultimately “win”, or if an entire will be rejected helping all to see the problem(s) to be solved. Having companies say they are there to offer choice and freedom, but not that choice / freedom, is disingenuous. I think NameCheap (?) hit it on the head when they pointed out the observed “organic growth” == The market is in the process of deciding. Back to, is the “shaman”/”authority” being selfish or selfless, do they demand to be decider or leave the decision to the enduser / marketplace.
“competition is a sin”
– John D. Rockefeller
True freedom is not having others (except God) decide for me.
What a bunch of drivel, empty rhetoric at its best. Go live in China, there you can serve “shamans” as much as your heart desires.
Lets see about the empty rhetoric.
The canonical root server system, in its entirety, is founded on 13 static IP addresses. This address are found in this file, this file is the way DNS filters “boot up”:
https://www.internic.net/domain/named.root
Without that file all domains on the internet disappear.
Users then select a service to use “ICANN’s root”, and those 2 IP addresses are set into there “DNS Address” settings of their computer. The entire naming system is base on static IPs, select a different IP and ICANN no longer has control.
To prove my point people actually pay 3rd party DNS providers to edit those values in a desired way, they use them by changing those DNS IPs on there router or device. These users are saying they don’t like the current system and so will PAY to have a trusted 3rd party to “fix” ICANN’s root. Here is just one of many examples, cost is $17 per month:
https://www.covenanteyes.com/
OpenDNS does something similar regard malware and the like, as well as providing tools for the user to further edit the values of ICANN’s root based on individual needs. These services could easily all total remapping at the root or TLD level.
https://support.opendns.com/hc/en-us/articles/227986747-How-do-I-add-Domain-Wildcards-to-My-Block-or-Allow-Lists-
Other of these same services wildcard traffic to monetize it and then share revenue, such as in the case of hotels.
Lets be very clear here, once the consumer switches to those services those service define the internet in the way explained in their service offering. If they say .WALLET is zoned by Unstoppable, then that is the way it will always be and neither ICANN nor anybody else can ever change that …. Because THAT is the service the customer paid that provider for.
So clearly the market is saying they wan the ability to edit and remap what ICANN offers and are willing to pay for it. Thus if .[whatever] is of sufficient market value the market will tell ICANN to kiss of, even if that means paying a 3rd party for a remap of ICANN’s offerings.
We are not there. I also suggest, as in the above example of Russia, governments can see that is where this is going. Russia needs a “backup” canonical root to run their SWIFT alternative on. Thus not only is the free market asking for services like CovenantEyes but government even see the predation that is occuring regarding their internet sovereignty.
The .WALLET concept is recognizing a need, but ICANN or any other entity can’t be able to modify it without user consent. Which means the “ALT roots” in the form of OpenDNS, etc will need to mature some more, and they will …. I think some of what we are seeing today betrays ICANN’s and others fear that they are losing control and a solution is near, or at least the desire to remove them is ever growing. But we are not there yet because the offered solutions are being built on top of what they control ….
Do you suffer under schizophrenia? How is this in any shape or form related to your previous drivel justifying an outdated dictatorship model with euphemistic wording and empty rhetoric? I don’t need some random schizo defending authoritarianism explain to me how dns works, that’s what I went to university for and have a degree in computer science. The internet will evolve with or without you.
Are you accusing Andrew of being a “boomer”? I’m pretty sure he’s in his 40s. Gen X, possibly a Millennial, but in no stretch of the imagination a “boomer”.
So, like Bezos vs Branson. Who gets into “space” first. Just two absurdly lucky, absurdly rich guys comparing penis size. Who cares?
The “decentralized” promise of crypto is a fantasy and delusion. Enjoy the party and get rich from it if and while you can, but stop deluding yourself if you think it’s the future and freedom. Government can and will kill it when they are ready. Right now their partners on Wall Street want to make money from it and government is happy to oblige. But that’s it. No threat to control over “money” will ever be tolerated. The future of this world is going to get worse until an end, not better, even if there is temporary improvement in the meantime. And it’s got nothing to do with who’s a “boomer” and who is not.
And in case anyone hasn’t realized it yet, intrinsically crypto is worthless trash. Would I have gladly bought in early and made a mint? Of course. But it’s still worthless vapor and sand. Digital currency and blockchain as a means of population control, the opposite of decentralized liberation and freedom, and a worse future – another story entirely.
