jacobjonz · HackerTrans

hace 6 añosdiscuss

In fact, the idea of handshake seems to take care of exactly that. Decentralization without loss of security. Basically, you have the name and the certificate associated in the chain itself and go the dane route. I'm not the best person to explain these, but I guess there is a little about this on handshake.org

jacobjonz

hace 6 añosdiscuss

I have always wondered. What prevents them from sending ad links in the feed? If the clients could render them, that there's a workable model, right?

jacobjonz

hace 6 añosdiscuss

I agree with @jrockway below. There is no point in retaining TLDs the way are now. The original idea of TLDs were to have separate namespaces. For example, apple.com is the company apple and apple.fruit, may be a fruit seller. This never worked though. At the end, the companies ended up having to register all the TLDs or someone else would get apple.dong and pretend to be related to apple. ICANN decided to use the opportunity for money grab and started releasing new TLDs every now and then. It makes all sense to get rid of usage of TLDs as they are today. If apple is <any subdomain>.apple, that's it. People would know that apple.dong is something related to dong. It might sound to be far fetched, but it is not. Once people see the flooding of TLDs (like handshake TLDs which are easily and cheaply available to general public on Namebase (namebase.io) or Bob wallet(Bob wallet.io)) and when they realize TLDs are the new equivalent of .coms, they would realize that it's just the TLDs that matter for auth aspect and the subdomains are more functional within the company (like mail.google and chat.google) The only people to lose are the scammers and ICANN.

jacobjonz

hace 6 añosdiscuss

/like a pretty arbitrary line/

Really? Do you think they would/could lie on the features of a product that they deliver to a client. If they did, do you think they should get away with that?

'We have that capability' claim is totally not the same.

comments