pull down to refresh
he already addressed this in the bitnames essay
what matters is that your audience can find you, even if its at fiatjaf888 forever
to change the tld redirect will be a matter of bringing it up with the facilitators/brokers who will specialize in that task
Indeed, I tried to address this, in detail, in the original essay
In Part 5 - https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/bitnames/
But I can try to elaborate I suppose, if people want.
In that case I'll change my question to:
Why would "google.com" be more valuable than just "google"? My understanding from a third read of the article now is that registering "google" will be allowed to anyone, so there is no point in keeping "google.com" protected.
Isn't the entire existence of TLDs just a big confusion? Why not make Bitnames concern itself with only a flat namespace of arbitrary names?
I think in practice "dot com" was a great way of telling people that you were talking about an Internet name
And people still recognize it as authoritative.
I think the "dot" thing could be helpful. The popular BitNames might be more like "fiatjaf.anarchy".
My guess: just like forking bitcoin eCash inherits all these users, IP, and corpos with less friction
even if only 1% of existing ip also has an ecash presence, that is greater than the zero lightning has now
How is it possible that Bitnames grandfathers ICANN names if ICANN has a million TLDs? And the configuration of the
.comTLD changes all the time, who is going to manage that, and in fact it is full of namesquatting already anyway, so grandfathering ICANN will bring with it a bunch of free namesquatters.