Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tedward Newsgroups: comp.bbs.misc,alt.bbs Subject: Re: .bbs tld? Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2023 17:04:05 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 83 Message-ID: <20231105170405.687111e1@blackbook2.techmachine.net> References: <6165CB96.66BFDB66@mutinybbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="905ec438fd532a3212a490729d2e2220"; logging-data="175683"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mEW39X2FESY0ewpUgHwa+" Cancel-Lock: sha1:dSk5wJM7ImKU88CZUOiUV/Vqc2w= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Xref: csiph.com comp.bbs.misc:145 alt.bbs:2740 On Thu, 21 Oct 2021 23:57:53 -0600 Grant Taylor wrote: You should really have a look at ENS. https://ens.domains/ It pokes holes in pretty much all your arguments about the need for a centralized registrar. > On 10/21/21 10:05 PM, 711 Spooky Mart wrote: > > I would be joyous to have MYNAME dot BBS. > > :-) > > > The TLD racket is a monumental grift. > > I disagree. > > > It's just a entry in a database. > > Some what yes, and more so no. > > It's not /just/ an entry in a database. It's a database. It's a > geographically distributed and resilient database that merges with > multiple counter parts run by disparate entities in many different > countries. > > Calling it /just/ an entry in a database is about like calling the > (inter)national electric grid /just/ wires in the wall. > > > We don't even need registrars. > > How pray tell will we deal with someone owning (in so much as you can > own something you rent and thus occupy) something while preventing > others from squatting on your ... asset? > > There has to be some organization system to apply some order to what > would otherwise become chaos. Registrars and registries are what > create the order out of the chaos. > > The technical requirements for operating a TLD almost demand a medium > to large company to pay for. It's so far from an old PC that you run > some software on that it's not even funny. > > > This is just part of the grift for the military-industrial complex > > to maintain censorship power over the big world network. > > Acquiring, operating, securing that technical infrastructure costs > money. Hence why it costs so much the higher up the food chain you > go. > > It's no /just/ grift. There is true reasoning behind much of it. > Sure, there are some that will extort as much money as they can. But > you don't have to do business with them. > > > DNS and name resolution is stuck 30 years in the past to protect > > the big players that have already sewed up the market. > > I disagree. I routinely use DNS technology that was developed or > enhanced within the last 5-15 years. > > The big players that are being protected, meaning holding technology > advancement back, aren't the DNS operators. It's other big companies > that are not adopting new technology that are holding the DNS > industry back. > > > The rich are a hill and progress is a big wagon you must push up > > the hill - while the hill bludgeons your kneecaps. > > The technologists are standing on the top of the hill having invented > the wagon, built the wagon, loaded as many slow movers into it as > possible, and pushed it up the hill, who are now looking back at the > rest of the industry wondering why they aren't following suit. > > Try leading by example. > > Try using an alternate naming root. > > Do that for a few years and see what you think. > > >