>>Do you suffer under schizophrenia?
No.
But I do have 3 engineering degrees, have only 2 years into a PhD (which is why I call myself a college drop out!), have been involved with domains for over 20 years, own a registrar, and have authored a DNS server from scratch that resolves millions of queries a day (nothing offered the features I needed 20 years ago) as well as authored DNS tools long before it was cool to have such tools.
You seemed to have missed the part where I said I agree with your attempts and views of freedom and privacy. If you want people to buy into your ideas you need to sweeten up … Just a friendly suggestion. 🙂
None of which you enumerated gives you any authority on the matter, especially if you misrepresent the current state of affairs so clearly that one is forced to question your mental wellbeing. I could also enumerate my achievements in computer science and networks, but I don’t need to, because it is utterly irrelevant. What matters is to present the facts accurately and make arguments that are based on evidence.
People are perfectly justified in calling you out for misrepresentation of facts and going on long tangents with bizarre rhetoric that is neither helpful nor relevant.
Fact is that handshake is perfectly capable of decentralizing the dns rootzone without needing ICANN one bit, while providing better security through light clients that can verify without needing to trust random certificate authorities.
ICANN is an outdated parasitical entity that is corrupt to the core, it has been freeloading for far too long.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/09/website-domain-more-expensive-00023524
And who are you?
Or am I not allowed to ask that question?
A Patriot. A enjoyer of Faith & Freedom & Your long lost and forgotten brother.
And name calling and questioning others mental health is contributing exactly what to the discussion? This tells so much more about you instead of those you attack!
Unstoppable Domains raised money from Pantera at a $1b valuation and counts Tim Draper, Naval Ravikant, Balaji and Andrew from MediaOptions as their investors… smart money knows where the puck is going, and the Fortune 1000 are buying in:
https://twitter.com/cryptoquester/status/1547736490926489600
IMO, pretty stupid for Handshake to try to conflict with 1 of 10 TLD’s that Unstoppable claims ownership over and has sold tens of millions of dollars worth over the past year. Tons of other alternatives up for grabs, without having to pay for expensive lawyers and get into a pissing match.
Even if Handshake wins, good luck getting Brave or Blockchain.com or Binance’s Trust Wallet or whomever else UD works with to resolve a “conflicting” .wallet insider their application… they are defacto locked out from integrations with anybody Unstoppable already work with, which at the end of the day is bad for end-consumers.
>>>they are defacto locked out from integrations with anybody
All it takes is a $185,000 check to ICANN, which I noted Unstoppable seemed to avoid the idea of.
pretty “stupid” for Unstoppable to ignore the canonical root authority. 😀
As we have seen, even if Unstoppable is ICANN’s choice, there is a lot of money in the auction for contesting applications to be paid off to go away.
That all said, I do wish more would do things like this to erode ICANN’s TLD authority going forward. We need more TLD innovation beyond ICANN’s reach.
Some useful history:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0109/0109021.pdf
“Biz was one of the original top-level domains operated by alternate root leader Karl Denninger in 1996. Denninger abandoned the TLD in 1998, but in the Spring of 2000, well before ICANN’s call for bids, a businesswoman named Leah Gallegos took over the .biz domain and began operating it from within an alternate root system.”
“Based on first occupation and use, they asserted exclusive claims on particular TLD strings, such as .biz, .web. or .news.”
“Unlike the .web case, Gallegos’s prior claim was not recognized by ICANN, and .biz was awarded to the NeuStar/Melbourne IT joint venture.”
“In the .web decision, it avoided conflict with an alternate root; in the .biz decision, it did not.”
“February 2001
At US Congressional hearings, ICANN is grilled about its new TLD process. Vint Cerf defends the small number and apparently arbitrary selection process by claiming that the new TLDs were part of a “proof of concept” designed to test the feasibility of various types of new domains and admits that many viable proposals were not selected. Leah Gallegos, proprietor of the .biz top-level domain in the alternate root systems, testifies that she is being driven out of business by ICANN.”
A claim Unstoppable is making, that did not work out for the original .BIZ TLD as ICANN inserted its own .BIZ into the canonical root. Will ICANN make a different choice going forward? They make more money doing what they are doing, recall the half Billing in cash they received from the last applications that sat in their account for years.
Just say’n 🙂
Dang spell checkers:
“recall the half BILLION $ in cash they received”